COLLISION CASE.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20171, 25 February 1931, Page 6

COLLISION CASE.

'V , 1 1 , i; ' N,,'

M 1... UIIMM ~,L . pre»6nt actions, whether, a* the )t is, taken 48 &a baqiajhitod deifesikttt ,dJ[£ not keep-, a pilreper lookout or -whether, on, the eonit ha dii£ , 4 7>The ilaJQt i*V# 'feegatfMd ilkh alio-, that the defendant was negli* gerit in that ho failed to hiivo his Mr under proner control. At the 'i«mo tin>e tltf jtitjr fouqd that the defendant «&((; driving at |is flsceuiVd rate of " At the trial toe want ot con- \ "tttrt nvqe aaid to, be-evidM»eed[ byja ;fail* i ..pii'ttifpmptly to applyr thdbraks?. In | negativing thd silsg&fcion pa to control, Jury nay not properly ho takeft,, havipg regard to the -Bfav in wbloh the ease ivaa to have returned a finding 'inconsistent with theln' finding H thit, t tho dcfyndant wp, driving at an ricdSfilMiye ajwed. . , • **T?he jury, in effect, had -tao ttyitd lattue i exactly m the' opposite vtay to that in Thioli thp plaintiff him* .a!wf answered it, when' the jury held that defendant had the last oppojttin* 1«r fee av<vi4ing th& by the $»•*• ajse -of reasonable care, The plainsaid that, owing to defendant's r ßppedj the defendant aybM Ijijft. tfhe jrtty'a angrfeer third Ueine wafc an inference drawn 'wOija the jury's factp an found, TTpoj* the ad* minted and undisputed fact* there was, between the varlqus ttqstq of negligent offlie' plaintiff and Of the defendant, *}o suen sufficient separation of time, pjae*, and eircutnstaugd that it eoulfllMs said tiiat, after the pjaitrtiff' tfa»" aegH-, gent, the defendant Apiild have avoided tjhe oaltiEeq fences of the plaintiff V negligence ' /r "Jqdgmaat would assecrdingly! h 6 .cn • ter«j<i'for wh,® would bo 'entitled, Against the plaintiff, to his coats according' to a0«49, with wttnewoa" expenses' and disbursements, to be fixed by the TJogistrar." ' ■ , -'At'"the bearing Mr VL Xltyrne appeared 'for the plaintiff;' and Mr C. 8. Thomas foe the defendant. \ -