NAPIER ACCIDENT

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 65, 14 September 1933, Page 13

NAPIER ACCIDENT

PEDESTRIAN'S INJURIES

JURY'S VERDICT SET ASIDE

A jury's verdict in favour of Richard Park, a salesman, of Lyall Bay, plaintiff in an action against Joseph Louis Gichard, engineer, of Wellington, heard at the last quarterly sessions of the Supremo Court, was set aside by Mr. Justice Blair today, and judgment tfas entered for the .defendant.

The action arose out of injuries-re-ceived by the plaintiff when he was knocked down by the defendant's ano-tor-car on Marine Parade, Napier, in July of last year. Plaintiff claimed £119S'17s damages, and a jury awarded him £264-7s special .and £600 genbral damages; •Thejury by a majority found that Gich?n-d was negligent in driving at a speed which in the circumstances was excessive, but found unanimously that he was not negligent iii failing to give sufficient warning of thiS approach of his car and in failing to observe and avoid the plaintiff. Also, the jury found by a majority that the plaintiff was negligent in failing to !keep a proper. • look-out for vehicular traffic and In failing in the circumstances to use reasonable care. In answer to another issue: "If you find that both plaintiff and defendant were negligent, then whose negligence was the effective cause of the acci^ dent?" the jury found Gichard's was, and they assessed damages against him. On the verdict being given, both counsel moved for judgment in favour of their respective clients. Argument as to the correct judgment was heard by Mr. Justice Blair on Tuesday afternoon and today. At the conclusion of the argument, his Honour gave a parol judgment. After discussing the findings of the jury his Honour said that, putting the case in the most favourable light as far as the plaintiff was concerned, the accident happened on a dark night and the defendant was driving on his proper side, but in-tho opinion of the jury too fast in the circumstances. .-' The plaintiff was wearing dark clothes and had stepped into the beam of the- lights a matter of three or four yards away from the oncoming car. Even were flic motorist travelling from ten to fifteen miles an. hour, in his Honour's opinion the accident would not have been avoided. The question he had to decide. /was whether there was really any room to separate the respective acts of negligence.^ The plaintiff was negligent in stepping into the track of the car, and the defendant was negligent in approaching too rapidly. The defendant had a fraction of a second in which to act. ■', At the timo of the trial his Honour said he had grave doubts as to whether he should have allowed the: final issue to have been put. Mr. Leicester (counsel for the defendant) had objected to it, and in his opinion properly so. However, counsel's rights had been fully Teserved. The most that could be said was that the jury probably looked upon the defendant "as being a little more to blame than the plaintiff. However, in his opinion, it could not be said that the defendant was any more tho effective cause of the accident than the plaintiff . was, The proper way to deal with the case was to treat it as one where there was no separation of time, place, and circumstances. His duty was to enter judgment for the defendant, with costs to scale, witnesses' expenses, and disbursements. At the trial and at tho argument ■Mr. W. P. Rollings appeared for the plaintiff, nnd Mr. AY. E. Leicester for the defendant.