THIRD PARTY RISK

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 117, 14 November 1930, Page 11

THIRD PARTY RISK

JURY'S MISTAKEN IDEA ?

SURPRISE AT AWARD

A suggestion that the jury who heard tho claim made in the Supreme Court this week by Mrs. Rose May Blake against Lawson John August for £4020 damages as a result of the death of her husband following a collision in Petone, were under a misapprehension about the amount an insurance company will pay out under tho Third Party Risks Act was made in the Supreme Court this morning. Mr. Justice Beed introduced the subject of damages. Speaking to Mr. Leicester, counsel for the plaintiff, his Honour said he was rather surprised that the jury, having found for' tho plaintiff, had not awarded larger damages. , Mr. Leicester said he understood the jury considered the matter of insurance and decided that under the Third Party Risks Act the limit of tho amount an insurance company would pay out was £1000, when in reality the amount was not limited by statute. The jury decided upon £1050 for Mrs. Blake, the £50 being added as punishment on the defendant. His Honour laughed. "Is that a fact?" he asked. Mr. W. Perry, counsel for August, said that the position might also have been that the jury had a strong view that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence but did not want to answer the issues in that way in case the plaintiff would be deprived of a verdict. His Honour: "No doubt it was a compromised verdict." Mr. Perry said ho did not desire to proceed any further with his application for a non-suit or for judgment for the defendant. Judgment was accordingly entered for Mrs. Blako for the amount of the jury's verdict, with costs according to scale. His Honour certified for one extra day of trial at £15 15s, with witnesses' expenses, disbursements, and the cost of the interrogatory proceedings.