RIDES FOR CHILDREN

King Country Chronicle, Volume XXVIII, Issue 4605, 4 October 1934, Page 5

RIDES FOR CHILDREN

QUESTION OF INJURY. LORRY OWNER NOT LIABLE. The fascination for a child of six of a ride on the running-board of a lorry, the kind-heartedness of the driver of the lorry, and the falling off of the child on to the roadway, were incidents which have caused a great deal of litigation. The child sustained a broken thigh, and damages were awarded in the Wellington Magistrate's Court against the Direct Aerated Water Supply, Limited. The appeal of the company against the judgment in favour of Francis H. McCutcheon and lan A. McCutcheoh was upheld by Mr. Justice Blair in the Supreme Court in his judgment delivered on Monday. The matter had been before the Magistrates' Court twice and before the Supreme Court once. Mr. Justice Blair confined his judgment to the second hearing before the Magistrate from wh se judgment the appeal was brought. "The question is whether an employer of a driver is liable for acts of the driver, because of a fondness for children or just because of his good nature, gives them a ride," said his Honour. "If the driver invites a child to take a ride, is the employer liable because that invitation is to ride on a dangerous part of the vehicle. That is the negligence of which Killick (the driver) was, in my opinion, properly convicted by the Magistrate. . . . It is to my mind

clear that under those circumstances the employer is not liable." The appeal was allowed and the judgment so far as it concerned the company was reversed. Costs £7 7s were allowed on the appeal. The case w'as remitted to the Magistrate's Court to fix the appellant's costs there in respect to both trials.