MOTOR ACCIDENT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 123, 26 May 1936, Page 8

MOTOR ACCIDENT

WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY? ABSENCE OF NEGLIGENCE IMPOETANT JUDGMENT [ Per Press Association. ] AUCKLAND, May 25. A judgment issued by Mr Justice Blair has decided the impHtant question of legal responsibility for an accident caused by a motor-car. The case was a claim for damages which was brought by Klien Armstrong against .Eric Jordan and it occupied inree days before Mr Justi'ce Blair in the Supreme Court last February. His Honour has decided that defendant is not liable. His Honour said: “Plaintiff on April 3, 1935, while walking along a footpath in Newton, was seriously injured by a taxicab. There was no dispute that the injury to plaintiff was a result of negligence on the part of the man driving the taxicab, and the jury was asked to assess damages suffered by plaintiff. This they did, fixing £251 12<s 4d as special damages and £1250 as general damages. The question for decision was whether, under the circumstances of the case and as to wli.ch circumstances there was no dispute, there was any liability upon defendant for such damages. The car involved was registered in the name of WilLarn Francis Newbert, who, while ill in hospital, gave written authority to David William Lawson to drive for him. Lawson engaged defendant Jordan to drive. “It is clear up to this stage,” said His Honour, “that Jordon, who was engaged as driver of the car, when driving it, did so as the servant or agent of Newbert, the registered owner, and it is equally clear that in those circumstances Newbert, the owner, would be legally liable to any third party for any negligent driving on >he part of Jordan. “The car at the time of the accident was being driven by Robert Jamieson. In the result, therefore, Newbert and his insurers were Hable for the negligence of Jamieson, whether or not Jamieson had authority to drive the car. That was the position at the time of the accident to plaintiff, and remained the position until June, 1935, when Newbert died. But fof the death of Newbert plaintiff had a remedy against him, and, in the result, against his insurers, and that remedy existed from the moment of the accident until Newbert’s death. The effect of the decision of the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, in Findlater v. Public Trustee and others was that the death of Newbert prevented the injured party from recovering for such injury against Newbert’s estate or his iudemnifiers, notwithstanding the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act, 1928.” His Honour came to the conclusion that the claim against defendant must fail. Judgment was for defendant with