JOINT NEGLIGENCE

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXVIII, Issue 120, 16 May 1932, Page 5

JOINT NEGLIGENCE

£5OO DAMAGES TO BOY A WAIRARAPA FATALITY The three actions which were heard in the Supreme Court at. Wellington last week by Mr Justice Blair and a jury arising out. of a motor collision on the main road between Carterton and Masterton concluded last night, when the jury found that William John Grose and Robert George Coulston were guilty of joint negligence. The jury awarded £5OO damages to Thomas Francis Grose, aged 10, son of W. J. Grose, for whom judgment was entered accordingly, with costs. The claims were as follow: —

Robert George Coulston claimed £lBO3 damages from William' John Grose. William John Groso sued Robert George Coulston for £1714 Bs, made up of £l5OO general damages and £214 8s special damages. William John Grose also claimed £3OOO damages from Robert George Coulston. Thomas Francis Grose, aged 10, son of William John Grose, thrugh his guardian, claimed £lOOO from Robert George Coulston and from his father for injuries received in the collision.

Mrs Grose was killed in the collision and several persons were injured. The greater part of the day was occupied by five counsels engaged in the three cases in addressing the jury. When counsel for Coulston repbed to the arguments of other counsel he urged the jury not to accept a compromise. If his client was to lose, he would take his licking, and the jury should accept no compromise unless it was satisfied by the evidence that this was the proper course to pursue.

His Honour Mr Justice Blair summed up the three cases to the jury in a little over half an hour.

The issues submitted to the jury and their replies thereto are as follow: —

1. Was the collision due to inevitable accident 1 ? —No.

2. Was the collision due to —(a) the negligence of Grose alone? —No. (b) The negligence of Coulston alone? —No. These findings were unanimous, (c) Or the joint and simultaneous negligence of both Grose and Coulston? —-Yes. This verdict was brought in by nine to three.

3. Assess the damages for Coulston as against Grose. —Not answered. 4. Assess the damages for Grose personally as against Coulston. —Not answered.

5. What damages do you award to the executor for Mrs Grose, deceased, as against Coulston by reason of her death? How do you apportion such damages? (a) To the husband; (b) to the elder daughter; (c) to the second daughter; (d) to the son. —The unanimous reply to all of these was “Nil.” 6. What damages do yffih award to the boy, Thomas Francis in respect of his action for personal feijury. —£soo. Unanimous, p £ s/ *> Judgment was .thqA; entered" for Thomas Francis Grose for £5OO sfetfind costs,'with be fixed by the registrar. Other questions are ;to be argued jiext week^-,-.—.