JURY’S FINDING

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 301, 15 September 1933, Page 15

JURY’S FINDING

Court Reverses Verdict in Damages Claim NAPIER MOTOR ACCIDENT A jury’s verdict assessing damages of £864/7/- to Richard Park, salesman, of Lyall Bay, against Joseph Louis Gichard, engineer, of Wellington, as a result of a motor accident on the Marine Parade, Napier, on the evening of July 14 last year, was reversed by Mr. Justice Blair in a judgment delivered in the Supreme Court yesterday. Park, who was crossing the road behind a bus from which he had just alighted, was knocked down by a motor-car driven by Gichard, and travelling in tlie opposite direction. He received a fracture of the left leg and severe injuries to the lateral ligament of the right knee. Action was taken against Gichard on August 1 last by Park in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Blair and a jury of twelve. Park claimed £ll9B/17/- damages, alleging that the accident was due to the negligence of defendant, because he was driving at a speed excessive in the circumstances; that he passed too close to a stationary bus from which passengers were or might be alighting; and because he failed to give any warning of his approach, and did not observe and avoid the plaintiff. The defence was a general denial of any negligence on the part of defendant. The Jiuy’s Verdict. The jury returned a majority verdict in favour of plaintiff for £6OO general damages and £264/7/- special damages. It found that both parties were negligent, but that the defendant’s negligence was the effective cause of the accident. Counsel for plaintiff moved for judgment, and in view of the issues put to the jury, counsel for defendant did likewise, but the matter of judgment was reserved for legal argument. At the conclusion of the argument yesterday morning Mr. Justice Biair said that putting the case in the most favourable light as far as plaintiff was concerned, evidence showed the night was a dark one and the defendant was driving on his proper side, but, in the opinion of the jury, too fast in the circumstances. Park was . wearing dark clothes and had stepped into the beam of the lights—a matter of three or four yards from the oncoming car. Even were the motorist travelling from 10 to 15 miles an hour, in his Honour’s opinion, the accident would not have been avoided. Both Parties Negligent. The question he had to decide was whether there was really any room to separate the respective acts of negligence. Plaintiff was negligent In stepping into the track of ,the cur, and defendant was negligent in approaching too rapidly. Defendant had a fraction of a second in which to act. At the time of the trail his Honour had grave doubts as to whether he should have allowed the final issue to be put. Mr. Leicester objected to It, and in the opinion of his Honour properly objected. Counsel’s rights, however, had been fully reserved. The most that could bo said was that the jury probably looked upon Gichard as being a little more to blame than Park. It could not be said that Gichard was auy more the effective cause than Park was. The proper way to deal with the case was to treat it as one whore there was no separation of time, place, and circumstances. Judgment was entered for defendant with costs, disbursements, and witnesses’ expenses to be fixed by the registrar. At the hearing Mr. W. P. Rollings appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. W. E. Leicester for defendant.