MOTOR DRIVER’S NEGLIGENCE

Taranaki Daily News, 14 December 1921, Page 6

MOTOR DRIVER’S NEGLIGENCE

PEDESTRIAN AWARDED £4OO. AN ACCIDENT CLAIM. The verdiet of the jury engaged In the case of Mrs. O. Terrill v. Allan Robertson in the Supreme Court, New Plymouth, yesterday morning was to the effect that defendant had been guilty of negligence, and awarded plaintiff damages as compensation for the injuries sustained through being run down by the car driven by Robertson. The accident happened at Manaia in May last, and Mrs. Terrill claimed £B5O special and general damages. In summing up, His Honor Mr. Justice Reed said that if the jury believed I plaintiff’s evidence to be true they could not say she was negligent, while defendant’s excuse was that he could not see her. Admittedly the conditions of visibility were bad on the .night of the accident, and the question was whether the care taken by Robertson was reasonable. The following issues were answered by the jury after a twenty minutes’ retirement: Was the defendant guilty of negligence in the management of his car?— Yes. v Was such negligence the cause of the accident ?—Yes. Was the plaintiff negligent?—No. If .the plaintiff was negligent, could the defendant, by the exercise of reasonable care, have avoided the accident? —Yes. If the defendant was negligent, coma plaintiff, by the exercise of reasonable care, have avoided the result of such negligence ?- Sl -No. If both were negligent, whose negligence was the approximate cause of the accident ?—Defendant’s. What damages if any is plaintiff entitled -to?—£4oo. Judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict, with costs.