Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MOTORIST v. PEDESTRIAN

APPEAL COURT ASKED TO DEFINE RIGHTS. By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, March 27. The Court of Appeal was occupied to-day with hear'ng an appeal, in forma pauperis, by Irene Addis Smith, wfie of William Henry Smith, of Wellington, mechanic, against Caroline Priscilla Purdie, wife of Lawrence James Purdie, and Lawrence James Purdie, of Wellington, battery specialist. The action in the Supreme Court was a claim for £922 for damages for injuries received by Mrs Smith, through being knocked down by a motor car driven by Mrs Purdie. After a two days’ hearing, the jury found Mrs Purdie guilty of negligently driving too fast, failing to sound her horn, failing to observe the plaintiff, and failing to slow down and steer clear. The jury also found Mrs Smith not negligent, either in failing to keep a proper lookout for vehicular traffic, or in failing to use reasonable care. The jury awarded Mrs Smith £642. Counsel for Mrs Purdie moved to have the judgment entered in favour of defendant, or for a non-suit. On a motion in this direction, Mr Justice MacGregor said there was no doubt plaintiff had been run down by Mrs Purdie, and the only question was whether the evidence was sufficient to justify him in entering judgment for the plaintiff in accordance with the verdict of the jury. It seemed to him that plaintiff could not have been looking where she was going, because if she had been looking she must have seen the approaching motor car. In his opinion she was the author of her own injury, and on the evidence it was impossible to say the defendant could have avoided the consequences of plaintiff’s negligence by the exercise of reasonable care.

His Honour considered it his duty to enter judgment for the defendants, with costs, according to scale. The present appeal is against the order of Mr Justice MacGregor. The case is the first in the Court of Appeal in New Zealand dealing with the respective rights of a motorist and a pedestrian. Decision was reserved.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/THD19330328.2.71

Bibliographic details

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19451, 28 March 1933, Page 8

Word Count
342

MOTORIST v. PEDESTRIAN Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19451, 28 March 1933, Page 8

MOTORIST v. PEDESTRIAN Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19451, 28 March 1933, Page 8

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert