Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MOTOR COLLISION.

QUESTION OF NEGLIGENCE. AN EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY. Judgment in a motor collision case, which was heard in the New Plymouth Court some weeks ago, was delivered by Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M., yesterday. Snelling and Andrews claimed damages amounting to £95 8s 6d, from the Egmont County Council and Charles R. Pease, alleging that on September 5 Pease, who was then county' engineer, drove a car in such a negligent manner as to come into contact with plaintiff's t mail ’lbus. The claim was made up of i two items, namely, £35 8s Gd, cost of | repairs, and loss of earnings for 27 runI uing days £6O. i At the original hearing the Magistrate held that the accident had .been due to the negligence of Pease, the point being reserved as to whether or not at the time of the accident Pease was acting in the capacity of his employment as engineer to the county. The question of the amount of damages to be recovered was also reserved pending decision on the other point. The Magistrate said it had been admitted by counsel for the defendant council, that on the day of the accident the defendant Pease was in the employment of the council, and also that the car in which he was driving when the collision took place was the property of the council, but it was contended that when the accident happened Pease was not acting in the capacity of his employment as engineer to the county. It was admitted that the council was responsible for the upkeep of the car, and also provided a garage for it on county property, and that Pease was in no way restricted in his use of the car, and had absolute control of it. After reviewing the evidence the Magistrate said lie had comp to the conclusion that Pease was at the time acting in the capacity of his employment and that judgment must go against defendants. He therefore gave judgment accordingly for the sum of £46 6s 3d, costs £7 Ils (witnesses’ expenses to be arranged between the parties and the clerk of the court). Mr. A. A. Bennett, who appeared for the county, said he would have to report the judgment, and pending the decision of the council as to whether they wished to appeal he asked the court to fix security for appeal, which the Magistrate did at a sum sufficient to cover the amount of the judgment, plus seven guineas. Mr. T. P. Anderson represented the plaintiffs at the hearing.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19220428.2.75

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Taranaki Daily News, 28 April 1922, Page 7

Word count
Tapeke kupu
424

MOTOR COLLISION. Taranaki Daily News, 28 April 1922, Page 7

MOTOR COLLISION. Taranaki Daily News, 28 April 1922, Page 7

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert