SYMPATHY PLEAS.

Waikato Times, Volume 108, Issue 18127, 18 September 1930, Page 10

SYMPATHY PLEAS.

INFLUENCE ON JURIES. ACCIDENT CLAIMS. “Recent cases both here and in Great Britain show the great difficulty that exists in satisfactorily and clearly directing the jury as to the rights and liabilities of the parties in motor collision cases where the defence of contributory negligence has been set up,” said the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, when dealing with the point of submitting issues to juries in the Court of Appeal at Wellington. The point arose in a reserved decision of . the Appeal Court in a case in which Eric George Benson, motor driver, of Wanganui, was the plaintiff and Kwong Chong, a Chinese market gardener, defendant. The case was heard before Air justice Reed in Wanganui, where a "motion for judgment for the defendant or in the alternative an order for a new trial, was removed to the Court of Appeal for argument before the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), Mr Justice Herdman, Mr Justice Reed, Mr Justice Adams, and Mr Justice Blair. The reserved decision delivered yesterday ordered the case to be removed back to the Supreme Court for judgment for defendant, costs in the Appeal Court proceedings being fixed at 25 guineas. “More By Feeling Than Law.” Mr Justice Reed dealt with the questions before the court—(l) Should there be judgment for plaintiff? (2) Should there he judgment for defendant? (3) Should there be a new trial? There could be no doubt, he contended, that plaintiff was not entitled to judgment.

“The important point is,” his Honour said, “whether judgment should be entered for defendant. The administration of the law is adaptable to meet changing conditions, and the considerations that applied in the days of slow-moving traffic, with its minimum of accidents, apply with increased force to-day. It is of general knowledge that the real defendant in a motor collision case involving personal injury or death is an insurance company and not the nominal defendant. There is every inducement, therefore, for the juries to gratify their feelings of compassion for a plaintiff, who is no doubt much Lo be pitied, at the expense of the real defendant.”

Lord Coleridge had said that “juries were inclined to be guided rather by feeling than by law,” and the position nowadays was more acute. Therefore, while not trenching upon the true functions of a jury, it was the duty of the court to see that justice be done by not hesitating to act in cases where the absence of reasonable evidence to support a finding brought the matter, as a question of law, within the functions of the judge. Functions of Judge. His Honour quoted observations from eminent judges emphasising the fact that a judge was not justified in taking the easier course of ordering a new trial when, as in the present case, on facts which must be regarded as undisputed, the only rational inference was that plaintiff was the author of his own injury.

The answers returned by the jury to the issues put to them Mr Justice Herdman considered to be wholly inconsistent and he thought that the court below should be directed to enter judgment for defendant.