ACTION FOR DAMAGES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22260, 7 November 1935, Page 17

ACTION FOR DAMAGES

MOTOR-CAE COLLISION CLAIM MADE BY WOMAN VERDICT.FOR DEFENDANT The claim for damages arising from a motor collision that took place at the corner of Market Road and the Great South Road early on the night of June 8 was rejected by a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday. The claim, which was heard by Mr. Justice Fair, was brought by Mrs. Doris Mildred North, of Auckland (Mr. North.), against W. Mattson, of Ellerslie, motor driver (Mr. Goldstine). It was claimed that when defendant's car collided ivith the back of the car driven by plaintiff's husband plaintiff was severely cut about the face, and for this she claimed £4OO general and £2.'} special damages. She alleged that the accident was due to Mattson's negligence, but he denied all such, allegations. The evidence was practically completed on Tuesday. Addressing tho jury Mr. Goldstine submitted that never had a weaker claim been made to a jury. The onus of proving negligonce against the defendant lay upon the plaintiff, but negligence on the part of the defendant had been definitely disproved. The accident was solely due to plaintiff's husband taking a chance in crossing in front of a tramcar, without knowing what was beyond. Mr, North pointed out that this was a case of a claim, not by a driver, but by a passenger, and the law was quite different. The only question here was whether Mattson had been guilty of any negligence that contributed to the accident. The cause of the accident was that as soon as the wheels' of the tramcar began to move Mattson, impatient to get ahead, proceeded to "shoot on." On the subject of damages counsel said it was a question of disfigurement, as distinct from bodily injury. His Honor said negligence meant the want of that care which the ordinary prudent or reasonable man would take in the circumstances. The plaintiff undertook to prove that the defendant had been negligent. The allegation mainly relied on was that the defendant had been attempting to pass a tramcar at an intersection rather too fast. Legally, the defendant was entitled to assume that nothing was going to cross in front, of the tram at all closely while the tram was moving. "The question for the jury was, has it been proved to your satisfaction that the defendant did not exercise ordinary care, and that the failure to exercise such ordinary care was the cause of the accident? Arrangements were made for the jury to view the corner where the accident occurred. After an absence of three hours the jury returned with a verdict for the defendant, and judgment was entered accordingly.