DUTIES OF PEDESTRIANS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 295, 10 November 1934, Page 3

DUTIES OF PEDESTRIANS.

SAFETY ON ROADWAYS. JUDGE SPEAKS PLAINLY. Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, Nov. 9. A suggestion that the decision of .the jury in awarding compensation might amount lio an obstruction of justice was made by Air Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court when addressing the jury at the close of a claim for compensation arising out of a street motor accident. “In expounding the principles upon which you will base your decision I feel it is my duty to speak very plainly to you,” said His Honour, “because unless there is some plain speaking and pointing to principles the decision of the jury may be an obstruction of justice.”

The case was one in which a woman who rail suddenly in front of a motorcar in Newmarket claimed damages for the accident that ensued. The fact that the collision occurred in a street was not alone sufficient to entitle the victim to damages, His Honour continued. If that were so it would be unsafe for any mail to drive a vehicle about the country. No person was entitled to succeed in an action of this kind unless he proved the driver of the motor-car had been guilty of a breach of duty. A person driving a motor-car was bound to keep a proper look out, to have his car under proper control, and to have his brakes in order. If he did not do so he was guilty of a breach of duty—-in short, of negligence, anu tticn plaintiff was entitled to succeed and recover compensation at the hands of the jury. “There is another matter which I wish strongly to impress upon your minds,” said His Honour. “Not only has . a motorist a duty to the general public, but members of the public themselves have a duty when crossing a street. I am not entitled to walk out from this Court and shut my eyes and go across the street, and then if anyone knocks me down have an action for damages. If Igo across the street with my eyes on the ground and am knocked down I am not entitled to get damages, because I am responsible and not the motorist. It is the bounden duty of every person who seeks damages to prove by means of reasonable evidence that there has been fault on tlie part of the motorist who caused the damage. If there is failure on the part of plaintiff to do that, defendant is entitled to judgment. Sympathy should not weigh with the jury in cases of this kind. It is not a matter of sympathy, but of right and justice and conformity with the law—a matter of common honesty if you will.” His Honour proceeded to review the facts of the case before the Court, indicating that plaintiff was the author of her own misfortune by electing to dasli suddenly across in front of a car instead of standing still in safety as her companions did. Tho jury found for defendant and awarded no damages.