HIGH DAMAGES.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume IV, Issue 160, 18 June 1936, Page 3

HIGH DAMAGES.

ACCIDENT CASE. Judge Orders Mew Trial To Be Heard. ■*v GOES TO APPEAL COURT. Press Association —Copyright. ■Wellington, Juno 17. . The Court of Appeal reserved its appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Ostler, who ordered a new trial of an action heard before him on April 29, arising out of an accident at Whakaronga, near Palmerston North, on December 15, 1935. The appellant, Edith Matilda Hodgson, who was riding a bicycle, was run into and severely injured by a motor-car belonging to the Hawkes Bay Meat Co. Ltd., one of the respondents in the action, and driven by a man named Slubbs.

Liability was admitted and the only question was the amount of damages. The jury awarded the full amount of general damages claimed, £2500, and the respondents sought a new trial on the ground that the general damages awarded were, in the circumstances, excessive. Their application was successful, the judge stating that the damages awarded were so large that no jury could reasonably have given them. .' Mr. E. W. Ongley, for Mrs. Hodgson, submitted:— (1) The jury was the constitutional tribunal to assess damages. ''''' (2) The jury must be taken to "have found in the appellant's favour everything which it was open to them reasonably to find. (3) The verdict of the jury must stand unless it could be shown affirmatively that they failed in the function of assessing damages. Such failure could be brought about only in two ways, by taking into consideration some irrelevant matter, or by giving such a verdict as twelve sensible men could not give. (4) In claims for personal damages there was no defined measure of damages, and the basis is such amount as the jury, using reasonable commonsense. assesses as full and fair compensation for an injury, bearing in mind that they compensate once and for all. (5) The decision of Mr. Justice Ostler overlooked that the jury's estimate was the proper basis for the amount of damages, unless it could be shown to have been improperly made. Claims for personal injury were not capable of fixed by some neat measure. The cau would have to consider what should! ihj jury have given, how it arrived at the amount found by it and, if this was excessive, was the excess such that no twelve men would give it? Addressing the court on behalf of the respondents Mr. Leicester said the question arose whether the jury's award of £2500 general damages for personal injuries could be said to be excessive. The position of the trial judge had also to be considered in connection with his exercise of the right, to vacate judgment based on the jury's verdict and order t. new trial.

In the present case twelve sensible men could not reasonably have awarded that sum. The jury failed to consider the right matters and considered the wrong matters. Further, it applied the wrong measure of damages. The question of the loss of Mrs. Hodgson's services to her husband should not have keen taken into account by the jury. It was .submitted the sum awarded amounted to an attempt' to give damages on th,e basis of Mrs. Hodgson having suffered a permanent deformity and was calculated as a form of maintenance for life. The duty exercised by the trial judge in taking away the verdict was £, salutary one and the Court of Appeal should be slow to reverse his decision.