JUDGE'S PLAIN SPEAKING

Stratford Evening Post, Volume III, Issue 198, 10 November 1934, Page 7

JUDGE'S PLAIN SPEAKING

'Jury Warned of Possible Obstruction ©! Justice CLAIM FOR DAMAGES DUTIES OF PEDESTRIANS ' Press Association —Gonyrisrht j Auckland, November 9. The suggestion that the decision of the i jury in awarding compensation might ) amount to an obstruction of justice was j made by Mr. Justice Herdman in the ' Supreme Court when addressing the jury < at the close 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 it my duty to speak very plainly to you," said His Honour, "because unless there is some plain speaking and pointing to the principles the decision of a jury may j be an obstruction of justice." The case was one in which a woman who ran suddenly in front of a motor-car at Newmarket claimed damages for an accident that ensued. The fact that the collission occurred in the street was not alone sufficient to , entitle the victim to damages, His Honour continued. If that were so it I would be unsafe for any man to drive a | vehicle about the country. No person was j entitled to succeed in an action of this ] kind unless he proved the driver of the I motor-car had been guilty of a breach 1 of duty. A person driving a motor-car j was bound to keep a proper look-out, to I have his car under proper control, and I to have his brakes in order. If he did not do so he was guilty of a breach of duty, in short, of negligence. Then the plaintiff was entitled to succeed and to recover compensation at the handii ■of the jury. ' f W'-; "There is another matter which I "wish strongly to impress upon your minds," said His Honour. "Not only has the motorist a duty to the general public, but the members of the public themselves have a duty when crossing the 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 Igo across the street with my eyes on the ground and am knocked downl'ani not entitled to get damages, because I am responsible and not the motorist. "It is the bounden duty of every per|s. who seeks damages to prove by ! means of reasonable evidence that there has been a fault on the part of the motorist who caused the damage. If. here is a 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 i.s not a matter of sympathy but of right and justice unci conformity with the law—a matter of common honesty, if you will." His Honour proceeded to review the facts cf 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 the car, instead of standing still in safety as her companions did. The jury found for the defendant and awarded no damages.