DEATH IN COLLISION.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume IV, Issue 146, 2 June 1936, Page 3

DEATH IN COLLISION.

Judge Reverses Jury's Verdict CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. Press Association— Copyright. Christchure.li, June 1. Judgment for defendant with costs was given by Mr. Justice Northcroft in liie Supreme Court in a civil claim for damages for Mrs. Katherine Augusta Godfrey, Christchurch, against Frank Wayiancl Gilbert, Christchurch. The claim, which was for damages suffered by Mrs. Godfrey and her infant daughter in the death of her husband after a motor collision near Cust, had been heard before a jury which had found for her for £ISOO damages on her own behalf and £SOO on her daughter's behalf. After the jury's verdict had been given counsel for Mrs. Godfrey had moved for judgment and counsel for Gilbert had moved for judgment for defendant, or alternatively for a new trial on the ground that the verdict, was against the weight of evidence, and that the finding of the jury was so defective that judgment could not be given on it. His HQiiour reserved his judgment and to-day reversed the jury's verdict, finding for the defendant with costs. He stated that Godfrey had been guilty of contributory negligence. "Upon examining the case presented by Mrs. Godfrey, whatever may be the proper view of the conduct of Gilbert, Godfrey was guilty of contributory negligence in crossing over the intersection of roads regardless of the approach of the other car, which he could have seen and avoided had he been attentive.

"It was argued for Mrs. Godfrey that at some point of time Gilbert, becoming aware of the approach of Godfrey, endeavoured to avoid a collision but was prevented by his negligence in having been travelling at an excessive speed. I am unable to accept this view as it seems to involve the absurdity that if Gilbert had not made this belated recovery of attentiveness but, like Godfrey, had continued up to the point of the collision without seeing the other vehicle, he would not be liable for the reason that the negligence of both would then have been continuous and simultaneous.

j "In my opinion the case is concluded I by the view 1 take of the contributory j negligence of Godfrey as disclosed by ! the case for Mrs. Godfrey."