WHEN NOT DRIVING.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 4 March 1937, Page 3

WHEN NOT DRIVING.

OWNER’S LIABILITY. The question sometimes arises as to the liability' of the owner of a car which is not being driven by himself. It has been lie Id on several occasions that the question of control is all important. The general principle is that, in the absence of special circumstances, the lender of a motor car is not liable for injuries caused to third persons through the negligent use of the car by the borrower. Where a servant is driving the car for the purposes of the owner and an accident occurs as a result of the servant’s negligence, the injured partycan claim against the owner as wcdl as the servant, if judgment be 01-tairieu against both and one, say the ownev, pays the amount, then he is not entitled. to contribution as to half the amount from the servant and vice Versa. Merc ownership of a car per se does not involve the owner in any liability without showing that the person driving the ear is his servant or under his (the owner’s) control. Where for example the owner lends his car to hTs son and an accident occurs while the son is driving for his own purposes the owner is not liable as he has no control of the ear. Difficulties arise where there are considerations as to whether there has been any control retained by the owner so as to render him liable. The following examples illustrate the point: (1) A prospective purchaser, his "son - and the owner of a ear went for a trial run. The son drove and an accident occurred. It was held that the owner by his action in allowing the son to drive had not abandoned his right of control and was

liable. (2) The owner, who had a chauffeur permitted his son to drive provided that the chauffeur accompanied him. The owner was not in the car when an accident occurred. It was held that an inference could be drawn from the fact of the owner always insisting on his chauffeur accompanying his son that he had not given up control of his car, which he retained through his ser--

vant the chauffeur. It can thus be seen that each case resolves itself into the question as to whether the authority retained over the driver of the car is such as to show that the owner had the actual control of the car.