HUSKISSON V. FULTON

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 303, 16 September 1921, Page 7

HUSKISSON V. FULTON

AFTERMATH OF GIG AND MOTOR COLLISION BOTH SIDES ASK FOR JUDGMENT Legal argument concerning the jury’s verdict in tho recent case of Huskisson v. Fulton was hoard in tho Supremo Court yesterday before His Honour Mr. Justice Sim. The case was one brought by Ethel Rebecca Huskisson against Guy Leslie Fulton, for tho recovery of £3OOO damages as compensation for the death of her husband, William Huskisson, who died in ths Wellington Hospital after being injured in a collision between a motor-car driven by Fulton and a gig in which deceased was riding, driven by one Croft. The collision took place on the Hutt Road, near Petone, on the night of October 2 last. Tho gig was smashed and the horso was killed, while Huskisson received a fractured thigh. He was removed to the hospital, and after being operated on, to ensure a union of the broken bones, died on November 24. Following his death, Fulton was tried for manslaughter, and was, acquitted. . In tho case brought by Mrs. Huskisson, the jury answered the issues as follow:— . (1) Was the defendant negligent in connection with the collision: (a) By driving at excessive high speed? Answer: Yes. (b) By not keeping a proper lookoutP—No. .... , (2) Was Croft's gig properly lighted at the time of the collision?—No. (3) Was the collision between defendant’s motor-car and Croft’s gig caused: (a) By defendant’s negligenceP —Yes. (b) By reason of the gig not being properly lighted? —Yes. (4) If the defendant was negligent, was the death of William Huskisson the natural and probable result of defendant's negligence?—No. (5) Was tho death of William Huskisson caused by negligent treatment at the Wellington Hospital P—No. In. addition, the jury awarded damages amounting to £B5O, apportioned as ioliows:—Widowj £300; eldest child, £200; youngest child, £350. The verdict was given on June 24 last. Both sides immediately claimed judgment, owing to ■the answer to the fourth issue, wiiich counsel for the defendant claimed exonerated Fulton. Yesterday Mr. M. Myera and Mr. H. 1. O’Loary appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. Gray, K.C., with him Mr. D. It. Hoggard, for the defendant. Mr. Myers submitted that Mrs. Huskisson. was entitled to a new trial. In his opinion the jury’s answer to the "negligence” issue was against tho weight of evidence, He added that the fourth issue need not necessarily have been placed before the jury. Tho effect it had —apart from any application to the motion for new trial—was merely that of "remoteness” of damage. The answer could then be disregarded. Mr. Myers contended that the accident and Huskisson’s “primary” injury were the consequences of Fulton’s negligence, taking into account the answers to issues 1,2, and 3. “The plaintiff is entitled to judgment,” ho said. “If, however, tho contentions cannot be supported, she is entitled to a new trial.” Dealing wholly with tho legal standpoint, Mr. O’Loary submitted that the jury’s award of damages could not be disregarded. Tho view that the jury s answer to the fourth issue entitled the defendant to judgment was expressed by Mr. Gray, who said that it was immaterial whether tho issue was token, singly or in relation t> the whole of the issues. It had been found that the accident had been caused partly by the defendant’s negligence, and partly by the fact that tho gig was not properly lighted. No one had attempted to suggest that Huskisson had met ins death as a result of tho blow he received in the accident. Counsel contended that it was clear that Huskisson died as the result of treatment he had received in hospital: not negligent treatment, but, perhaps, nns "Dable treatment. Mr. Gray added: 'Had the jury been asked whether incompetent treatment had been given, its answer might have been different. . ■ It has found that the defendant did not cause HuskiMon’s death.” Counsel claimed judghearing Mr Hoggard, His Honour reserved his decision.