COLLISION CASE

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 136, 25 June 1937, Page 9

COLLISION CASE

-Press Aesooiatlon.)

Appeal from Previ6u$ Judgment

^ (By Telegraph-

WELLINGTON, Last Night. Another case arising from a nrotoraccident occupied the attention of the Court of Appeal to-day. in December William Guntrip, of Wellington, in'surance ageat, proceeded in the Palmerston North Supreme Conrt against Alfred George Cawood, of Palmerston North, taxi proprietor for £336 14s 6d special damagee ahd £1000 general damages for injuries sustained in a collision with respondept's motor-car whilo appellant was crossing Rangitikei street, Pah merston North. Appellant alleged that reSpondent ti agent, the driver of the car, failed to keep a proper look-out, failed to givc warning of the approach of his vehiclt or to stop, slow down or steer cffiar of appellant. The defehce was a general denial of these allegations, with a futther or alternativo defence, among otlxers, that appellant by his own negligence contributed to the collision. At the hearing of the triul before Mr. Justice Ostler and a jury respondent, at the close of appellant 's case, moved for judgment on a nonsnit. His Honour, after argumfent, withdrpw the case froni the jury 4n(i entered judgmept for resppndeut. The appeal was from this judgment. It w4* contended by oounsel for appellant that there was no «videnc4 of negligence ' on the part of respondent itnd that> even if there was, tho ohly rational inference was that appellant was guilty of contributory negligence. Mr. A. M. Ongley, f«r respondent, ; submitted that appellant had fqiled to ; make out a case frpm which negligence j on the parfc Qf respondent copld be real sonably iuferred, Bif Michael Myers raj.sed the question, of wketker a nonsuit should have been entered against appellant and not judgment for respondent. As to t,kis Mr, P. G. Oooke, K.G., for appellant, submitted that the autry of judgment for respondent deprivod appellant of the right to elect to be ; nbn-suit^d before judgment was entei- ' ed. ' lairther, judgment should not liavi ; beeu entered before uppollawt u;-. given the opporiunity tq eject to bu no.i. .uitod. Even if there wus powor fmter judgment for respondent it coui only be done vvhere there was conc.lii sivo proof appellant was the author oi' , l his own injuries. . I Deciaion was reservad-