EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY.

Putaruru Press, Volume VIII, Issue 347, 17 July 1930, Page 5

EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY.

LORRY OWNER CHARGED. The question of an employer’s liability for the acts of his servants arose at the Putaruru Magistrate’s Court on Thursday, before Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., when J. A. Henry Bell (Mr. Kingsford) was charged on the information of the Matamata County Council (Mr. Lewis) with operating a motor lorry on a prohibited road, exceeding the maximum speed of such lorry, and failing to have the unladen weight inscribed on the lorry. Mr. Lewis stated that the road was muddy at the time. The offence was - looked on as serious owing to the amount of damage done to the road. Mr. Kingsford entered a plea of guilty on the technical ground that an employer stands or falls on the evidence against the driver. (Harvey Hall, a driver of one of the defendant’s lorries had been convicted: and .fined for a similar offence earjji ier in the sitting). Bell could not drive all his lorries, and he employed careful drivers, who were instructed not to drive at an excessigsf speed. If the drivers committed jsjfeaches it was against his client’s Instructions. The Magistrate said that so far as the excessive speed charge was concerned, Bell could not be held liable. To succeed on that charge the pro- ! secution would have to make clear I that the driver had driven under the [ instructions of the employer. Mr. Lewis quoted cases which he contended proved his contention that S the employer was liable. M. E. Fitzgerald gave evidence as to catching the defendant’s lorry on the road and as to the speed of the lorry. On the charge of operating the I lorry on a prohibited road, a conviction and fine of 10s with 10s costs was entered. The excessive speed charge was dismissed, no costs being allowed, whilst on the charge relative to the unladen weight a fine of

10s and costs 10s was imposed.