OWNER’S LIABILITY

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 187, 4 May 1940, Page 8

OWNER’S LIABILITY

Negligence Of Person Who Steals Motor-Vehicle DECISION OF JUDGE The question whether or not the extension by section 3 of the MotorVehicles Insurance (Third-Party Risks) Act, 102 S, of the liability of an owner of a motor-vehicle makes such owner liable where death or injury is caused by the negligence of a person who has stolen the vehicle and is driving it without the owner’s authority, was referred to by the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, in a judgment in the Court of Appeal, Wellington, yesterday. . , The Chief Justice said there had never been any actual decision 011 that point. “In the present case the point lias been fully argued and I am satisfied that the section does cover the case of an injury caused by the negligent use of a motor-vehicle by a person who had stolen the vehicle and was in charge of it at the time,” he said. “The relevant words of the section are these: ‘For the purposes of this Act and of every contract of insurance thereunder every person other than the owner who is at any time in charge of a motorvehicle whether with the authority of the owner or not shall be deemed to be the authorized agent of the owner acting within the scope of bis authority in relation to such motor-vehicle.’ “In my opinion, the word ‘authority’ means no more than ‘permission’ or ‘sanction,’ with the result that a person who is in charge of a motor-vehicle, whether with the permission of the owner or not, is deemed to be the authorized agent of the owner acting within the scope of his authority in relation to the motor-vehicle. To read the word ‘authority’ as counsel for defendants ask that it should be read involves not only giving the word a limited meaning which I think is not justifiable, but also—according to the contention of counsel for defendants themselves—inserting the word ‘lawful’ before the word ‘charge’ in that part of section 3 that I have quoted.”