CROSSING THE STREET

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 114, 10 November 1934, Page 6

CROSSING THE STREET

WALKER AND DRIVER

JUDGE STATES POSITION

(By Telegraph—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, November 9,

A suggestion that the decision of the jury in awarding compensation might amount to an obstruction of justice was made by Mr. Justice Hcrdmau in the Supreme Court when addressing tho jury at the close of a claim for compensation arising out oi" a street motor accident. "In expounding the principles upon which you will base your decision I feel it is my duty to speak very plainly to you," said Ins Honour, "because unlc»s there is some plain speaking and pointing to principles the decision of the jury may be an obstruction of justice." Tho case was one in which a woman who ran suddenly in front of a motorcar in Newmarket claimed damages for the accident that ensued. ■. The fact that the .collision occurred in. a street was not alone .sufficient, to entitle the victim to damages, his Honour continued. If that were so'it would be unsafe for any man to drive a vehicle about the country. No person was entitled to succeed in an action of this kind unless ho proved the driver of the motor-car had been guilty of, a breach of duty. A person driving a motor-car was bound to keep a proper look-out, to have his car under proper control, and to have his brakes in order. If he did not do' so he was guilty oi" a. breach of duty—in short, of negligence, and t then plaintiff was entitled to succeed' and recover compensation at the hands of the jury. THE PUBLIC'S DUTY. "Thcie is another matter which I •nish stiongly to impress upon your minds," said his Honour. "Not only has. a motonst a duty to the- general public, but members of tho public themselves havo a duty when crossing a street. lam not entitled to walk out from this couit and -shut my eyes and go across tho stiect, and then if anyone knocks me down havo an action for damages. If Igo across the street with my eyes on the ground and am knocked down I am not entitled to got damages, beenuso I/am responsible and not tho motonst. It is the bounden duty of eveiy poison who seeks damages to prove by means of reasonable evidence that there has been fault on tho part of the motorist' who caused 'the damage-. If there is. failure on the paifc of plaintiff to do that, defendant is entitled to judgment. Sympathy should not weigh with tho jury in cases of this kind. It Ms not a^matter of sympathy, bnt of right and justice and confoimity with the law—a matter of common honesty if you will." His Honour proceeded to review the facts of the case before tho Court, indicating that plaintiff was the. author of her own misfoitunc by electing to dash suddenly across in front of a car' instead of standing still in safety as her companions did. The jury found for defendant and awarded no damages.