MOTOR LIABILITY

Hokitika Guardian, 27 March 1930, Page 3

MOTOR LIABILITY

A FLAW IN THE LAW. By Telegraph—Per Press Association..) NEW PLYMOUTH, March ‘.’6. Whether the father is liable to pay damages sustained through 1 the- collision of his car driven by his daughter with another car, was a point involved for de j ision in qn appeal a gams', tho decision qf the Magistrate that 0. A. P. Wood must pay £‘295 to Andrew Frey lie and Thomas B. I'Teyue. Cars driven by Miss Wood (aged 18) and Freyne collided with heavy damage to each. The Magistrate held Miss "Wood’s negligence caused the collision, and awarded Freyne damages.

Mr Jusice Heed, in his reserved judgment on the appeal said tlie question was whether the appellant endd be bo-ld responsible for the damages. The jpoiiit 'was whether she could be held -o' the agent or servant of her' father. The ease of the Timaru Borough Oeuneil versus Squinv had been the precedent on which the Magistrate had held she was the agent or serv ;nt. Mr Justice lteed said that since the Timaru decision had been given the circumstances had changed. In modern usage the -father’s ear became 'the families’ ear, and was driven by -various members. If. therefore, when a youth -was driving his father’s car he was' on his own frolic, the law should not presume to the contrary. It was desirable that parent"-' should he held responsible for the negligence of their children wnen in charge of the parents’ car. It vas the business of the Legislative to say so, and the Courts should not be inquired to enter into a microscopical examination of the evidence to see if it were possible to pick out someth in<r from which it might be inferred that the child was on the father’s business when the negligence occurred. The appeal was upheld, and as an important question of law was involved, leave was granted to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Mr Justice Reed-added his opinion that the Magistrate, was justified in finding Miss W-od’s-negligence responsible for the collision.-