NEW TRIAL ORDERED

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 201, 22 May 1936, Page 7

NEW TRIAL ORDERED

Damages Awarded by Jury Considered Unreasonable JUDGE’S UNUSUAL ACTION Dominion Special Service. Palmerston North, May 21. The unusual course of ordering a new trial because lie considered excessive damages were awarded by a jury was taken by Mr. Justice Ostler in the Supreme Court at Palmerston North to-day. The case was one heard last week in which the jury awarded Mrs. Edith Matilda Hodgson, of Whakarougo £2500 general and £1.09/6/special damages against the Hawke's Bay Farmers' Meat Company, lor injuries received when she was knocked < off her cycle by defendant's car at the intersection of Napier Road and Stony Creek Road in December last. Mr. J. P. Innes, counsel for defendant, brought the motion for a new trial on the ground that the jury's award for general damages was, under the circnstances of the case, excessive. He sought a stay of proceedings of the action until the matter of a new trial had been determined by the court. The motion was opposed by Mr. A. M. Ongley. counsel for plaintiff. Mr. Innes said his motion applied only to the general damages awarded. The true test to be applied was whether the jury had taken a reasonable view or acted as 12 reasonable men. For some reason about which ho could only speculate, the jury had “taken the bit between their teeth” and awarded the full amount, of damages claimed. His Honour had made particular reference to the basis on which damages should be awarded, but the jury had ignored i that. Counsel had suggested that they should not allow compassion to rule them, but apparently that, had no effect. The jury had ignored all the medical evidence for defendants, and practically all the medical evidence for plaintiff, whose witnesses had assessed the disability at 50 or 60 per cent.' Counsel hold that the amount claimed by plaintiff was unusually large for such a case. The nature of the accident and its effects wore not such as to warrant the award of £2500. Mr. Ongley said it was a princip'e that the verdict of a jury should not be lightly interfered with, and the court hesitated to do so, even where damages might, appear excessive. Principles upon which a court had interfered with the verdicts of juries wete (1) where damages were found to be so excessive as to be perverse and. (2) if it could be deduced from the jury s assessment of damages that it had >g" nored a direction by tile judge, had made a disbake in assessment, or had proceeded on the wrong basis. He pointed out that interference was very rare in cases of damages for personal injury. Medical evidence, added Mr. Ongley, agreed that plaintiff’s injuries were serious and grave, and also very painful. There had been a displacement of bone, causing lameness. Plaintiff’s pelvis was to some extent deformed. This was a serious injury for a comparatively young married woman and might endanger her life. Counsel did not consider the damages “an outrageously excessive award by 12 reasonable men.” Possibly the jury had accepted (lie evidence more seriously than the court would have accepted it, but that was within the province of a jury, who had no arithmetical methods to guide them in arriving at a figure when assessing damages for personal injury. "This is not a case where vindictive damages should be given,” said his Honour. "The purpose of damages is compensation for injury. This was pointed out to the jury, and they ignored it. If they had awarded £2OOO t would not have set aside their verdict and ordered a retrial, even though, in

my view, it was too large an amount, but £2500 is unreasonable. The amount is so large that no jury could reasonably give it.” His Honour made an order vacating the judgment entered last week, and directing that a new trial be held at. the next session of the Supreme Court in Palmerston North. The question of costs on the motion was reserved.