A LEGAL TANGLE

Hawera Star, Volume L, 6 August 1930, Page 9

A LEGAL TANGLE

HUSBAND’S RESPONSIBILITY ACTION AGAINST WIFE negligence; of latte,its AGENT. (Esv Telegraph—Press Association.) PALMERSTON N., Aug. 6.

Reserved judgment on the legal issue, involving a husband's responsibility in 1 an action for neglignece brought against his wife, in consequence of an act of a third party engaged by the wife, was delivered 1 by All* J ustice Smith. The case was one in which Allan McKenzie Black sued) Elizabeth and John Maefarlane, of Levin, for damages arising out of a. collision, defendant Elizabeth Macfarlane’s car being driven by her son. His Honour said that at the trial the hearing appeared to proceed upon the basis tnat both husband and wife were liable, and judgment was in the form claimed. Plaintiff established negligence on the part of Elizabeth Macfarjane's driver and leave was reserved lor plaintiff to show cause why judgment should not he entered against the husband as well as the wife.

in tlie course of a lengthy jmlg meat His Honour said that he was o the opinion that if it appeared that :

married woman’s liability for tort committed during inventure depended exclusively upon the legal consequences fiowin.a from the sole ownership of the chattel, independently of. her husband, such liability did not exist as common law. The husband Iliad no interest in the car in the present case and it followed that the wife was not liable, at common law for the tort alleged. It followed also that the husband could not be made liable, since at- common law he was only joined with her for conformity.

Discussing a preceding judgment in similar circumstances, His Honour said that the view expressed was that an innocent husband was liable to be sued in common law jointly with lib. wife for the actual personal negligence, of his wife while driving a vehicle, but that he was not liable to he sued for the actual personal negligence of a third party when the, wife’s liability for the negligence of that party arose only from her sole ownership of the chattel.

Judgment was entered against Elizabeth MacFarlane in respect of her separate estate for £471, and defendant John MacFarlane was dismissed from the action.