ACCIDENT CLAIM

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 110, 5 November 1935, Page 14

ACCIDENT CLAIM

AN UNUSUAL VERDICT

ARGUMENT TO BE HEARD

(By Telegraph—Press' Association.)

AUCKLAND, November 4. A claim for £1657 damages for injuries arising from an accident that occurred in Hobson Street on Novem-i ber 8 of last year was heard by Mr. Justice Fair and a jury in the Supreme Court today. The plaintiff was ■■ Mrs: Rita Louise Lockyer and the defendant was John William Burgess, of Dominion Road, coal and firewood merchant.

At the time of the accident the plaintiff was walking across Hobson Street and the defendant was driving a motortruck down it towards the city. It was alleged that it was due to'his negligent and unskilful driving that he knocked her down and inflicted severe and per-' manent injuries. She had a leg broken, both .ankles crushed, and her head injured, and she had to remain in hospital from the time of the accident until March 26. She claimed that Burgess was travelling at an excessive speed and that lie' failed to keep a proper look-out or to give warning. The damages asked were made up of £1500 general damages and . £157 special damages.

The defence raised was that'the. accident was due to the plaintiff's own negligence in failing to keep a proper look-out and to exercise a reasonable degree of care, or that she was at least guilty of contributory negligence.

The!:verdict of.the jury was an unusual one, and gave, rise to a debatable legal position. "We find the defendant guilty of-, negligence causing the accident through not taking' proper precautions to avoid an accident,"' said the foreman. "We find plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence to. a less degree." "

His "Honour: You hi ye not dealt,with the question as to which negligence, if either, was the ;real-,and substantial

cause of the accident.

The foreman said the jury had arrived at the .conclusion that the plaintiff was guilty-in a less-degree'of not keeping- a.proper look-out' in crossing the street.. .They awarded £.365 general damages arid special damages as claimed,, except, that loss of Wages was reduced to £35.

Each,counsel moved for judgment;on the verdict returned.

His Honour intimated that he would accept the verdict and hear argument later as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to judgment on it.