THE JURY SYSTEM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23370, 9 December 1937, Page 16

THE JURY SYSTEM

METHOD OF ASSESSING DAMAGES JUDGE’S PERTINENT COMMENT (Per United Press Association) WELLINGTON, Dec. 8. The method of a jury of 12 in arriving at their verdict in an action in which a pedestrian claimed damages from the proprietor and owner of a service car was described in the Supreme Court to-day by the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) as a striking commentary bn the jury system. The jury, said his Honor, retired at 9.21 p.m. The issues put to them were—(l) Was the driver of the car guilty of negligence materially contributing to the accident? (2) Was the plaintiff guilty, of negligence materially contributing to the cause of the accident? The third issue related to the amount of damages. At 10.5 the jury returned and asked whether if the answers .to the first and second questions were in the affirmative they need answer the third. His Honor replied. “ No." They then asked whether if they answered “ Yes ” to the first and second questions but thought that one party was less negligent than the other it was still necessary to assess the damages. He replied, “ No.” The jury finally returned at 11.27, answered “Yes” to the first question, “ No ” to the second, and awarded damages. In Wellington recently, his Honor said, similar issues had been put to a jury.' The answers had been “ Yes " to the first question, “Yes” to the second in lesser degree, and the damages had been assessed. There had been motions for judgment by each side, but no more had been heard of them. There had been a round robin from the jury saying that if they had understood the effect of the three answers they would have answered “Yes” to the first question, “No” to the second. It was a striking commentary bn the jury system. He left it to others to make further comment.