WIDOW AWARDED £5650

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26513, 30 August 1951, Page 5

WIDOW AWARDED £5650

DEATH OF HUSBAND IN CAR ACCIDENT

JURY’S FINDING IN SUPREME COURT

Genersl damages of £5650 were awarded by a jury in - the Supreme Court yesterday to Elizabeth Jane Balloch, a widow, on her claim against Norman James Fisher, a truck driver, for damages for the death of her husband, John Cyril Thomas Balloch. Mr Justice Northcroft entered judgment for Mrs Balloch for £5690 Is, which included £4O Is special damages agreed upon, with costs. Mr A. W. Brown, and with him Mr W. F. Brown, appeared for the plaintiff. Mr C. S. Thomas, and with him Mr R. Twyneham, appeared for the defendant. Mr A. W. Brown, addressing the jury, said the widow, aged 29, brought the claim on behalf of herself and her four children, whose ages were 9 years, 7 years, 5 years, and 11 months. On the night of April 21 her husband, John Cyril Thomas Balloch, aged 37, was cycling along Yaldhurst road, when he was run into from the rear by a car, driven by Fisher, and killed. , The defence admitted that the accident and death were due entirely to the negligence of the defendant, so all that concerned the jury was what amount of money was fair compensation for the widow and her family for the loss of the breadwinner. Balloch was in the prime of life when he was killed. He was in a steady job. and his net earnings were £548 a year, said Mr Brown. He was fit, hale, and hearty and hardly ever had a day’s illness. Suddenly, by his death, the widow’s income was gone irrevocably. Such a loss as that suffered by Mrs Balloch could not be estimated in terms of money but, in law, that was the only way a person could be compensated for the loss of a husband and father through the negligence of someone else. The widow was suing for damages for herself and she was representing her four children. Any amount awarded by the jury would have to be apportioned by the Court. The claim consisted of five claims rolled into one and the jury should keep that clearly in mind. , Balloch was a thrifty man. This was exemplified by the fact that, some time ago, he took on a logging venture with another man but the venture did not prosper. Debts were owing to creditors, and since then, in addition to providing for his family, Balloch paid £1 a week for 81 weeks into a pool to reduce the debts. He kept a good vegetable garden. As a hobby he made toys for the children and he also mended their boots and shoes. His employer would say he was a good worker and would have been assured of steady employment. The amount claimed, £7OOO, when apportioned between a widow and four young children, was not a large amount. This was the only claim the widow and family could make and, once It was decided by the jury, the widow and children could not come back to Court. Mrs Balloch, the plaintiff, Frank ’ McCarthy, a sawmiller who employed ; Balloch, and Cyril Osmond Spiller, ; an accountant, gave evidence.

The Defence John Robert Kerr, a public accountant, called by the defence, quoted figures on life expectancy and weekly returns from various invested amounts. . Mr Thomas, addressing the jury, said that such a claim was restricted to the loss of pecuniary advantage and the jury must not take into consideration such things as the circumstances in which the accident occurred. Balloch was earning £lO 11s a week and a fair apportionment of these wages "would have been £4 Is a week to Balloch, £3 for his wife and 17s 6d for each, of the children. If Balloch’s working life was given as 23 years on that basis a sum of £2565 would result in the widow getting £3 a week for life. In the sarnie way the amount to be allowed the children could be calculated on the sum which would give them 17s 6d a week until each was 16. The defence invited the jury not to approach the problem in a mean, niggardly way but appealed to them to be just and fair between the two parties. The possibilities to be considered were that Balloch might have died during the period of nis working life: he might have fallen out of employment; and he might have had periods of illness. Further, Mrs Balloch might remarry; she might not live for the next 23 years. All those things must be taken into account in assessing the damages. If something was not allowed for these contingencies, a grave injustice might be done to the defendant. The jury might well think the amount of the claim rather high. His Honour summed up and the jury retired at noon, returning at 1 p.m. with their finding. Mr Brown moved for judgment and this was given accordingly.