DAMAGES AWARD UPHELD

Evening Star, Issue 22627, 20 April 1937, Page 5

DAMAGES AWARD UPHELD

LONG-FOUGHT CASE [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, April 19. Judgment in the case Ling Sing v. Thomas Walton Robertson was delivered by the Court of Appeal to-day. The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Ostler, whose judgment was agreed with by Mr Justice Johnston, and, in a separate judgment, by Mr Justice Smith. The case was heard on March 24. As to the point made by the appellant, that upon the respondent’s own evidence he was guilty of contributory negligence debarring his right to recover damages from the respondent, it was held that there was ample evidence to justify the jury in accepting the respondent’s statement of fact, that the lorry of the appellant left no room on the road for him to pass, and, therefore, to hold that, as the accident would have happened wherever respondent had been on the road, his negligence in not travelling on the extreme left was not contributory negligence. On the question whether the appellant was entitled to a new trial on the ground that the jury’s verdict was defective, it was stated that the answer to the first issue was not a very intelligible one, but in view of the course which the trial took, the answer was not really so ambiguous that its meaning could not be gathered with reason able certainty. _ Every intendment should be made in favour of the verdict. The appeal must be dismissed with costs on the highest scale. [Few cases in New Zealand history have had a longer or a more intricate life than the action of Thomas Walton Robertson, of Wellington, a linesman, against Ling Sing, a merchant, of Greytown. A collision occurred at Snake Bend, on Rimutalka Hill, on February 18, 1935, between Robertson's motor cycle and a motor lorry belonging to Ling Sing. Robertson was seriously injured, and later filed a claim in the Supreme Court for damages, alleging negligence on the part of the lorry driver. There had been three trials before a jury on that claim. At the first trial the jury failed to agree, and another trial was ordered. At the second trial the jury found for the plaintiff, but the defendant then moved for judgment, notwithstanding the jury’s verdict, and on this motion being moved for argument before a Bench of six judges in the Supreme Court, a further trial was ordered. At the third trial the jury again found for the plaintiff, awarding him £1,463 damages. The plaintiff and the defendant both moved for judgment. The matter was argued before the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), who, in dismissing the contentions of the defendant, entered judgment in the plaintiff’s favour in accordance with the jury’s, verdict. From that judgment Ling Sing appealed to the Court of Appeal, contending that either judgment should have been entered in his favour, or a further trial ordered.]