DAMAGES CASE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23431, 22 August 1939, Page 14

DAMAGES CASE

VERDICT CHALLENGED SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL JUDGE RESERVES DECISION A motion to upset the verdict of a jury in a damages case was brought before Mr. Justice Fair in the Supremo Court yesterday. The case was one in which Jack Reiiuie, labourer (Mr. Henry), was awarded £7OO general and £127 17s special damages against his employer, the Amalgamated .Brick and J'ipo Company, Limited (Mr. Richmond). The plaintiff was injured in an accident in a clay pit of the company's at Avondole on February -1, J938, when he was buried in a fall of material '.from a face on which he was working. At the close of the trial both counsel moved for judgment, Mr. Richmond asking for it notwithstanding the verdict of the jury. He also had leave reserved to move for a new trial. Contentions lor Company Mr. Richmond yesterday moved for judgment for the defendant company oil the ground that there was no deuce of negligence by the company, and that, even if there were, there was also clear evidence of contributory negligence by the plaintiff, lho facts alleged by the plaintiff were at least equally consistent with the injury having been caused bv plaintiff's own negligence. . Counsel also submitted that the plaintiff knew the risk and willingly accepted it. The employer had no duty to assume inexperience on the part of a workman who accepted a job. If there was to be any control at all over the verdict of a jury, said Mr. .Richmond, this was a case in which it should bo exercised. The Verdict Supported Mr. Henry said that under the Law Reform Act employers were liable for failure to perform duties owed to their workmen generally, and also tor casual negligence of any servant other than plaintiff. He submitted there was reasonable evidence on which the jury could reach the conclusion it came to. Mr. Henry quoted from the evidence passages to show that the place where the plaintiff was working was dangerous. The defendant company, lie contended, had been negligent in that there was no proper supervision of the pit, no proper instruction given to tub plaintiff, no installation of a proper system and control, and no steps taken to ensure reasonable protection from falls. At the close of the argument, which lasted all day, His Honor reserved his decision.