VERDICT REVERSED

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 210, 2 June 1936, Page 11

VERDICT REVERSED

: Jury’s Award in Damages Action FATAL MOTOR COLLISION By Telegraph—Press Association. Christchurch, June 1. Judgment for defendant with costs was given by Mr. Justice Northcroft | in the Supreme Court to-day in a civil ' claim for damages of Mrs. Katherine i Augusta Godfrey, of Christchurch, | against Frank Wayland Gilbert, of Christchurch. The claim, which was ; for damages received by plaintiff and i I her infant daughter in the death of I her husband after a motor collision near Cust, had been heard before a jury, which had found for plaintiff for £l5OO damages on her own behalf and £5OO on her daughter’s behalf. After the jury’s verdict had been given counsel for plaintiff had moved for judgment. Counsel for defendant, moved for judgment for defendant or, alternatively, for a new .trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence and that the finding of the jury was so defective that judgment could not be given on it. His Honour reserved judgment, and to-day reversed the jury’s verdict, finding for defendant with costs, and stating that Godfrey had been guilty of contributory negligence. His Honour, in his judgment, said: “Upon examining the case presented by plaintiff, whatever may be the proper view of the conduct of defendant, Godfrey was guilty of contributory negligence in crossing over the intersection of the roads regardless of the approach of the other car, which he could have seen and avoided had he been attentive. It was argued for plaintiff that at some point of time defendant. becoming aware of the approach of Godfrey, endeavoured to avoid a collision, but was prevented by his negligence in having been travelling at an excessive speed. I am unable to accept this view, as it seems to involve the absurdity that if defendant had not made this belated recovery of attentiveness, but like Godfrey had continued up to the point of collision without seeing the other vehicle he would not be liable for the reason that the negligence of both would then have been continuous and simultaneous. In my opinion the case is concluded by the view I take of the contributory negligence of Godfrey as disclosed by the case for plaintiff. Judgment will be for defendant with costs,” his Honour concluded.