McGreene v Hihernian Taxi Company (No. 2)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 04 May 1931
• Date: 04 May 1931
• Court: Supreme Court (Irish Free State)

Supreme Court.

M'Greene v. Hibernian Taxi Co. (No. 2).

GERTRUDE M'GREENE

Plaintiff

and

THE HIBERNIAN TAXI COMPANY, Defendants (No. 2) (1)

Negligence - Personal injuries - Acting for damages - Application for new trial - Action already tried twice - Damages awarded on second trial greater than amount claimed - Practice.

Application on behalf of the defendants for an order that the verdict and judgment entered at the trial of the action for the plaintiff by O'Byrne J., with a jury, be set aside with costs, and that in lieu thereof judgment be entered for the defendants with costs; or, in the alternative, that a new trial be ordered, on the grounds: 1, that the said verdict was against the evidence, contrary to the evidence, and against the weight of evidence; 2, that the damages awarded were excessive; and 3, that the trial was unsatisfactory.

The facts of the case, in reference to the first trial of the action, have been already reported, ante, p. 319. The action was tried on the second occasion by O'Byrne J., with a jury, on the 11th and 12th February, 1931, and the following were the questions left to the jury and their answers thereto:—

"1. Was the bus stationary when the plaintiff attempted to enter it?" "Yes."

"2. If the answer to the first question is 'Yes,' was the bus started while the plaintiff was attempting to enter it?""Yes."

"3. Were the defendants' servants negligent in so starting the bus?" "Yes."

"4. Were the injuries to the plaintiff caused by such negligence?" "Yes."

"5. Assess damages." "£3,500."

The amount awarded by the jury exceeded by £500 the amount claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, upon the day after the trial, applied for liberty to amend the claim, so that it should conform with the verdict. After argument, O'Byrne J. reserved his judgment upon this application until the 16th February, 1931, when he granted the application.

The plaintiff obtained a verdict for damages for personal injuries occasioned to her by the negligence of the defendants. The action was tried by a Judge and jury. On the application of the defendants, a new trial was ordered, on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. On the second trial the plaintiff was again awarded damages (a larger sum and more than plaintiff claimed). The defendants thereupon applied for another new trial.

Held, that the application must be refused, as the credibility of witnesses was peculiarly a jury matter, and the fact that the case had...