Jacob v O'Hara and Ruane

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1957
• Date: 01 January 1957
• Court: Supreme Court

Supreme Court.

Jacob v. O'Hara and Ruane

CHRISTOPHER JACOB, Plaintiff and Respondent

and

THOMAS O'HARA and THOMAS RUANE,Defendants and Appellants (1)

Negligence - Contributory negligence - Stationary vehicle on highway at night prior to lighting up time - Lorry without tail light on left side of road - Lighted motor car on road near lorry and facing in opposite direction - Motor cyclist colliding with rear of lorry.

New Trial Motion.

On the 2nd of October, 1951, the plaintiff was riding his motor cycle along the highway at Rathban, from Ballina to Foxford, at 7.45 p.m. Lighting up time on that day was at 8.3 p.m. The second-named defendant was proceeding in the opposite direction and as he was proceeding he became worried about his lights and pulled up to put them on. He had his daughter in the car with him at the time. His reason for being anxious about his lights arose from the fact that he had seen cars passing in both directions with either headlamps or parking lights on. He appeared to be unfamiliar with the car he was driving and was not at first able to discover the switch which controlled the lights and requested his daughter to stop an approaching lorry for assistance. The lorry was proceeding from Ballina towards Foxford. Miss Ruane held up the lorry which pulled up and which incidentally had its lights on. The driver agreed to assist the second-named defendant with his lights but owing to the narrowness of the road—at this point 16 ft. 10 ins. wide—he drove the lorry on in the direction in which he was proceeding, going approximately 128 feet away from the second-named defendant's car. The driver then got

out and went back and helped Senator Ruane with his lights which were put on and the driver of the lorry then proceeded back to his lorry. In the meantime the plaintiff appeared in the distance. The road at this point was straight for a considerable distance. The plaintiff was unable to give an account of what happened beyond the fact that about 100 yards from Senator Ruane's car, that is, before he had passed it, he dimmed his lights, hoping for a response from Senator Ruane but received none. At the time when his memory lapsed his impression was that Senator Ruane's car had the lights full on. The plaintiff proceeded on and passed out of the glare of the lights, passed Senator Ruane's car and struck the rear of the lorry with considerable violence. The lorry occupied about 7 feet 7 inches of the road and was drawn up close to the grass margin. The jury found Senator Ruane guilty of negligence and the lorry driver also guilty of negligence.

The defendants requested the trial Judge to withdraw the case from the jury on two grounds:—

(a) that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants, or either of them, and

(b) the jury could not escape giving a verdict of contributory negligence against the plaintiff.

The Judge refused this request and left the case to the jury who found in favour of the plaintiff and assessed damages at £1,050.

From that verdict and the order thereon the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. The grounds of appeal of the second-named defendant were as follows:—

1. That the learned trial Judge misdirected himself in law and in fact in refusing to accede to the application by counsel for the defendant for a direction in his favour on the grounds:—

(a) that at the close of...