WRONG VERDICT GIVEN

Chronicle (Levin), 9 August 1946, Page 8

WRONG VERDICT GIVEN

JURYMEN'S UNUSUAL CLAIM , CHRLSTCHlTIiCII, Aug. 8. Judgmeut was 'giv.eu. for. defenctaxits in the Hupveine Churt ■to-dci.y wheiij tlie liearing of a claiin by Derriek Clfarles Kdinonds for £296 special damages, hnd £f750 general damages from Alexander Bennelt and Douglas HeLaren Kidd was concluded bel'ore Mr. Jnstice Blair and a jury. Tlie claiin arose from an accidcnt wliich involved a motor-car driven by Kidd and a motor-cycle ridden by plaintilT near Ashburton on June 4, 1945. After tlie completion of tlie evidence I and liis llonour had outlined the law applieable to tlie claim, tlie points atI issue, with the jury 's iinding, were as follow: — Wpre the defendants negligent in (a) failing to give wav to tlie plaintilf's motor-cvle approaclilug from tlie riglit's— Yes; (bj failing to keep a proper look-out wliile driving the ear ? — Yes; (cj failing to swerve or pull up the ear so as to avoid an aeeident ' — Yes; (d) -driving the ear at a speed which was dangerous liaving regard to all the cireuinstances l — No. Was plaintilf negligent in (a) not keeping a proper look-out? — No; (b) not ^ stopping ivlien an aeeident was iniminent? — Yes; (e) not turning to the right or left wlien tlie aeeident was imniinent? — No; (d) not driving as elose to his left-hand side of the road as was reasonablv praetieable? — Yes; (e) driving

at a speed wliich was excessive in the cireuinstances 1 — No: (f) failing to give way to defendant's veliiele l — No. A further question was: If negligence is fouud as against both the de■fendant and plaintiff then could lioth or eitlier of the parties (if only oue, which onc), notwithstanding the other's negligence, have, by the exereise of reasonabie care, avoided tlie aeeident? The answer to tliis question was, "Yes, both." liis Honour pointed out tliat the answer was not eomplete and tlie jury tlieu answered: " liaving found( both of tliem negligent \ve tind that eaeli of tliem by tlie exereise. of reasonabie c.are could have avoided the result of ,the otlier party's negligence." The jury assessecl the general damages at £1250. His , Honour then discharged the

jurv and kfr. V. IVf. Russell moved for judgment for the defendants. After the Court had adjourned tive members of tlie jury, who had waited in the Courtroom approached the Registrar (Mr. E. Gr. Rhodes) and expressed their concern that judgment had been given for defendants. They said that the jury had decided unanimouslv that the damages sliould be awarded to plaintiff. On instruetions from his Honour, xVlr. Rliodqs informed the men that the jury's_ fmding liad established the ease for judginent for tlie defendants, and that the matter was out of the hands of the jury.