STREET ACCIDENTS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18551, 10 November 1934, Page 5

STREET ACCIDENTS

ALLOCATNIG THE BLAME DUTY OF PEDESTRIANS JUDGE’S PLAIN SPEAKING (Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, this day. A suggestion that the decision oF the jury in awarding compensation might amount to an obstruction of justice was made by Mr. Justice llcrdinan in the Supreme Court, when addressing the jury at the closo of a claim for compensation arising out of a street motor accident. “In expounding the principles upon which you will base your decision, I feel that it is mv duty to speak very plainly to you,” said His Honor, “because, unless there is some plain speaking and pointing to principles, the decision of the jury may be an obstruction of justice.”

The case was one in which a woman who ran suddenly in front of a motor car in Newmarket claimed damages for the- accident that ensued. The fact that a collision occurred in a street was not alone sufficient to entitle the, victim to damages, His Honor continued. if that were so, it would be unsafe for any man to drive a vehicle about the country. No person was entitled to succeed in an action of this kind unless he proved that the driver of Ihe motor car had been guilty of a breach of duty. A person driving a motor car was bound to keep a proper look-out, to have his car under proper control, and to have his brakes in order. If he did not do so lie was guilty of a .breach of duty; in short, of negligence. Then the -plaintiff was entitled to succeed and recover compensation at the hands of the jury. VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT “There is another matter which 1 wish strongly to impress upon your minds,” said His Honor. “Not only has the motorist a duty to the general public, but members of tiie public themselves have a duty when crossing a street. I am not- entitled to walk *out from this court, and shut my eyes, and go across the street, and then, if anyone knocks me down, have an action for damages. If I go across tho street with mv eyes on the ground, and am knocked down, I am not entitled to get damages, because I am responsible, and not the motorist. :

“It is the boundeii duty of every person who seeks damages to prove by means of reasonable evidence that there has been fault on the part of the motorist who caused the damage. If there is failure on the part of the plaintiff to do that, the defendant is entitled to judgment. “Sympathy should not weigh with the jury in cases of this kind. It is not a matter of sympathy, but of right and justice, and conformity with the law—a matter of common’ honesty, if you will.”

Ilis Honor proceeded to review the facts of the case before the court, indicating that the plaintiff was the author of her own misfortune by electing to dash suddenly across in front of a car, instead of standing still in safety, as her companions did. The jury found for the defendant, and awarded no damages.