SUPREME COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 206, 31 July 1937, Page 11

SUPREME COURT

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF. The hearing was concluded, before His Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, and a jury of twelve, in the Supreme Court at Palmerston North yesterday afternoon, of the ease in which Stanley Robert Silk, farm manager, of Foxton, proceeded against Thomas Ropoama, slaughterman, of Shannon, claiming £202 16s special and £2OOO general damages, as the outcome of a collision between cars driven by the parties named at the bridge crossing the Mangaore Stream on the Shannon-Foxton ltoad on December 24, 1936.

Sir H. R. Cooper, with him Mr M. B. Bergin (Foxton), appeared for plaintiff, and Mr H. F. O’Leary, K.C. (Wellington), with him Mr K. N. Strothers, for defendant. Other counsel attending, because of the circumstances of which an intimation was given by His Honour, were Mr M.,H. Oram and Hon. Perry (Wellington).

Constable R. J. Boyd, of Shannon, gave evidence that Ropoama, a very short time after the collision, was perfectly sober. Evidence was also submitted by witness as to marks on the road. He said they showed that plaintiff was on the wrong side of the road going over the bridge, just prior to the collision.

Mr John Miller, F.R.C.S.E., submitted evidence that plaintiff noiv suffered no disability. Witness detailed the present condition of Mrs Silk, and said that an arthritic condition was possible in the future in a knee which had been injured. A definite statement could not bo made on that point. That concluded the case for the dofence.

Addressing the jury, Mr H. F. O’Leary, K.C. (with whom appeared Mr K. N. Struthers) submitted for defendant that the damages were excessive. Plaintiff, he submitted, was not entitled to damages, because he had come from the wrong side of the road and the collision had been entirely due to his negligence. Honest as lie was, plaintiff did not know what had taken place, Mr O’Leary submitted.

For plaintiff, Mr H. R. Cooper (with whom Mr M. B. Bergin appeared) explained that had the solicitors had before them earlier the medical evidence now available (Mrs Silk having made “a wonderful recovery”) the general damages claimed in respect of Mrs Silk’s injuries (which had and were expected to prevent her carrying out her full household duties) would have been less. The jury were finite entitled to reduce that sum to whatever amount they thought proper. Mr Cooper submitted that defendant was on the wrong side of the road, 150 yards from the point of collision. Further defendant’s car had travelled further than plaintiff’s in a given time, indicating greater speed. His Honour, in summing up, stated that although juries had not a monopoly of sympathy, they had to guard against allowing that unconsciously or consciously to sway their judgment. It would be an injustice particularly if that occurred in this case, the outcome of which would determine other proceedings which were pending. His Honour urged the jury to weigh the circumstances very carefully before arriving at their decision. Counsel had not touched during the case on one possibility, but, on tho hypothesis that the possibility was open, if the facts showed that "both parties were negligent the jury had to consider which had the last opportunity of avoiding the accident. Commenting that it had been admitted that the damages claimed were excessive, His Honour said they had been estimated some months ago, when it was not known when defendant was likely to make a full recovery. He was not entitled to claim for any personal loss, suffering or injury to his wife, who was bringing her own action, but only for tlvtrnoney value of the loss of services which, as his wife, he could expect her to give. The jury retired at 2.30 p.m. and after about two hours brought in a ■Verdict awarding plaintiff £350 general and £202 16s special damages, judgment being entered accordingly.