APPEAL COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 17 June 1936, Page 14

APPEAL COURT

COMPENSATION AWARD [PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, June 17. The Court of Appeal has commenced the hearing of an appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Ostler, who ordered a new trial of an action heard before him on April 29, arising out of an accident at Whakaronga, near 1 Palmerston ■ North, on December 15, 1H35.

The appellant, Edith Matilda Hodgson, who was riding a bicycle, was run into and severely injured by a motor-car belonging to the Hawke’s Bay Meat Co., Ltd., one of the respondents in the action, and driven by a man named Stubbs. Liability was admitted, and the only question was the amount of damages to which appellant was entitled. The jury awarded the full amount of general damages claimed, £2,500. The respondents sought a new trial, on the ground that the general damages awarded were, in the circumstances, excessive. Their application was successful, Mr. Justice Ostler stating that the damages awarded were so large that no jury could reasonably have given them. Mr. F. W. Ongley, for the appel10DL. submitted: (1) That the jury v'<re the constitutional tribunal to assess damages: (2) that the jury must be taken to have found in appellant’s favour everything which it was open to them reasonably to find; (3) that the verdict of the jury must stand, unless it could be shown affirmatively that they failed in the function of assessing damages. Such failure could be brought about only in two ways, by taking into consideration some irrelevant matter, or by giving such a verdict as twelve sensible men could not give; (4) that in claims for personal damages, there was no defined measure of damages, and the basis is such an amount as a jury, using reasonable commonsense, would assess as full and fair compensation for injury, bearing in mind that they would compensate once and for all; (5) that the judgment of Mr. Justice Ostler overlooked that the jury’s estimate was the proper basis as to the amount of damages, unless it could be shown to have been improperly made. Claims fer personal injury are not capable of being fixed by some neat measure. The Court would have to consider what should the jury have given, how they arrived at the amount found by them, and, if this was excessive, was the excess such that no twelve men would give it? The hearing is proceeding.