FATALITY SEQUEL

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22434, 2 June 1936, Page 14

FATALITY SEQUEL

DAMAGES CLAIM FAILS JURY'S VERDICT REVERSED DECISION OF THE JUDGE [by TELEGRAPH —Pit ESS ASSOCIATION"! CHRISTCHURCH, Monday Judgment for defendant with costs was given by Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court to-day in a civil claim for damages made by Mrs. {Catherine Augusta Godfrey, of Christchurch, against Frank Wnyland Gilbert, of Christchurch. The claim, which was for damages sustained by plaintiff and her infant daughter in the death of her husband after a motor collision near Cust, had been heard beforo a jury, which had found for plaintiff for £ISOO damages on her own behalf and £SOO on her (laughter's behalf. After the jury's verdict had been given counsel for plaintiff had moved for judgment. Counsel for defendant moved for judgment for defendant, or alternatively for a new trial 011 the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence and that the finding of tho jury was so defective that judgment could not be given on it. His Honor then reserved judgmont and today reversed tho jury's verdict, finding for the defe: ant with costs.

His Honor in his judgment said: " Upon examining the case presented by plaintiff, whatever may bo the proper view of conduct of defendant, Godfrey was guilty of contributory negligence in crossing over the intersection of roads regardless of the approach of tho other car, which he could have seen and avoided had he been attentive.

" It was argued for plaintiff that at some point of time defendant, becoming aware of the approach of Godfrey, endeavoured to avoid the collision, but was prevented by his negligence in having been travelling at excessive speed. I am unable to accept this view ns it seems to involve the absurdity that if defendant had not, made this belated recovery of attentiveness but, like Godfrey, had continued up to the point of collision without seeing the other vehicle ho would not be liable for the reason that the negligence of both would then have been continuous and simultaneous. " In my opinion the case is concluded by the view I take of the contributory negligence of Godfrey as disclosed by the case for plaintiff. .Judgment will be for defendant with costs.''