Wade v Hegarty

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Kingsmill Moore J.,Maguire C.J.,Maguire J.:-
• Judgment Date: 13 July 1960
• Neutral Citation: 1930 WJSC-HC 1119
• Court: High Court
• Date: 13 July 1960

1930 WJSC-HC 1119

Wade v. Hegarty

Revised

WADE

V

HEGARTY

1 Kingsmill Moore J.13th July 1960

2 The plaintiff was successful in an action against the defendant being awarded £1,060 damages for personal injuries caused by a collision with the motor scooter ridden by the defendant. The jury found both defendant and plaintiff guilty of negligence but answered the "third question" in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant appeals against this verdict and the substantial grounds of the appeal is that the evidence did not warrant the trial judge in leaving the "third question."

3 Even more difficulty than usual exists in ascertaining what facts were proved or what the evidence purports to assert. Plaintiff, defendant, and the only other witness to the accident were deaf-mutes whose evidence had to be given with the assistance of relatives who acted as interpreters by means of sign language. They were not trained interpreters and seem sometimes to have conveyed what they considered to be the gist of the question or answer rather than the exact words, and sometimes to have gone further and explained what they thought thewitnesswould have wanted to say if he had understood the question, which he had not. In saying this I am casting not the slightext reflection on their integrity, rather am I convinced that they were most anxious to help in every way. They merely lacked experience of interpretation and courtprocedure.

4 The cardinal facts appear to be as follows. Plaintiff and a man named Horan, a friend, of hers, were returning about 11.15 p.m. from a meeting of a deaf-mute club, and were crossing a street 25 feet 6 inches wide. Plaintiff has no recollection of anything that happened after she left the pavement. Horan's statement is that both walked across the road and when they had got to within three or four feet of the opposite footpath he first became aware of the defendant approaching from his left on a motor scooter. He stopped, but the plaintiff walked straight on. The motor cyclist also came on with the result that the plaintiff walked into the side of the scooter just at the front of the back wheel. The scooter fell on the footpath with the defendant still astride it and the plaintiff on top of both.

5 It was accepted by Counsel that the plaintiff andHoran at the moment when Horan stopped cannot have been as close to the footpath as he states. More probably they were near the centre of the road as is indicated by the defendant's account. The defendant does not say whether he saw the plaintiff stop or not but he does say he got the impression that the plaintiff and Horan were both going to stop and give him the right of way when they were about the centre of the road. He says that the next time he was aware of anything in his path was when he saw the plaintiff only about five yards away from him walking to the footpath. When he first saw the figures he had reduced his speed to about 12 m.p.h. When he saw the figure five yards away he applied his brakes and swerved to the left.

6 Now if the fact be that the lady walked across and into him without even looking, she is guilty of negligence right up to the last moment; and as she cannot show some negligence on the part of the Defendant after his negligence had ceased the third question does not arise unless the circumstances bring the case within Gaffney v D.O.T.C. The principle of Gaffney is that if the Defendant knows that the plaintiff is acting in a negligent way which willcause an accident if continued and if he can do anything to avoid the consequences of the plaintiff's negligence if continued then the must do all he reasonably can. If the defendant only became aware of the plaintiff walking across his path when only give yards away, then there is no room for a "third question" even on Gaffney'sCase for he had not time or space to avoid her. If, on the other hand, he became aware of the plaintiff when she was twelve yards away and was not sure that she had stopped, when he was bound to anticipate that her negligent...