ACCIDENT VICTIM

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXVI, Issue 146, 5 June 1936, Page 11

ACCIDENT VICTIM

Napier Jury Awards £385 Damages

CASE TO BE ARGUED Damages amounting to £385 were awarded Arthur Gilbert Diprose by the jury in the Supreme Court at Napiei last night in the action in which he had claimed £3OOO from Elizabeth Jane Pine for bodily injury arising out of a motor accident near Hastings in July last. The acting Chief Justice, Mi Justice Seed, presided. The jury delivered a verdict for the plaintiff after a retirement of four and three-quarter hours following an action which occupied two days. Of the damages awarded, £35 were special damages, including hospital expenses. Mr L. T. Burnard, assisted by Mr W. E. Hookey, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr O. C. Mazengarb, with him Mr R. B. G. Chadwick, for the defence. Mr Mazengarb said in his address to the jury that he proposed to show that Mr Pine was not negligent. The case was important to many people and to many classes. Not every person who was injured was entitled to claim money, and the jury had to be sure that in trying to do right they should not do a grievous wrong to another. ‘‘Even an insurance company is entitled to justice,” he said. He continued to point out that while the insurance company actually paid the money, the motorists of the country would eventually pay. Justice to Mr Pine was needed, and no evidence had shown that there was any negligence, suefa as speeding or drink. The commonsense place for a man to use on a country road at night was the righthand side.

“Diprose was the author of his own wrong when he stepped out on to the road in front of an incoming car,” said counsel. “Who had the opportunity of avoiding the accident 1” Evidence would show that the accident occurred in a spot where the road was shaded by a willow tree, with several lights distracting the driver, and yet he saw the man and pulled up within 20 paces. Several witnesses for the defence were then called, including the defendant and her husband, who was driving the car at the time of the accident.

Summing-up, His Honour presented the jury with several issues upon which to give their verdict. They were; Was the defendant negligent? If so, in what respect? Was the plaintiff negligent? If so, in what respect?? Could both have avoided the accident up to the last minute? If not, could either have done so? If so, which? The final issue was the question of damages.

The jury retired at 5 o’clock and re turned at 8 o’clock to ask whether, assuming they found that both parties could not have avoided the accident, and then found, in answer to the next question, that one could have, if such a finding would amount ta a judgment. His Houuor answered in the affirmative. At 9.43 a verdict in favour of the plaintiff was returned with £os special damages and £350 general damages. Both the defendant and the plaintiff were found negligent, and it was touno that the former could have avoided tb< accident.

Mr Burnard moved for judgment for the plaintiff and Mr Mazengarb for judgment for the defendant or alterna lively a new trial. The matter was adjourned for further consideration, legal argument to bo taken in Wellington.