DAMAGES CLAIM

New Zealand Herald, Volume 82, Issue 25287, 22 August 1945, Page 9

DAMAGES CLAIM

QUESTIONS FOR JURY

ANSWERS TO BE ARGUED An action for £202(3 special and general damages by Esmond Edward Rodmore Luttrell, vged 55, carpenter (Mr Henry and Mr Sinmoii), against Transport, Ltd. (Mr North), was concluded before Mr Justice Cornish yesterday, I he claim arose out of an accident in Shortland Street on December 10, 1913, plaintiff alleging that ho had been negligently knocked down by one of the defendant's buses and he received injuries to his left knee which impaired his prospects of employment. The detence was a denial of negligence. Evidence for the defendant was given by Mr J. Maxwell Clarke, surgeon, who said ho examined plaintiff on August 13 last. He agreed that the two ligaments of the knee were affected but he considered there was only a moderate degree of laxity, (ienerallv, that condition could he counteracted by the development of the muscles. He would assess the industrial disablement of plaintiff at 30 per cent. Three totalisator officials who had been waiting lor the arrival of the bus said they had not seen anyone in the roadway when the bus approached. There had been a rush for the bus but nono of them saw plaintiff knocked down. They had seen him later lying on the road beside the front left tyre of the bus. Counsels' Submissions Mr North submitted that plaintiff's case was unsatisfactory in that it was not supported by any evidence but his own. Knowing the slope of the street up which the bus was facing, the jury had to ask if it was possible for n stationary bus to move forward. The delence resteil on the evidence that plaintiff was not standing on the road. It submitted that plaintiff attached himself to the crowd on the footpath and was knocked down when the men rushed to the bus. Mr Henry submitted that the driver had given inconsistent versions of his actions. It had been established that plaintiff was injured by the bus wheel which had to be backed before ho could be released. Counsel contended that it would be impossible for a man to be rushed 9ft across the road and be knocked down and pinched under the wheel while it moved forward only six inches as stated by the driver. Summing up His Honor said there were blanks in the evidence and it seemed extraordinary that a man suddenly got hurt and nobody present seemed to know anything about it. Questions for Jury Because of the difficulties, said His Honor, he had prepared a number of questions for the jury. Were the injuries attributable wholly to the acts and conduct of third parties over whom the defendant had no control? The jury was asked to say whether plaintiff and/ or defendant were negligent and if both were negligent whose negligence was the real cause of the injuries suffered by plaintiff. After a retirement of four hours the jury reported that it could not reach a unanimous verdict. His Honor sent them back to consider a majority verdict and they returned a second time to report a verdict in favour of defendant. After discussion with counsel. His Honor sent them back a third time to return a majority answer to as nianv as possible of the 12 questions be had submitted to them. The eventual result was that the jury exonerated the defendant from any negligence except that of driving upon the wrong side of the street, and exonerated the plaintiff of negligence. To the question w hose negligence was the real cause of the injury they replied that they could not answer owing to lack of evidence. His Honor said counsel could consider these replies and arrange for argun ent later.

TERM OF DETENTION MANSLAUGHTER CASE COMMENTS BY THE JUDGE "Drink is not .. friend of the young pakeha and it is a deadly enemy of young Maoris," said Mr Justice Cornish yesterday when sentencing William Martin, aged 21, truck driver. He had been convicted 011 a charge of manslaughter arising from the death of William Arnesen from injuries received in a. fight between three pakehas and three Maoris at L'akotai on April 2. Mr A. K. Turner, who appeared for prisoner, submitted that this was not an ordinary case of manslaughter. The man who had niet his death was a member of the pa my which stopped their lorry at the roadside and gave beer to the Maoris, including the prisoner. Counsel suggested that in view of prisoner's previous good reputation justice might be met by admitting him to probation, prohibiting hi in and ordering him to be called up for sentence if he committed a breach. His Honor said he could not grant that. "This was a crime of violence in which a life was taken," he added. Violence had to bo stamped out. Were it not for circumstances which he would mention he would inflict a heavier sentence than he proposed. "If the position was'different and the I prisoner had been killed, and the pakeha stood in the clock, I would give him a much heavier penalty," said His Honor. "1 do not overlook the fact that but for drink you would not have committed any crime. You are not wholly to blame for the man losing his life." Prisoner was sentenced to two years' reformative detention. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM A complete settlement between the parties was announced to Mr Justice Callan yesterday in the claim for £550 arising' out of' the alleged sale and elosing of a waste products business in the New North Road. The claim was brought bv Miss Mona Eileen Hack (Mr Holmden)' against Maurice Goodman, salvage buyer (Mr Newbery), by whom plaintiff had been employed.