MOTOR ACCIDENT
j “ AUTHOR OF HER OWN MISFORTUNE ” COMPENSATION DENIED By Telegraph —Press Association AUCKLAND, November 9. A suggestion that the decision of the jury in awarding compensation might amount to an obstruction of justice was 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 principles the decision of jury may be an obstruction of justice.” The case was one in which a woman who ran suddenly in front of a motor car in Newmarket claimed damages for the accident that ensued. The fact that the collision occurred in the street was not alone sufficient to entitle the victim to damages, his Honour continued. If that were so it would be unsafe for any man to drive a vehicle about the country. No person
was entitled to succeed in an action ! of this kind unless he proved that the 1 driver of the motor car had been ! guilty of a. breach of duty. A person driving a motor-car was bound to keep I a proper look out, to have his car i under proper control, and to have his i brakes in order. If he did not do so I he was guilty of a breach of duty, in j short, of negligence. Then plaintiff was | entitled to succeed and recover compensation at the hands of the jury.” A Bounden Duty. “There is another matter which I wish strongly to impress upon your minds,” said his Honour. “Not only has ' a motorist a duty to the general public but members of the public themselves have a duty when crossing a street. I am not entitled to walk out from this Court and shut my eyes and go across the street and then if anyone knocked me down have an action for damages. If I go across a street with my eyes on the ground and am knocked down I am not entitled to get damages, because I am responsible and not the motorist. It is the bounden duty of every person who seeks damages to prove by means of reasonable evidence that there has been fault on the part of the motorist who caused the damage. If there is 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 is not a matter of sympathy, but of right and justice and conformity with the law. a matter of common honesty, if you will.” | His Honour proceeded to review the
j facts of the case before the Court indi- ' eating that the plaintiff was the author of her own misfortune by electing to dash suddenly across in front of a car instead of standing still in safety as her companions did. The jury found for defendant and awarded no damages.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/THD19341110.2.101
Bibliographic details
Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 19953, 10 November 1934, Page 19
Word Count
522MOTOR ACCIDENT Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 19953, 10 November 1934, Page 19
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Timaru Herald. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.