ARGUMENT ON JURY’S FINDING

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23299, 8 April 1941, Page 12

ARGUMENT ON JURY’S FINDING

♦ , SAWMILL WORKER AWARDED DAMAGES . Legal argument on the finding of the jury in a recent West Coast case in which a sawmill employee was awarded damages was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday by Mr Justice Northcroft. Counsel for the plaintiff, Percy David Mitchell, moved for judgment on the finding of the jury and counsel for the defendant company, Stuart and Chapman, Ltd., of Ross, alleging contributory negligence by the plaintiff, asked alternatively for judgment, a non-suit, or a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. Mr H. F. O’Leary, K.C., with him Mr W. D. Taylor, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr C. S. Thomas for the defendant company. Mr Thomas said the defendant company called no evidence at the trial, which was decided on the facts established in the evidence of the plaintiff’s case. The jury found that the defendant company was negligent in not guarding cogwheels in its machinery and that its premises were dangerous. The plaintiff was found not guilty of contributory negligence in walking close to the cogs when there was • plenty of room for him to ing in file Geraldine'County, the engineer (Mr J, R. Hawcridge) told members of the cotmcil to-day. This included £3150 for main highway protection and repairs, and £1750 for county roads. The council decided to seek - financial assistance for repairs from the Public Works Department. ‘‘The full force of the storm struck our county,” said the chairman (Mr K. Mackenzie), ‘‘All the staff did their best and worked long hours to stop erosion or the damage would have been .greater.” The engineer was authorised to hire a bulldozer for reinstating approaches and stopbanks, and for urgent clearing work. i.■ • • v

take a course which would have put him in no danger. Mr Thomas said he accepted that the company was guilty of contributory negligence. The evidence, which was accepted by the jury, was that the company left cogwheels unguarded in breach of its statutory and common law obligations, said Mr O’Leary. The company employed the plaintiff on dangerous premises and while proceeding about his duties the plaintiff’s leg was caught in the unguarded cogwheels. The latter, and therefore the breach of statutory and common law obligations of the company, had at least been a contributory cause of the misfortune. Had there been no unguarded cogwheels there would have been no accident. The case, said his Honour, really turned on the view the jury took of the route by which the plaintiff walked back to his work at the saw, and whether that route was reasonably safe. Those were matters of fact, and though a Judge might take a different view, if required to decide on them, the Court was not entitled to disturb the jury’s finding unless it were unreasonable. His Honour said he had some sympathy with the defendant’s effort, to force on the jury the proposition that the plaintiff must have been walking closer to the cogs than three or four feet away. Had that been proved the defendant’s application must have been accepted by the Court. The jury was bound to accept the only evidence before it on the point, and were entitled to. assume that the course plaintiff took was reasonably safe. If the plaintiff was walking three or four feet away from the cogs it must have been some strange and abnormal accident that resulted in his feet being caught in them. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff for £IBOO general damages and £302 2s special damages and costs.