DRIVER WHO SNEEZED

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 83, Issue 118, 22 May 1939, Page 12

DRIVER WHO SNEEZED

RENTAL CAR IN ACCIDENT DAMAGES AW ARDED TO OWNER I Per Press Association ) CHRISTCHURCH, May 19. The explanation that a fit of sneezing had caused a driver to lose control of a motor-car that was substantially damaged when it struck a telegraph pole, was not accepted by a jury of four in the Supreme Court to-day, when a claim for £174 5s fid was made by Larges, Ltd., against Mr. R. A. Nock, a Government inspector. Mr. Justice Northcroft was on the bench. The jury found that Nock had been negligent in his driving and awarded damages of £153 15s fid to the company from which Nock had hired the car. The accident occurred in Ferry Road about 12.30 a.m. on September 1 last. Nock was driving from Sumner towards the city and ran into a telegraph pole. Nock claimed that he had a paroxysm of sneezing that had caused him to lose control of the car and that he was not therefore liable to pay for the damage to the car. Addressing the jury after evidence had been heard Mr. Russell, for Nock, said that the explanation that the accident had been caused by sneezing had not been concocted because It was the ex.ianation given immediately after the accident. It was a case oi the unexpected happening. Nock had had no cause to take special care when he sneezed and the explanation he had given was reasonable. All Nock was required to do was to give a likely explanation, then the onous of proving negligence was placed on the plaintiff. Mr. Thomas, for plaintiff, submitted that there was Clear evidence of negligence by Nock. The jury might come to the conclusion that Nock was tired and that his speed of about 35 miles an hour was excessive in the city. It was very difficult to accept Nock’s story. If Nock's false teeth had been coughed out, the first thing he would have done would have been to pick them up and that was a very obvious reason for the accident. To say that a sneeze was the defence, would -be to add another risk to the highway. It was the jury's duty to set a standard of care and to-day that standard could not be lowered. The juury reached their decision after a retirement of 37 minutes.