DAMAGES VERDICT

Evening Star, Issue 22354, 2 June 1936, Page 3

DAMAGES VERDICT

REVERSAL BY JUDGE CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE [Per United Press Association.] CHRISTCHURCH, June 1. Judgment for the defendant with costs was given by Air Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court to-day in a civil claim for damages by" Airs Katherine Augusta Godfrey, of Christchurch, against Frank AA v ayiand -Gilbert, of Christchurch, The claim, which was for damages suffered' by the plaintiff and her infant daughter in the death of her husband after a motor collision near Cust, had. been IvvarcL before a jury which had found for the plaintiff for £1,500 damages on her own behalf and £SOO on her daughter's behalf. After the jury’s verdict had been given counsel for the plaintiff had moved for judgment. Counsel for the defendant moved for judgment for tho defendant, or alternatively lor a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and that the finding of the jury was so. defective that judgment could not be given on it. His Honour reserved judgment, and today reversed the jury’s verdict, finding for the defendant will costs, stating that Godfrey had been guilty of contributory negligence. fHis Honour in his judgment said; “ Upon examining the case presented by the plaintiff, whatever may he the proper view of the conduct of the defendant, Godfrey was gmi'y of contributory negligence in cross'i’,t over the intersection of the roads regardless of the approach of the othjr car which he could have seen and avoided had lie been attentive. It was argued for the plaintiff that at some point of time the defendant, becoming aware of the approach of Godfrey, endeavoured to avoid a collision, but was prevented by his negligence in having been travelling at an excessive speed. 1 am unable to accept this view as it seems to involve the absurdity that if the defendant had not made this belated recovery of attentiveness, but like Godfrey had continued up to the point of collision without seeing the other vehicle, he would not be liable, lor the rcas '-i that the negligence of both would then have been continuous and simultaneous In my opinion the case is concluded by the view I take of the contributory negligence of Godfrey as disc used by the case for the plaintiff. Judgment will be for the defendant v. nh costs, ' His Honour concluded.