EUSTACE v. ADLEY EXPRESS CO

Double or treble damages should be reserved for cases which involve offences more serious than simple negligence. Violation of the rules of the road resulting from negligence rather than deliberate violation of the law: held not sufficient grounds for imposition of double and treble damages. Action for damages alleging negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle causing personal injuries. Trial to jury. Verdict $33,000. Motion to set aside denied. On interrogatory: Jury answered "Yes" to question whether defendant driver was negligent in not giving one half travelled portion of highway, and if so whether said negligence was proximate cause of accident. Motion for double and treble damages denied.

INGLIS, J.

The violation of the rules of the road by the defendant Murtherspauch in this case was the result simply of inadvertence on his part. On the evidence it was simply a matter of negligence and was not a deliberate violation of the law or even recklessness.

The imposition of the penalty of double or treble damages should be reserved for cases which involve offenses more serious than simple negligence. Such a penalty should be imposed only where the violation of the rules of the road has been deliberate or at least under conditions which indicate that the defendant was conducting himself with reckless disregard of the rights of others.