UNUSUAL CLAIM BY CROWN

Greymouth Evening Star, 22 March 1935, Page 5

UNUSUAL CLAIM BY CROWN

R.A.F. MEN INJURED.

LONDON, February 9

A claim by the Crown for the loss of the services of two R.A.F. aircraftmen who -were injured in a motor-car accident was argued successfully before Mr Justice MacKinnon in the King’s Bench Division yesterday. It was stated that claims of the kind dated back to the time when the basis of society was one of status and not of contract.

The claim for £326 was put forward by the Attorney-General “for our sovereign Lord the King” in a Latin “information” against Frederick William Valle-Jones. It was stated that a Latin “information” was preferred to an English “information” because it was considered less oppressive.

Mr Valle-Jones .disputed liability to the Crown. He has already paid £1,500 damages to one of the injured men. After hearing Sir Donald Somervell, Solicitor-General, in support of the claim, and Mr J. Alan Bell, for ValleJones, Mr Justice MacKinnon, giving judgment, said the case was the sequel to an accident on December 5, 1930, when a motor-lorry driven by a servant of Mr Valle-Jones ran into a motor-cycle ridden by two aircraftmen. The aircraftmen recovered damages, but these could- not include loss of pay by the R.A.F., for this was not discontinued during incapacity. Nor could they include the expenses of treatment in a nursing home or hospital.

AN OLD PRINCIPLE.

The present claim by the Crown -was in respect of these two matters, and was founded on an old common law principle. “There is no doubt,” said the judge, “that the right of action by a master for the loss of the services of a servant has been recognised from quite early times.” Where an employer continued to pay an injured man’s wages the amount of the wages was prima facie the amount of the damage. Though it could not be shown extra men were recruited or that extra payment was made to anyone else, the Crown was entitled to recover that amount. With reference to hospital treatment the claim was even more simple. The Crown claimed moneys expended.

If the men had been dismissed the Service, or if their pay had been suspended directly they were injured, they would themselves have had a claim for loss of wages against Mr Valle-Jones. If they had been treated in institutions other than those of the R.A.F. the aircraftmen would have had a claim accordingly for the expense incurred. Thus liability of Mr Valle-Jones would only have been transferred. It was not unreasonable for the Crown to make the claim they did, and there, would be judgment for the amount claimed. Judgment was accordingly entered for the Crown for £326 18/8, with costs.