SEQUEL TO COLLISION

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 217, 13 August 1937, Page 2

SEQUEL TO COLLISION

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. JURY BLAMES BOTH PARTIES. WELLINGTON. Aug. 12. A verdict thnt the accident was caused by the. negligence of both plaintiff and defendant was returned by a .jury in the Supreme Court, Wellington, to-da.v in a case arising out of a motor collision at the intersection of the Otaki-Waikanne Beach roads in May, 1936. Plaintiff was John Kenneth Priest, farm hand, Mangamutu, who claimed £IOOO general damages and £9l 11s Gd special damages from Roy Stewart Mowat, compositor, Wellington. Mr Justice Ostler presided. Mr A. M. Ongley (Palmerston North), appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Evan Perry for defendant.

Plaintiff alleged that defendant drove his motor-ear negligently and collided with the motor-cycle plaintiff was riding. Excessive speed, failure to give way to plaintiff, who was approaching from the right,, failure to keep to the left, failure to give warning and to steer clear were alleged against defendant. Plaintiff’s skull was fractured, his nose and left arm injured, and, according to the statement of claim, his health would be permanently impaired and face permanently disfigured. Defendant denied the allegation that he had been negligent, but contended that, if it had been so, plaintiff had contributed to the accident by his negligence in riding at an execssive speed, failure to keep proper look-out. give way or stop, or keep control of the motor-cycle. Decision on a motion by Mr Parry for a nonsuit was reserved.

The jury retired at 3.45 p.m. and returned at 6 p.m. “We find that both plaintiff and defendant were guilty of negligence, but feel that plaintiff should reiceive medical expenses or out-of-pock-et expenses,” said the foreman. His Honour: By out-of-pocket expenses you mean The foreman: Hospital fees, loss of wages His Honour: What we call special damages ? The foreman: Yes, sir. His Honour: Very well, but it will have to be a recommendation.

Mr Parry said he would undertake to pass the recommendation on to the proper quarter. A part of plaintiff’s claim relating to damage to his property was tried separately before the judge alone. Defendant counter-claimed for £2l 10s 6d for repairs to his ear and £lO general damages and depreciation. Giving judgment. His Honour said: “Mv own view is that the cause of this accident was the negligence of plaintiff himself.”

Mr Ongley interposed that, the jury having found both parties negligent, the Court was in effect bound by the jury’s finding. His Honour: If I am not hound by the verdict of the .jury that means, of course, that the claim for injury to property fails and the counter-claim succeeds, but in that case I don’t propose to allow the £lO, only the £2l 0s 6d. If, on the other hand, Mr Ongley is right, the result would be that neither side could recover

His Honour entered judgment for defendant against plaintiff on the claim for damage to property, and reserved judgment on the counter-claim.