OLD MAN’S INJURIES

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 617, 20 March 1929, Page 6

OLD MAN’S INJURIES

DAMAGES AWARD UPHELD

NEW TRIAL REFUSED

In a judgment delivered in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon, Mr. Justice Blair dismissed an application by the Vacuum Oil Company, Ltd. (Mr. Haddow), for a non-suit and also for a new trial on a claim for damages resulting from an accident at the intersection of Karangahape and Newton Roads last year. A motor-wagon owned by the Vacuum Company collided with a small motor-truck driven by a man named Bell, and the wreckage of the latter struck a pedestrian, Edward Campton, aged .72 (Mr. Meredith), causing him severe injury. A jury awarded Campton £750 general damages and £l9 hospital fees against the Vacuum Oil Company. Defendant denied any negligence on the part of its wagon driver, Papesh, and claimed the collision was due to neglect to keep a proper look-out on the part of the driver of the small van.

“It appears to me that there is ample evidence of negligence on Papesh’s part,” said his Honour. “The real explanation of the collision appears to be that Papesh did not trouble to look out for traffic coming from intersecting roads. Not only do I consider there was evidence of negligence on the wagon’s part, but also I would have been surprised had the jury on the evidence come to any other conclusion than that the blame for the collision w-as on the wagon. The first ground of non-suit therefore fails.” The second ground for non-suit was that the damages were too remote, and “that the intervention of a third party prevented the defendant’s negligence from being the natural and probable cause of the alleged damage.” His Honour said that, put shortly, the submission was that because the negligent wagon did not strike the plaintiff but struck another vehicle and impelled it into the plaintiff, causing him damage, the plaintiff was without remedy. He held that the injury to plaintiff was directly traceable to the wagon and was in no respect traceable to the operation of independent causes having no connection with Papesh’s acts. This ground for non-suit must therefore also fail.

With regard to the claim for a new trial on the ground that the damages were excessive, his Honour said that before the accident plaintiff was to all intents a hale old man, able to work and look after himself; after it he was a broken old man, who required more or less constant care, and who was unable to go out without having someone in attendance on him. The judge said he was not prepared to say that the jury had awarded 1 unreasonably large damages. Mr. Haddow then asked for stay of execution, as he intended to appeal. “I have not the slightest objection to the case going to appeal,” said his Honour. “The request is quite reasonable in this ease. The judge therefore granted stay of execution for 14 days “on the condition that the appeal is prosecuted with diligence.”