PROBLEM FOR JURY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23330, 23 October 1937, Page 14

PROBLEM FOR JURY

CHILD'S "EXPECTATION OF LIFE" ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES VERDICT FOR £ISOO RETURNED (Per United Press Association) CHRISTCHURCH, Oct. 22. "It would be unseemly for me to criticise these changes in the law —I do but explain them, but, having done so, I can only ask you to retire and give your best consideration to a difficulty which might well have confounded Solomon himself." That was the final word of the summing up of Mr Justice Northcroft this morning in a case which, in his words, " placed a milestone in the progression of the law." The jury was asked to assess the money value of damages on the "expectation of life" of a child aged three years and seven months. Mr Honor said it was the first time, either here or in England, he thought, that a jury had been set that formidable problem. The action was.brought under the Law Reform Act, 1936, and a claim for £2500 was made by Owen Edward Wilson, of Ouruhia, as administrator of the estate of his iniant son, against George Holmes, of Ashburton. The child died following s motor collision, one vehicle being driven by the agent or employee of Holmes. The jury brought in a verdict for £ISOO. The judge accepted a motion for judgment, but on the request of counsel for the defendant stood down further consideration of the case far 14 days. IS LIFE A BOON? HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS CASE WITHOUT PRECEDENT (Special ro Daily Times) CHRISTCHURCH, Oct. 22. Mr M. J. Gresson, with him his son, Mr T. A. Gresson, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr C. S. Thomas for the defendant. Liability fpr negligence in the accident which caused the death of the plaintiff's infant son was admitted by the defendant and the sole question before the jury was the amount, of damages. Mr T. A. Gresson said that the plaintiff's son was killed as the result of an accident at Ashburton on February 28. The boy was a passenger in a car driven by his uncle, Harold Edward Wilson, which came into collision with a car driven by James A. M. Colville, an employee of the defendant. It was the defendant's car. The accident was due to negligence on the part of the defendant's servant or agent, Colville.

"The sole question for the jury in this case is ' How much—''" said Mr Gresson. "Prior to the 1936 Act, he continued, the death of the child would have extinguished any right of action. That meant, in fact, that it,was cheaper to kill than to : maim."

It was difficult to assess a human life in terms of money, said Mr M. J. Gresson. No juryman would accept £4OOO to have his leg cut off, yet juries were continually being asked to assess the money value of a leg, and it was not £4OOO. "You are asted to assess the shortening of a life of which you know nothing" said Mr Thomas. "Was this child going to have a life of wealth or poverty, happiness or sorrow, health or sickness? Until you know that, how can you assess damages? How can you, with a child of three and a-half, assess the mental and physical possibilities of manhood? The figure of . £2500 damaged is put in by the plaintiff by way df a lead. The matter should be left entirely to the jury. When counsel put in an amount like that they do not claim on the low side. I admit that we have to pay something, but I submit that in the circumstances a very small amount would be a fair amount." "You are taking part in an historical incident in law," said the judge in summing up. "Quite recently in England and more recently in New Zealand the law was altered so that a person's right of aetion did not die with him but was part of his estate and was recoverable at law. We have, not the omniscience to know what we ourselves may expect of life, still less to know what may reasonably have been expected for the life of the child concerned here. I must warn you not to attempt to compensate for the grief of the parents or even for any future loss of comfort and support. Life is not necessarily either pleasant or profitable, and the contingencies militating against the enjoyment of the future life of a young child are innumerable." The child might have lived unhappily, his Honor continued, so that "life was a waste of wearisome hours." On the other hand, he might have lived with honour, profit and happiness so that "life was a bumper filed by fate." "It is for you to determine," his Honor concluded, "as I believe a jury has never before been required to determine the answer to Gilbert's question—ls life a boon? The jury, which retired at 12.40 p.m., returned at 2.40 p.m., and the foreman announced that it had been decided unanimously that the amount of damages should be £ 1500.

Mr M. J. Gresson then moved for judgment in accordance with the verdict.

" Have you any submission to make, Mr Thomas? asked the judge. "The whole matter is so new," Mr Thomas replied, "that I should like a fortnight to consider the matter."

The judge accepted Mr Gresson's motion for judgment, but stood down further consideration of the case for 14 days.