DAMAGES CLAIMED

Evening Star, Issue 20780, 30 April 1931, Page 10

DAMAGES CLAIMED

MOTOR collision HEAR CROMWELL QUESTIONS FOR THE JURY Hearing was continued before His Honour Mr Justice Kennedy and a jury of twelve in the Supreme Court this morning of the case in which Leslie Clifford Ord claimed from Hebert M‘Naught the sum of. £1,339 as damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff in a collision between plaintiff’s motor cycle and a motor lorry driven by the defendant. The accident, occurred near Cromwell on March, 13 : of last year. ■ ■ • , . Mr JVM. Paterson appeared for.the plaintiff and Mr J. ,S.: Sinclair for the defendant. ' , .1 It was explained yesterday that, the case had already been before Mr, Justice Ostler, who put three questions to tlie jury. B’or the first of these, whether the accident was caused by negligence on the part of M‘Naught,y the jury answered in the affirmative. The second question was whether Ord was guilty of negligence that contributed-to the accident, and on this the jury could not agree. The fixing of damages was the subject .of the third question, but the jury not having answered the seconcl question,- it was not necessary for it to answer the third question. A verdict was accepted by the.plaintiff on the first issue,, and the present trial concerned the other issues only. Lengthy evidence was given yesterday for both sides, and for the defence learned counsel submitted that the most the jury could find in the circumstances was that there had been negligence on both sides, and that it was impossible to hold anyone responsible. When the court resumed this morning counsel for both sides addressed the court. The following issues were then submitted to the jury: : — It being taken to" be a fact that the accident was caused by negligence on the part of the defendant —

1. Was the plaintiff guilty of negligence which contributed to the accident in any of the following respects;—(a) In approaching and riding across the intersection ot the .Croiuwell-lvippon-vale road and the Lowburnrßannockburn road at an excessive and dangerous speed? .(b) In . giving no sufficient warning of his approach, (c) In failing to keep a proper lookout? (d) In failing to apply the brakes of his motor cycle or to stop or slow down? (e) In failing to exercise reasonable care and skill in the management of his motor cycle? (f) In recklessly and negligently endeavouring to cross in front of the defendant s motor vehicle? (g) In approaching and continuing across the said intersection on his wrong side of the road? 2. (a) Did the plaintiff on his motor cycle and the defendant in his motor oar approach the intersection of the Cromwoll-Kipponvale road with the Lowburn-Bannockburn road, so that, if both continued on their course, there would be a possibility of collision? (b) If yes. did the plaintiff on his motor cycle increase the speed of his vehicle when approaching the said intersection in the circumstances set out in the preceding issue 2 (a) ? (c) If yes, did that contribute to the accident? ;h What amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover for (a) special damages and for (b) general damages ? JURY RETIRES. After counsel had addressed the jury and His Honour had summed up, the jury retired at 1 o’clock.