Supreme Court £17,839 Awarded To Crippled Girl

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29841, 6 June 1962, Page 15

Supreme Court £17,839 Awarded To Crippled Girl

A Supreme Court jury awarded a physically and mentally maimed girl £ 17.839 damages early this morning after deliberating for more than six hours.

After listening to addresses from three counsel and Mr Justice R chmond’s summingup. the jury retired at 6.10 p.m. and returned at 12.25 a.m.

The plaintiff was Jillian Susanne Wood. il. aged 22. of A.caroa (Mr R. A. Young, with him Mr P. G. S. Penlingtoni. suing by her father. David Ernest Owen Woodill. She had claimed £23.839. George Maister Cromie, of Hornby, a shearer iMr R Tvyneham. with him Mr a’ D Holland), was named as first defendant, and Alistair Frederick Herridge. of Ashburton. a carpenter (Mr R. G. Blunt), was named as second defendant.

The accident in which Miss Woodill was hurt happened on the main road four miles north of Orari at or after sunset on December 21, 1958. Miss Woodill was then 18. and suffered such sever® brain injuries that she is now a cripple and her mental d°ced 1,35 >een S reat b’ re-

The jury found that Cromie was negligent in failing to snow headlights on his car. Its . verdict was reached on tnat issue by a majority vote of nine to three.

It found Herridge was not negligent at all, by virtue of a vote of 10 to 2 in h’s favour on whether he failed to keep a proper look-out It awarded £14.000 general damages and £3839 special damages.

Addressing the jury. Mr Blunt said the £20.000 general damages claimed would bring Miss Woodill an income of from £22 to £24 a week if safely invested. A sum of £12.500 would provide £l4 or £l5 a week, wdiich would pay for her board, clothing small luxuries and care.

Mr Blunt submitted, on the question of negligence, that Cromie was entirely responsible for the accident. He said that from the evidence the jury might think that the reasonably prudent driver would have had his headlights on at the time. If the jury decided that the accident would not have happened if Cromie’s headligb's had been on. then it would have the key to the whole case. Mr Rolland submitted that the £20.000 claimed was far too high. The sum of £B3OO would give an income of £5OO a year, which he submitted would be suitable. Mr Holland said it was important to remember that Cromie had avoided a collision between the two cars. He submitted that Herridge’s version of the accident was based on facts that were

wrong, and that he had not. seen Cromie’s car because he had not been looking. Conditions had been such that no lights were needed, but Cromie had had parking tights on. Mr Holland said that Cromie had pulled over to the side of the road, and there would have been room for Herridge to get past if he had continued.

He blamed the accident on an "unfortunate lapse" on Herridge’s part, and submitted that there was nothing Cromie could have done about it.

Mr Young submitted that when the jury tried to put a value on the girl’s life which had been ruined by the accident. it would find the claim for £20.000 was moderate by any standards.

On the question of negligence. Mr Young said Cromie had admitted that he did not have his lights on full and that he had not applied his brakes when he saw there was a risk of collision. Mr Young said the jury would have to choose between the evidence of Herridge and Cromie, and that in his submission Herridge was the witness of truth. He submitted that it would have been a most serious head-on collision if it had not been for Herridge’s presence of mind and the evasive action he took.

In his summing-up his Honour directed that there was inadequate evidence to justify a finding that the accident occurred in the hours of darkness or in such conditions as to make the lighting of Cromie’s car a breach of the regulations.