VERDICT FOR £1413

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 266, 5 August 1932, Page 12

VERDICT FOR £1413

Motor-car Hits Ladder CLAIM FOR DAMAGES Jury’s Verdict for Plaintiff The action in which David Browning, engineer in the employ of the It eilington City Council, sought to recover £1999 special and general damages from Claude Thomas Arthur, chemist, Kilbirnie, came to a conclusion in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice MacGregor and a jury. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £1166 general damages and £247/14/4 special damages. Browning was at the top of a ladder 110 feet inside the tunnel replacing a defective lamp when a motor-car driven by Arthur struck the ladder, precipitating Browning to the ground and inflicting severe injuries, including a broken pelvis. Negligence was alleged against Arthur, and this was denied. Defendant said he never saw the ladder, his first intimation being; the noise of the falling ladder. The defence counteralleged negligence or that the accident was inevitable, and not caused by negligence on the part of any one. The question of visibility in the tunnel figured largely during the hearing, and also speed, by reason of the fact that the notice boards fix the speed limit through the tunnel at 20 miles an hour, whereas the regulations fix the speed through tunnels at ten miles an hour. Counsel pointed out that local body by-laws could not over-ride the motor-vehicle regulations. His Honour’s Directions. The jury was addressed by counsel on both sides, following which his Honour gave his directions, indicating the facts upon which the jury should reach, its conclusions. His Honour pointed out that defendant said he never saw the ladder at all. Other witnesses had spoken to seeing the ladder; why didn’t he? The case resolved itself largely into a question of speed, and had defendant been travelling within the regulation speed he would have had ten seconds in which to have seen the ladder and avoided the accident. Among other questions the jury had to consider was as to who was last able to avoid the accident by the exercise of reasonable care. Plaintiff was on the top of the ladder, while defendant was driving toward a stationary object, so the jury would probably find no difficulty in answering that question. Jury’s Findings. The jury found on the Issues as follow: — (1) Was defendant negligent in (a) failing to keep a proper lookout?—Yes. (b) Failing to take sufficient precautions on entering the tunnel to see that the way was clear? —Yes. (c) In driving at a speed in excess of that laid down by the regulations?—Yes. )2) Was the plaintiff negligent in falling to give sufficient warning to approaching traffic by way of a lamp or otherwise? —Yes. (3) The jury found that defendant had the last opportunity of avoiding the accident by the jise of reasonable care. (4) Did the accident happen without negligence bn the part of either the plaintiff or the defendant?—No. (5) Special damages awarded to plaintiff £247/14/4, general damages £1166. Judgment was entered accordingly with costs and disbursements. Counsel for defendant intimated that he would move for judgment for the defendant or alternatively for a new trial.