MOTOR-LORRY ACCIDENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19328, 15 May 1926, Page 14

MOTOR-LORRY ACCIDENT.

AN UNLICENSED DRIVER. CASE AGAINST OWNER FAILS. Judgment was given by Mr. J. W. Poynton, C.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday in an action arising out of an accident in Manukau Road, when the plaintiff, J. W. Atkinson (Mr. Sullivan), was knocked down by a motor-lorry owned by the defendant, C. E. 11. Gilbert (Mr. Gould), and driven by his son. Plaintiff claimed £34 special damages and £155 general damages. • The magistrate said defendant was the owner of a lorry and lent, it to a young friend. H. Keast, a licensed driver, The owner's son, a boy of 15, without the owner's knowledge, got into the lorry and was allowed to drive. While he was driving plaintiff was struck. The evidence was conflicting, but he found there was negligence. He had then to decide whether the owner was liable. He was not in control of, or in the lorry, but had lent it to a competent driver. The son was not licensed but could drive. It was argued that Keast was in the position of a servant of the owner. The magistrate said that when tiie owner lent his car to the driver Keast, he parted with the possession and control of it for the time being, and as long as the driver was competent to drive negligence did not arise, on the part of the owner. Had the driver been using the car in the interests of the owner it would have been quite different. He therefore held that the owner of the car was not liable. Judgment was given for defendant with costs. Security for appeal was fixed at £2O. plus costs. In addition an application was made toward the conclusion of the hearing of the case to have Keast joined as defendant. The magistrate said that if the application were granted Keast would say he had not been treated fairly. He was called as a witness only, the claim being against another man. He was not in a position to cross-examine any witness or call evidence. When all the evidence was taken and judgment was about to bo given it was proposed to put him in the place of the defendant and make him the person to blame. He should bo given a chance to defend himself. The rules for joining plaintiffs and defendants did not apply where an injustice might be done, and the application would be dismissed, the magistrate adding that another action could be brought against Keast if desired.