LEGAL PUZZLE

Manawatu Standard, Volume L, Issue 113, 9 April 1930, Page 2

LEGAL PUZZLE

DAMAGE BY WIFE’S CAR. IS HUSBAND ALSO LIABLE? An unusual case was heard in the Supreme Court at Palmerston North, yesterday, by His Honour _Mr Justice Smith. There was this unique legal point raised: “If a wife owns a car, and an nccidont occurs while lier son is driving it, can the husband be called upon to pay damages?” At a previous sititng of the Court Allan McKenzie Black, a nurseryman, of Levin, succeeded in a claim lor damages against Mrs Elizabeth MacFarlane, of Levin, wife of John Ma'cFarlane, a boardinghouse-keeper, and was awarded £471 7s Cd. Yesterday, Mr P. H. Cooke,* for plaintiff, asked that the husband bo joined as a codefendant. The claim for damages arose out of a motor collision winch occurred at the intersection of the Rongotea-Ma-kowliai Road with the. Foxton-Sanson highway. The plaintiff, aged 18, was a passenger in a car driven by his father along a side road which ran across the main road. At the intersection, a car belonging to Mrs MacFarlane and driven by her son, and in which she and her husband were passengers, collided with Mr Black’s car. The result was that plaintiff was seriously injured. The Court, after discussing the effect of rules and regulations under the Motor Vehicles Act and the effect thereof as regards individual rights and remedies, the legal incidence of the off-side rule in certain respects, and the distinction between a main road and a side road, found that both drivers were negligent and contributed to the collision. It was held that plaintiff, not owning or controlling tjio car in which he was being driven, was not identified with the negligence and that he was not one of those debarred from claiming damages against the defendant owner.

Hie Honour added in that decision that he did not think Black could have judgment against the husband as he had not sued the husband and wife jointly at common law, ,adding a claim under the Married Women’s Property Act. Judgment might be entered against the separate estate of Mrs MacFarlane, but liberty was reserved to counsel for plaintiff to show cause why judgment should be entered gainst the husband as well as the wife. The sitting of the Court yesterday was to hear this application. Although this case arose on a question of pleading, it is of great public interest, because it directly raises the point of how far .a husband is liable for damages caused by his wife’s motor-car. Since the passing of the Married Women’s Property Act there has been a great conflict of legal opinion—so much so that the decisions in the Australian Commonwealth und Canada differ from that of the House of Lords, which only established a rule laid down by the House of Lords holds the husband liable for his wile’s wrongful action. In Canada and Australia the courts have held that he is not. The matter has not directly come before the Court of Appeal in New Zealand for the Privy Council. Mr Cooke again conducted plaintiff’s case, while Mr P. E. Baldwin appeared for defendants. Counsel addressed the Court on the subject for two hours. Mr Cooke submitted that even if tne rest of the claim were -not sufficient, the prayer “and for such further or other relief as this Court shall deem the plaintiff entitled to,” which was regarded by solicitors as second to importance only to the Lord’s Prayer, sufficed to enable a joint judgment to be given. . . His Honour reserved ms decision, stating that the point he had reserved had developed in scope much beyond what he had expected. He was obliged to counsel for their exhaustive arguments.