MOTION DISMISSED.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20281, 16 April 1934, Page 7

MOTION DISMISSED.

Application for New Trial Refused. DAMAGES AGAINST COUNCIL. An application for a new trial of the action in which a jury awarded Mrs Ethel Mary Reeve, a widow, damages amounting to £842 14s 9d against the Christchurch City Council, was heard by Mr Justice Johnston in the Supreme Court this morning. The claim for damages was made as the result of an accident in Edgeware Road, when Mrs Reeve, while cydling, was struck and injured by a Citv Council lorry. On behalf of the City Council, Mr Thomas moved in the Court this morning for an order setting aside the verdict of the jury, and fixing a new trial. The application was opposed by Mr Sargent on behalf of Mrs Reeve. Mr Thomas said that the application for a new trial was made upon the grounds that the finding of the jury was so defective that judgment could not be given upon it, and that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. His Honor dismissed the motion after hearing legal argument. Mr Thomas said that the findings in the case were against the council employee. The jury found the driver cf the lorry guilty of negligence in not keeping a proper lookout, in driving a vehicle with defective construction, and in failing to avoid a collision when a collision was imminent. In defendant’s favour, the jury found that ' e did not fail to give proper warning cf his intention to turn into the right-of-way, and that he was not driving h:s lorry at too great a speed. The jury found that plaintiff (Mrs Reeve) kept a proper lookout, and was not negligent in failing to stop her machine, in failing to reduce her speed, and in failing to pass behind the lorry. “ The main reason why these findings are defective is that the finding that defendant gave proper warning of his intention to turn into the right-of-way is entirely inconsistent with the finding that plaintiff kept a proper lookout,” said Mr Thomas. Counsel submitted that in the case these inconsistent findings materially affected the position. Mr Sargent submitted that the peculiar circumstances of the accident had to be taken into consideration. The width of the road was important. It was nearly thirty feet wide, and the lorry, which was twenty feet long, wotiid occupy a considerable portion of the road in turning. Issues Put to Jury. m His Honor said that he must dismiss the motion. The case was one in there was unquestioned evidence before the jury, and on which they could find either way. The case was not only supported by evidence from both sides, but also the jury had the opportunity of viewing the vehicle and the scene of the accident, and hearing able and elaborate addresses from counsel. If their verdict under the circumstances is set aside,” said his Honor, it could only be, in my view, because the issues that were put to them instead of being of assistance to the jury, have been, in fact, a trap.” Concerning the advisability in cases such as these of putting issues to a jury at all, the question was whether it would not be wiser to explain the position in law, and leave to the jury the general questions of negligence or not, and damages, continued his Honor. Generally speaking, the defendant in this class of case preferred the issues to be put,* and when put they were split to meet each part of the actual negligence alleged. “In many cases, the jury having found either party negligent in respect of one of the alleged acts is well aware of that finding, and refuses or neglects to answer points relating to other alleged negligence,” said his Honor. “ If it does do so, perhaps it does not regard the findings in that respect as really relevant.” His Honor said that he was quite satisfied from the way issues were put to the jury regarding each alleged act of negligence that the answers must in many cases bear an apparent lack of consistency. Generally, however, he was satisfied that juries were quite competent to give .answers when they had to deal with separate acts of alleged negligence, and to determine whether such findings were inconsistent or not. Not Inconsistent. “ I am quite satisfied that in this case the finding in regard to the warning given by the driver of the lorry was a finding that the jury in the exercise of its functions could not have regarded as inconsistent with the finding that plaintiff in the case had exercised a proper lookout,” said his Honor. “On the face of it, as presented in the ingenious arguments of Mr Thomas, the finding may bear an apparent inconsistency. In my view, however, it is not necessarily inconsistent with the findings which preceded it, that defendant himself was negligent in not keeping a proper lookout and in driving a lorry that did not give him sufficient view of traffic.” Plaintiff was awarded costs.