MOTOR COLLISION CASE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20281, 14 December 1927, Page 10

MOTOR COLLISION CASE.

NEW TRIAL ORDERED. STRONG COMMENT BY JUDGE. (Special to Daily Times.) AUCKLAND, December 13. In the course of his reserved judgment ordering a now trial in a motor collision rare in which the jury awarded £7Ol 11s 6d damages, Mr Justice Herdman commented strongly upon the practice of eliciting during a trial the fact that the defendant is indemnified by an insurance company. The action was heard in Auckland on November 8 and 9, R. J. Wilson, carpenter (Mr Guideline), claiming £IOOO general damages, £lO special damages, and £273 for loss of wages, against George Kent and Sons, Ltd., bakers (Mr Dickson). The claim arose out of a collision between defendants’ van nd plaintiff’s motor cycle on Barry’s Hill, Remuera, last December. On ‘ th e jury awarding £7Ol 11s 6d damages to plaintiff, Mr Dickson moved for a now trial, his Honor reserving judgment on the point. His Honor has now ordered a- new trial on the ground that the verdict of the Jury, arrived at after nearly four hours’ deliberation, was against the weight of evidence. . After a detailed review of evidence the judgment states: “The jury evidently founded its decision mainly upon the statements of plaintiff and his friend, and failed to give due weight to the evidence of the sergeant of police and other witnesses, who tracked the 'an from a point on the road where it had a right to bo to the place where it came to a standstill. I have no hesitation in exw pressing the opinion that the verdict of the, jury was unsatisfactory.” His -Honor stated that no doubt there was evidence both ways at the trial, but it did not follow from that that a new trial could not be had. Reference was then made to the allusions in court to defendants’ indemnification by insurance. “ The result of the trial,” says the judgment, “ was impugned upon the ground that, during the proceedings direct or indirect references were made to the fact that the defendant was indemnified by an insurance company. His Honor states that had it not been inevitable that this should be referred to in the case in question through an in surance company representative giving evidence he would have withdrawn the case from the jury by openly importing Mr Laird (a witness) into the case, the insurance company, however, elected to as sociate itself with its fate, remarked the judge, adding that in these special cir. cumstances he could not withdraw the action at the trial. Tfie practice in actions of this kind of eliciting the fact that a defendant was indemnified by an insurance company was censured m the strongest terms. , , , , , Among the authorities "noted b; hw Honor is the following from a Scottish case: Allusion in a iury trial to the fact of indemnity by insurance is impropei and in cases where th 6 court is satisfied that the topic is introduced for the purpose of creating prejudice the verdict may bo set aside.”