DAMAGES CLAIM

Southland Times, Issue 22730, 5 November 1935, Page 8

DAMAGES CLAIM

MOTOR ACCIDENT JURY’S UNUSUAL VERDICT T ' ) DEBATABLE LEGAL POSITION (Per United Press Association.) Auckland, November 4. A claim for £1657 damages for injuries arising from an accident that occurred in Hobson street on November 8 of last year was heard by Mr Justice Fair and jury in the Supreme Court. Plaintiff was Mrs Rita Louise Lackyer and defendant was John William Burgess, of Dominion road, coal and firewood merchant. At the time of the accident plaintiff was walking across Hobson street and defendant was driving a motor truck down it towards the city. It was alleged that it was due to his negligent and unskilful driving that he knocked her down and inflicted severe and permanent injuries. She had a leg broken, both ankles crushed and her head injured, and she had to remain in hospital from the time of the accident until March 26. She claimed that Burgess was travelling at an excessive speed and that he failed to keep a proper lookout or to give warning. The damages asked were made up of £l5OO general damages and £157 special damages. The defence raised was that the accident was due to plaintiffs own negligence in failing to keep a proper lookout and to exercise a reasonable degree of care or that she was at least guilty of contributorv negligence. The verdict of the jury was an unusual one and gave rise to a debatable legal position. “We find defendant guilty of negligence, causing , the accident through not taking proper precautions to avoid the accident,” said the foreman. “We find plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence to a less degree.” His Honour: “You have not dealt with the question as to which negligence, if either, was the real and substantial cause of the accident.” The foreman said the jury had arrived at the conclusion that plaintiff was guilty in a less degree of not keeping a proper lookout in crossing the street. They awarded £365 general damages and special damages as claimed, except that the loss of wages was reduced to £35 each. Counsel moved for judgment on the verdict returned. His Honour stated that he would accept the verdict and hear argument later whether plaintiff was entitled to judgment on it.