HUSBAND’S LIABILITY

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18539, 9 April 1930, Page 4

HUSBAND’S LIABILITY

UNUSUAL CASE AT PALMERSTON.

By Telegraph—Press Association. PALMERSTON N., April 8. ! Is a husband liable for damages caused by his wife’s motor-car? This unique legal point was raised for the first time in New Zealand before Mr Justice Smith, at the Supreme Court to-day. At a previous sitting of the Court, ! Allan McKenzie Black, Levin, succeedj ed in a claim for damages against Mrs ! Elizabeth Macfarlane, Levin, wife of | John Macfarlane, boarding house j keeper, and was awarded £451/7/6. Yes- ; terday Mr F. H. Cooke, for plaintiff, 1 asked that the husband be joined as 1 co-defendant. I The claim arose out of a motor col- ! lision. Plaintiff, aged 18, was a pas- ! senger • in a car driven by his father ; along a side road which ran across the I main road. At an intersection a car f belonging’ to Mrs Macfarlane, and ! driven by her son, and in which she • and her husband were passengers, coli lided with Black’s car. The result was i that plaintiff was seriously injured. 1 The Court found that both drivers were j negligent and contributed to the collision. It held that plaintiff was not owning nor controlling the car in which he was being driven, was not identified ! with the negligence, and that he was not one of those debarred from claim- [ ing damages against the defendant owner. His Honour said in that decision that he did not think Black could [ have judgment against the husband separately, as he had not sued the husband and wife jointly at common law, [ | adding that a claim under the Mar- , ; ried Women’s Property Act, judgment , ! might be entered against the separate ’ i estate of Mrs Macfarlane, but liberty , ! was reserved to counsel for plaintiff to . j show cause why judgment should be * ; entered against the husband as well as . | the wife. , ■ The sitting of the Court to-day was »1 to hear this application. The case is .j of great public interest, because it ■ I directly raises the point of how far a - J husband is liable for damages caused 1 1 by his wife’s motor-car. Since the passing of the Married Women’s Pro-

perty Act, there has been great conflict of legal opinion, so much so that decisions in the Australian Commonwealth and Canada differ from that of the House of Lords, which only established a rule in great Britain by a majority of one judge. The rule laid down by the House of Lords holds that a husband is liable for his wife’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 or the Privy Council. Counsel addressed the Court on the subject for two hours, after which His Honour reserved his decision, stating that the point he had reserved had developed in scope much beyond what he had expected.