Supreme Court DAMAGES OF £5427

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31139, 16 August 1966, Page 10

Supreme Court DAMAGES OF £5427

Judge Upholds Award A Supreme Court jury’s award of £5427 accident damages to William Henry Donald Barnett, a schoolteacher, the plaintiff in a four-day suit last June, has been upheld by Mr Justice Macarthur, in a reserved decision issued yesterday. His Honour dismissed a motion which sought judgment for the defendant in the action, the representative of the estate of Trevor George Roberts (Mr G. S. Brockett), a motor-cyclist who was killed in a collision with Barnett’s car at Dunsandel in May, 1963. Barnett (Mr B McClelland), who lost his lower right leg in the accident, had sued Roberts’s estate for £13,790, and was awarded £5427, the jury having held that negligence by Barnett himself contributed to the accident.

The motion for judgment in the estate’s favour—or, alternatively, a new trial—was advanced on three main grounds: That there was no evidence to support the jury’s finding of negligence by Roberts (or, alternatively, that such finding was against the weight of evidence). That Mr Justice Macarthur had misdirected the jury. That the damages awarded were excessive.

“Reasonable Foreseeability” On the first ground, Mr Brockett’s argument of “reasonable foreseeability”— that Roberts could not reasonably have foreseen the overtaking manoeuvre by Barnett which led to the accident, and that the former’s actions could not properly be the basis of a finding of negligence—was rejected by his Honour, who held that there was evidence on which the jury could reasonably have reached its findings. On the contention of misdirection of the jury, his Honour said that he had not directed it on the question of “reasonable foreseeability” because counsel had not raised it during the trial —and furthermore, Mr Brockett, by remaining silent when specifically called on, had implied his satisfaction with the sum-ming-up. On the submission of excessive damages, his Honour said that Mr Brockett had claimed the jury had been misled bygross figures instead of net figures put forward by an accountant, but he himself nad warned the jury on this point. “I do not think I could have been more emphatic in my directions to the jury on this particular topic," his Honour said.