AWARD TO PLAINTIFF

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 136, 5 March 1938, Page 17

AWARD TO PLAINTIFF

Loss Of Expectation Of Life VERDICT FOR £836/1/A finding that defendant was guilty of negligent driving and all award to plaintiff of £Bl2/10/- general and £23 11/- special damages was returned by the jury in the Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday, in the ease heard before the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) in which George Edward Thompson, labourer, claimed £2OOO general damages and £23/11/speei.il damages from Horace Baden Ginger, company director. Plaintiff is administrator of the estate of Samuel William Thompson, gasworks employee, aged 40, who was killed at Mirainar on November 17 through being struck by a car driven by Ginger. Mr. J. D. Willis appeared for plaintiff and Mr. O. C. Mazengarb for defendant. In summing up, his Honour said the action was based on the alleged negligence Of defendant. In every action in which a charge of negligence was made, the onus was on plaintiff to prove his case. There were, however, cases where the onus of proof shifted to defendant, and the present case was one of them. If it was established that defendant’s car did not skid, then the whole defence failed. If a person knew what was the right thing to do but had not the presence of mind to do it and did not do it, that was negligence. Discussing the question of damages, his Honour said what the jury had to decide was what they considered the Value to himself of the dead intin’s life. Mr. Mazengarb had criticised the law and he himself had criticised it in a previous case. “Frankly,” said his Honour, “I don’t like many of these cases because it looks like making money out of a person’s death. However, that point does not matter, because, according to the law, it is a permissable and proper action.” It might be difficult for the jury to make such an assessment, his Honour added, but nevertheless it was their duty to try honestly to do so. They had to decide what was the value of the man’s life to himself and it became an asset in his estate. The claim was for £2OOO, and he could only say that the jury could not award more than that sum. The case must be treated seriously. The best test was what would a man value his own life nt. It did not follow that they* would give £2OOO, but juries must not give contemptuous or nominal damages. The jury might not like the law any better than he did, but to give contemptuous or nominal damages in the case of a man apparently living a happy life would show contempt of the law. The jury retired at 1.5 p.m. and returned at 3.21 p.m. with a finding that defendant had been guilty of negligent driving and an award to plaintiff of £Bl2/10/- general and £23/11/- special damages. Mr. Willis moved for judgment for pin intiff in terms Of the jury’s award and this was not opposed by Mr. Mazengarb. ,! This is a civil action,” said His Honour, commenting on the jury’s verdict, “and. although negligence may be found, there is no power to deal with the certificate. Although defendant is obviously a decent man in every respect, I should think he might be wise, purely cm the ground of temperament, not to drive.” Mr. Mazengarb: He has already been acquitted on a charge of negligent driving, sir. His Honour: lam aware of that, but I am entitled to speak of the jury’s finding. I simply say I have no power to deal with the certificate. Mr. Mazengarb: That may be an implied rebuke from the Bench that he is unwise to drive. His Honour: It is merely a word of advice. Mr. Mazengarb: It carries a reproof. His Honour: It is a word of advice, Mr. Mazengarb.