Hayden v McQuillan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 15 May 1930
• Date: 15 May 1930
• Court: Supreme Court (Irish Free State)

Hayden v. M'Quillan.

ANNIE HAYDEN

Plaintiff

and

JOHN J. M'QUILLAN, Defendant (1)

Supreme Court.

Negligence - Personal injuries - Contributory negligence - Simultaneous

negligence.

When an accident is caused by the simultaneous negligence of two people, neither of whom has time or opportunity to avoid it, neither can recover damages at common law.

The plaintiff, in order to cross the road, passed in front of a Stationary omnibus which was standing by the footpath. She had passed the front of the omnibus when she was struck by the defendant's motor car which had come up alongside the omnibus. She sustained injuries and brought an action for damages for negligence. There was evidence at the trial that the defendant's motor car had passed close to the omnibus and that the plaintiff did not look in the direction from which the motor car was coming. The jury found that the defendant was guilty of negligence and that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, but that notwithstanding the plaintiff's contributory negligence the defendant could have avoided the occurrence by the exercise of reasonable care; and they assessed damages.

Held by the Supreme Court that there was no evidence to sustain the finding of the jury that the defendant could have avoided injuring the plaintiff after she had, by her own negligent act, placed herself in his way; that this question should not have been submitted to the jury; and that, as there was no evidence to suggest the affirmative answer to it, that answer, and the verdict for the plaintiff based upon it, should be set aside.

Application on behalf of the defendant for an order that the verdict and judgment entered for the plaintiff at the trial of the action before Hanna J. and a jury be set aside, and that judgment be entered for the defendant with costs; or, alternatively, for a new trial.

The plaintiff, Annie Hayden, claimed damages for injuries occasioned by the negligence of the defendant in the control and management of a motor car. The defendant denied that he was negligent, and alleged that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The facts of the case have been summarised in the head-note, and the material portions of the evidence are set out in the judgment of FitzGibbon J.

The action was heard before Hanna J. and a jury. The questions which the trial Judge put to the jury, with the answers of the jury, were as follows:—

"1. Was the defendant guilty of negligence?" Answer—"Yes."

"2. Was the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence?"Answer—"Yes."

"3. Notwithstanding the plaintiff's contributory negligence, could the defendant have avoided the occurrence by the exercise of reasonable care?" Answer—"Yes."

The jury assessed damages at £510, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for that amount.

The grounds of the application to the Supreme Court on behalf of the defendant were that the learned Judge should have acceded to the...