BOY’S SHANGHAI

Greymouth Evening Star, 8 December 1945, Page 6

BOY’S SHANGHAI

HIGH COURT’SIJUDGMENT. MELBOURNE, October 15. The responsibility of parents for damages for injury done, by children formed the basis of a judgment by the High Court.' By a unanimous decision the Court held that parents or guardians could not be held responsible for injury caused by children who had been warned and had understood such warning. The case arose out of an . action brought by William Brien Smith, 14, through his next friend, John Hatherleigh Smith against Brian Leurs, 13, H. E. Leurs, and Winifred Mary Leurs, of Adelaide, for assault and negligence arising out of the possession and use by Brian Leurs of a shanghai. Smith had been hit in the eye by a stone fired from a shanghai by Brian Leurs. When the case came before Mr. Justice Mayo he awarded plaintiff £305/4/6 damages with costs. Against that decision the defendants appealed to the State Full Court of South Australia, which allowed the appeal and reversed the decision of Mr. Justice Mayo. William Brien Smith then appealed to the Full High Court against that decision. The Full High Court unanimously dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the South Australian Full Court. The Chief Justice, Sir John Latham, said that Brian Leurs was the adopted son of the other, respondents to the appeal. On December 17, 1943, he, with other boys, including William Brien Smith, had been playing a game in which two groups of boys had chased one another, had thrown dirt, stones, and apricots, and had used shanghais. Young Smith alleged that he had been struck with a stone fired from a shanghai by young Leurs, as a result of which he had lost 80 per cent, of the sight of his right eye and had had the sight of the left eye weakened, rendering it more susceptible to injury. TEST OF NEGLIGENCE -. Setting out the responsibility of parents or guardians in such cases, his Honor said that a parent, as such, was not responsible for injuries inflicted. If the child had been the servant or had acted with the authority of the parent, the parent would be liable as his employer or principal. But a person who, as a parent, had the control of the child was responsible for negligence in the exercise of that control if injury resulted. Whether there had been negligence depended on all the circumstances. A baby two years old, playing with another, should not be allowed to have a knife or a box of matches. It could be negligence to allow a particular child to have an air gun. In the present ease, the boy had been warned of the danger. He was old enough to have understood the warning, and he had been told not to use the shanghai away from home. The boy, however, had disobeyed the order.

His Honor considered that the defendants had taken all reasonable precautions which could have been reasonably expected. His Honor agreed with the opinion of the State Full Court that to prohibit absolutely the use of a shanghai by a boy- or take it away from him whenever he left home would involve setting up an impracticable and unreasonably high standard of parental duty.