MOTOR COLLISION.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 August 1922, Page 2

MOTOR COLLISION.

CROFTS—JOHNSTON CASE., VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT. The hearing of the claim brought by Mrs. E. M. Crofts against Herbert H. Johnston, motor proprietor, Waitara, for £lOBO 4s for general and specific damages arising out of a motor <jdllision on the Urenui road, reached finality- yesterday, at the Supreme Court at New Plymouth, when, after a retirement o.fover three hours, a majority verdict was returned by the jury for the defendant. During the morning the jury visited the scene of the collision, and oh their return’ were addressed by counsel, who traversed the evidence at, Ingfh. ' . In summing up, -fiis..Hpnor’ Wr. Jue.tlee Chapman said that the . evidence would be fresh in the recollection of the jury, and having heard the addresses ..of. counsel and inspected the grounds he .did not think he could assist them;-, much with regard to the facts. The question was really purely a question of fact, and the less he, as Judge, said about the facts the 'better. His duty fell in pointing out where the onus lay. They had been told several times that the question was whether Campbell was negligent in such a sense that his negligence brought about the collision and so plaintiff’s injuries. It was not a question between Campbell’s employer, Johnston, and Greenwood. If it Were such an action a different situation would arise, because our law on contributory negligence was very difficult. Where two persons are both negligent, each of them was responsible for the consequences. The suggestion was that Greenwood was not negligent. Whether Campbell was negligent was for the jury to say. The question was whether Johnston’s servant, by his contributory negligence, brought about the injuries to the plaintiff.

His Honor said the 'by-law relating to road traffic was really little more than common-sense. The rule was that the driver kept to the left and must give room to the right for vehicles to pass. It was not always possible for a driver to hug the bank, and it was not sufficient for a man to say that he kept to hie side of the road. His Honor then proceeded to review portions of the evidence.

The jury retired at 12.50, and returned at 4 o'clock with a majority verdict for defendant.

After hearing the verdict of the jury, His Honor entered judgment for the defendant, with costs as per scale on the amount claimed, disbursements and witnesses’ expenses to be fixed by the Registrar. Costs would also be allowed on a two days’ trial at £l5 15s, a third day at £lO 10s, and a fourth day at £l5 15s.