Appeal From Judgment In Motor Accident Case

Manawatu Times, Volume 62, Issue 149, 25 June 1937, Page 5

Appeal From Judgment In Motor Accident Case

INITIAL HEARING AT PALMERSTON NORTH Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Last Night. Another case arising from a motoraccident occupied the attention of the Court of Appeal to-day. In December William Guutrip, of Wellington, insurance agent, proceeded in the Palmerston North Supreme Court against Alfred George Cawood, of Palmerston North, taxi proprietor for £336 14s 6d special damages and £IOOO general damages for injuries sustained in a collision with respondent’s motor-car while appellant was crossing Rangitikei street, Palmerston North. Appellant alleged that respondent * agent, the driver of the car, failed to keep a proper look-out, failed to give warning of the approach of his vehicle or to stop, slow down or steer clear of appellant. The defence was a general denial of these allegations, with a further or alternative defence, among others, that appellant by his own negligence contributed to the collision. At the hearing of the trial before Mr. Justice Ostler and a jury respondent, at the close of appellant's case, moved for judgment on a nonsuit. His Honour, after argument, withdrew the case from the jury and entered judgment for respondent. The appeal was from this judgment. It was contended by counsel for appellant that there was no evidence of ne gligence on the part of respondent and that, even if there was, the only rational inference was that appellant was guilty of contributory negligence. Mr. A. M. Ongley, for respondent, submitted that appellant had failed to make out a case from which negligence on the part of respondent could be reasonably inferred. Sir Michael Myers raised the question of whether a nonsuit should have been entered against appellant and not judgment for respondent. As to this Mr. P. G. Cooke, K.C., for appellant, submitted that the entry of judgment for respondent deprived appellant of the right to bo non-suited before judgment was entered. Further, judgment should not have been entered before appellant was given the opportunity to elect to be nonsuited. Even if there was power to enter judgment for respondent it could only be done where there was conclusive proof appellant was the author of his own injuries. Decision was reserved. fare of patients were being cut down to the minimum. What was the position of the secretary at board meetings? Witness: Ho would get up just when he liked and said what lie liked. Did he profess to give an opinion on medical requirements? Witness: Nearly always it depended upon his views whether a thing was got or not. He nearly always got away with it. Didn’t you speak up on these matters? Witness: I did but no notice was taken of me. “Nearly everything the board undertook after the earthquake it made a mess of," said witness when asked by the chairman if he had any other views to express. “The Health Department prepared plans for a new hospital, which the board cancelled. It then got new plans aud had the hospital rebuilt under local architects. I maintain that, if the board had what the department wanted it to have, there would now be a modern hospital instead of something rambling. If the board had done as the department suggested, there would have been no trouble over the isolation ward." To Sir James Elliott witness said that ho considered that a member of the honorary staff should not be a member of the board. Sir James: If a member was unscrupulous and that type of man who wanted to do w T rong, he would have an opportunity to do so and be sheltered because he was a member of the board. Is that so? Witness: BeiDg a member of tho board would have some Influence. Mr. W. E. Bate , representing the board: You will admit that there should be some control over expenditure? Witness: Yes; I agree that requisitions should pass through the office and that they should know what was being purchased, but I strongly object that a requisition of the medical superintendent should be approved or disapproved by the secretary. Witness informed the Commission that it was largely due to the great loyalty of the matron and nurses after the earthquake that the hospital was able to be carried on like it w'as. The Commission at that adjourned till the morning.