HUSBANDS LIABILITY

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17230, 9 April 1930, Page 12

HUSBANDS LIABILITY

ACTIONS OF WIFE SEQUEL TO MOTOR SMASH A NoVKIj LKGAL L'GTXT ii (Per Pros* Association.) I'ALMLRSTOX \.. last night. "h :i husband liable for damages " caused by Ins wife's motor* car?" This ■' cnnpie legal point, raised for I lie first 1 (hik- in New Zealand, came before Mr. •luslirc Smith al a silting of tlui ' Supreme Court (o-dav. At I lie previous sitting of (he court, " Allon UiKenzic Mhu-k, nurseryman, Le\in, succeeded in a claim for dam- [ age.- against Mi-. L'li/inoih MeKarlane, *j Levin, wife of John Mcl-'arlane. hoardiuglmiise keeper, and iv;is awarded M7l 7s (id. Veslerday. Mr. P. I!. Cooler. lor plaintiff, aske ! thai the husband ho joined as n> defendant. The elaiin for t damages arose mil of a motor collision which oeenrred at the intersection of the IV.ngotea -Makowhai mad with the .! Koxlon Sanson highway. Plaintiff, aged ' 19 years, was a passenger in a ear driven by his lather along a side road which , ran across (he mam road. At the inter- ) section, a car belonging to Mrs. Me. . Carbine, and driven liy her son. and in , v. Inch she and her husband were pas?engeis. collided with Black's car. The j resnll was that plaintiff was seriously I injured. The court, alter discussing (lie i■■fleet I of (he rules and regulations under fhn , Motor Vehicles Act and the effect therepi as regards individual rights and rcme . dies ; nd the legal incidence of the off- , side rule in certain respects and (lie disI tinetion he.tween a main road and a side . road, found that both drivers were negliI gent and contributed to the collision. It , was held thai plaintiff, not owning nor cont rolling a car in which he was beiuf driven, was not.identified with the negligence and that he was not one of those debarred from claiming damages against , the defendant owner. WIDE QUESTION INVOLVE!) His Honor added that he did not think that lilack could have judgment against the husband separately, as be had not sued husband and wife jointly at common law. adding a efaim under the I Married Women's Properly Act. .'Judgment niigjit he entered agaiusi the separate estate of Mrs. MeFarlane. but liberty was reserved to counsel for plaintiff to show cause why judgment should be entered against the husband as well as the wife. The sitting of the court \eslcrday was to hear this application, although the case arose on the quest ion of the pleadings, it is of great public interest because if directly raises the point of how far a husband is Hahle for damages caused by *his wife's motor car. Since. the passing of the Married Women's I Property Act, there lias been a great conflict of legal opinion, so much so that ! decisions in the. Australian Comir.ouj wealth and Canada differ fr-m that of the House of Lords, which established a. rule in Ureal lb itain by the irreducible majority of one judge. The rule laid down 'by the House' of Lords holds (bat' a husband is liable for bis wife's Wrongful action. In Canada and Australia the courts have held that- be is not. The matter has not directly come before the Court-of Appeal in. New Zealand or the Privy ('otincif. b'oiinsel addressed the court on the subject for two hours, after which His Honor reserved decision, stating that the point he had reserved bad developed in scope much beyond what be, bad axpeeled.