SEQUEL TO ACCIDENT

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 42, 13 November 1926, Page 6

SEQUEL TO ACCIDENT

£3OO DAMAGES AWARDED APPARENT INCONSISTENCY EXPLAINED Palmerston North, November 12. Arising out of the same set of circumstances as those obtaining in the criminal case heard yesterday, action was taken in the Supreme Court to-day by Charles Demean Ingle, freezing works assistant, of Feilding, against Frank Winton Lethbridge, farmer, of Waituna, claiming £3OOO for allegedly negligent driving of a motor-car. Mr. J. Graham appeared for plaintiff and Mr. H. R. Cooper for defendant. The statement oi claim set forth that on the early evening of July 31 plaintiff and his brother (now deceased) were knocked down by defendant’s motorcar when they were walking on the Aorangi road, Feilding. In consequence, plaintiff- was rendered unconscious and suffered permanent bodily injury and permanent injury to his eyesight. At the time the car was being driven with only one headlight, and, it was alleged, in a negligent and careless manner. It was further contended that defendant had on the day of the occurrence consumed a considerable quantity of alcohol, to such an extent as to affect his mental faculties and to render him less capable of driving a motor-car with safely to others. For the defence it was contended that the absence of the second headlight in no wav contributed to the collision, and it was denied that plaintiff’s injuries were permanent, or that; his evesight was at.all injured. As a further defence it was said that the accident was due to inevitable accident, or that there inevitable, or that there was contributory negligence on the part of defendant.

The jurv returned a verdict in favour of nlaiiit’ff for £3OO.

Tn delivering judgment, His Honour pointed out that at first sight it might appear as if the verdict of juries in the previous case and the present case were inconsistent, but such was not so. In realitv the principles of the law of negligence were the same whether applied to civil or criminal trials, but thev were not enforced with the same rigidity against a -person accused of a criminal offence as against a partv in a civil action As he understood the verdict in the present case, the jurv had found ; t was an act of negligence to drive a motor-car with onlv one lamp, the result of which was that the car was driven further over to the left-hand side of the road than would otherwise have been the case, and that but for being so far over the accident would not have occurred. Therefore the accident was attributed to defendant's negligence in having onlv one lamp. His Honour said he agreed with the verdict of Hie ittrtes in both this and the previous case.