DAMAGES AWARDED

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIX, Issue 245, 14 September 1929, Page 2

DAMAGES AWARDED

AMOUNT OF £471 7s 6d. SEQUEL TO COLLISION. Damages amounting to £471 #3 6d lmvc been ' awarded plaintiff by Mr Justice Smith in a reserved judgment delivered on the claim made by Allan McKenzie Blaciv, through liis guardian ad litem, Peter Black, against Elizabeth and John MacFarlano, of Levin, as defendants. The claim was the sequel to a motor collision and the case was heard at the last session of the Supreme Court in Palmerston North. Mr F. H. Cooke appeared for plaintiff and Mr H. F. Johnston (Wellington) for defendant. The. judgment sot out that, on April 1, 1929, plaintiff was a passenger in a motor-car driven by his father, Peter Black, along the side road leading from Rongotea. The other occupants of the car were Mrs Black, seated in front beside her husband, and a young lady sitting in the back with plaintiff. Plaintiff’s car approached the intersection of the road with the Foxton-Sanson Road. It was incapable of travelling more than thirty miles an hour, owing to a defect in the ignition system. At the corner a collision occurred with a large car driven by defendant’s son. His Honour found that the latter vehicle was travelling at a speed of more than forty miles an hour when its driver first saw Black’s car approaching. It was clear, he said, that the latter car was travelling too quickly to permit the driver to stop within a few feet, and it was clear, also, that the other car was travelling too fast to prevent a collision if Black’s car came across the road. Plaintiff’s driver, realising that he could not stop, released his brakes and allowed his car to travel forward across the road in the hope of clearing the other. He actually travelled 27 feet before he was struck. The speed of the other car was too great to allow the driver to steer to the right and pass. In the accident plaintiff’s eye was injured, His Honour continued. Ho was 18 years of age and lie brought the action by his father as guardian ad litem, claiming special and general damages against the defendant, Elizabeth McFarlane, as the owner of the other car, and against the defendant, John McFarlane, as her husband. Plaintiff contended that the collision was caused by the negligence of defendants’ driver ill not keeping a proper look-ont, driving at an. excessive speed, and failing to observe the “offside” rule of giving way to the traffic approaching from the right. The defendants denied the allegation of negligence and contended that the collision was duo to the excessive speed of the car in which plaintiff was riding, and to the failure of the driver of plaintiff’s car to keep a proper lookout, to give warning of his approach, and to observe the rules of the road. The defendants further contended that, if they were guilty of negligence, then the negligence of the driver of the car in which plaintiff was travelling amounted to contributory negligence for which plaintiff was responsible. His Honour found that no warning was given by either driver. As to keeping a proper look-out, ill his opinion, neither driver saw the other as soon as lie should liavo done. His Honour found that both drivers were guilty of negligence contributing to the collision, which must have occurred in two seconds after the cars sighted each other. Upon careful consideration of the evidence, he was unable to say that there was a sufficient separation of time, place or circumstance between the negligent management of defendants’ car and that of plaintiff to make it right to treat the negligence of either as the sole cause of the collision. The collision was due to the negligence of each driver, mainly in driving on to that intersection at an excessive speed, and to some extent in failing at the intersection to sound the horn or keep a proper look-out, and neither driver (nor any owner responsible for the driver) could recover from the other. PLAINTIFF’S RIGHTS. The next question was the right of plaintiff to recover from the defendants. The question was whether plaintiff was responsible for the negligence of his father, who was his driver. If it was clear that ho was a passenger for hire, he would not be debarreu from recovering against defendants by the contributory negligence of his father, apart, of course, from any power of control otherwise arising. Mere family relationship such as existed m that caso did not identity any member of the family with the negligence of another member. Defendant's driver and plaintiff's driver were not joint wrong-doers. They were each independently negligent. The defendant, Elizabeth McFarlane, being responsible for her son’s negligence, was liable for the damage done to persons not identified with her son’s negligence, and not debarred by contributory negligence from claiming against her. The same principle of liability applied, of course, to plaintiff’s father as a negligent owner and driver. Plaintiff was one of those not debarred from claiming against defendant. . On the question of damages, His Honour found that plaintiff was entitled to special damages as follows: Privat 3 hospital, £23 2s; medical attendance, £4B 3s (3d; a total of £7l 5s (id. With regard to general damages, the evidence before him was that plaintiff had suffered a disability of 75 per cent, of the sight of Ins right eye. There was not, ho thought, great disfigurement, but the loss of sight was permanent. Taking into account all the circumstances, including pain and shock, ho awarded plaintiff £4OO general damages. . Judgment was given for plaintiff for the sum of £471 Vs (3d, with witnesses’ expenses and disbursements to bo fixed by the Registrar.