HUSBAND’S LIABILITIES

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 943, 9 April 1930, Page 16

HUSBAND’S LIABILITIES

WIFE’S CAR IN ACCIDENT INJURED MAN’S CLAIM Press Association PALMERSTON N., Tuesday. The question whether a husband is liable for damages caused by his wife’s motor-car was raised before Mr: Justice Smith in the Supreme Court today. It was stated that this was the first time the point had been raised in New Zealand. At a previous sitting of the court, Allan McKenzie Black, nurseryman, of Levin, succeeded in a claim for damages against Mrs. Elizabeth MacFarlane, of Levin, wife of John MacFarlane, boardinghousekeeper, and was awarded £471 7s 6d. Today, Mr. F. H. Cooke, for plaintiff, asked that the husband be joined as co-defendant. The claim for damages arose out of a motor collision which occurred at an intersection. The plaintiff, who is 18 years of age, was a passenger in a car driven by his father along a side road which ran- across a main road. At the intersection a car belonging to Mrs. MacFarlane, and driven by her son, and in which she and her husband were passengers, collided with Black’s car. The - result was that plaintiff was seriously injured. The court, after discussing the effect of rules and regulations under the Motor Vehicles Act, found that both drivers were negligent, and contributed to the collision. The court held that plaintiff, not owning nor controlling the car in which he was being driven, was not identified with the negligence, and that he was not one of those debarred from claiming damages against a defendant owner. His Honour added in that decision he did not think Black could have judgment l against defendant’s husband separately, as he had not sued husband and wife jointly at common law, adding a claim under the Married VA>men’s Property Act. Judgment might be entered against the separate estate of Mrs. MacFarlane, but the liberty was reserved to counsel for plaintiff to show cause why judgment should be entered against the husband as well as the wife. The sitting of the court today was to hear this application. The case directly raises the point of how far a husband is liable for damages caused by his wife’s motor-car. Since the passing of the Married Women’s Property Act, there has been a great conflict of legal opinion. Counsel addressed the court on the subject for two hours, after which his Honour reserved decision, stating that the point he reserved had developed in scope much beyond what he expected.