MOTOR COLLISION

Waipa Post, Volume 44, Issue 3190, 14 June 1932, Page 8

MOTOR COLLISION

PRIVY COUNCIL'S DECISION. APPELLANT GETS FULL DAMAGES. A district correspondent inquired on Saturday last as to the meaning of the cable message in the previous day's metropolitan papers referring to a New Zealand case before the Privy Council. We could not give details, and our inquirer suggested that the case was one affecting the dairying industry. Further inquiry shows that he was wrong, for it was an action claiming damages for injury sustained in a motor collision over three years ago at Wanganui. The Wanganui Chronicle reviews che case as under: — Decision of the Privy Council, advice bv cable of which was receded on Friday, has ended the protracted litigation in respect to the civil claim of Eric George Benson against Kwong Chong, both of Wanganui, in respect to damages for injuries received in a collision between a motor cycle, ridden by plaintiff, and a mo cor car owned by defendant and driven by his son, Dickson Fore, on 4th April, 1929. The judgment is in favour of. Benson. It awards the full amount claimed (£1134 6s 6d) ; . costs of the action and of three trials and reverses, and trenchantly reviews the judgment of the New Zealand Court of Appeal. . On 4th April, 1929, an accd.ent occurred at the corner of Spiers Street and Seddon Street, Aramoho. Benson was riding a motor cycle along Spiers Street. A motor car, owned by Kwong Chong and driven by his son and servant, Dickson Fore, was travelling along Seddon Street. Benson turned into Seddon Street and a collision occurred between the two vehacles which resulted in Benson being seriously injured. A year latei he was unable to dr.ve a motor vehicle or to do any heavy work. Dickson Fore at the time of the mishap was 15 years of age, and had obtained a license to drive by making a liaise declaration of age. Before Sir. Michael Myers and a jury of twelve, Benson claimed £SOO general and £134 6s 6d special damages on 16th May, 1929. The jury disagreed, and a new trial was or- ' dered for November of the same year. In that month Benson, owing to his state of health and limited financial resources, was unable to proceed. Counsel for Kwong Chong thereupon moved, before Mr Justice MacGregor, to have the action struck out. His Honour refused, and ordered that the case proceed in February, 1930. Accordingly, on 19th and 20th November, 1930, the case came before Mr Justice Reed and a jury of twelve. Counsel for Kwong Chong admitted the special damages. The verdict of the jury was in favour of Benson for the Ml amount claimed, £636 6s 6d. In March, 1930, counsel for Kwong Chong moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. Legal argument was heard before Mr Justice Reed in April, 1930, and he ordered a new trial. In May of the same year: Benson's counsel submitted an amended statement of claim, proceeding for £134 6s 6d special and £IOOO general damages. Cousel for Kwong Chong filed a summons to set aside the amended claim. On 19th and 20th May, 1930, Benson's claim for a total of £1134 6s 6d came before • Mr Justice Reed and a jury of twelve. ■ This was the third jury to sit on the ' case, and it awarded a verdict in fav- : our of Benson for the full amount claimed. Benson's counsel moved fior judgment accordingly. Three days later counsel for Kwong Chong moved for judgment, or, as an alternative, for a new trial. On 28th May, 1930. an order was made by consent for removal of the case to the Court of Appeal. On 12th September, 1930, legal argument was heard before the New Zealand Court of Appeal, consisting of Sir Michael Myers (Chief Justice), Sir A. Herdman, Mr Justice Reed, Mr Justice Adams, and Mr Justice Blair. Their unanimous decision was in favour of Kwong Chong, on the ground that the answers to questions by the. jury in two instances were inconsistent with the facts as answered in another two.

On 6th October. 1930, an order was made for conditional leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. On sth March the following year Benson was granted leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council in forma pauperis (as a poor person without sufficient means to provide the usual financial requirements). The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council heard the case in April last, and Benson's counsel has received the following cable from C. J. Wray and Company, London:— " Privy Council unanimously reversed, and trenchantly reviewed, the judgment of. New Zealand Court of Appeal. Appellant was awarded the amount claimed and costs."

So has ended a case which will be of far-reaching importance in future litigation, not only in New Zealand, but -throughout the Empire. It is regarded as a distinct triumph for Benson's counsel, who persistently fathered the action in the highest Court under democratic British rule. The Lord Chancellor, Lords Blanesburg, Merrivale, and Russell of Killowen, and Sir George Lowndes heard the case in the Privy Council.