A decision holding a man ponsible for compensation for dam-hgo caused. through the negligence fon part of his employee was delivered. by the Shanghai Special Distret Court on Jam 1 when [awarded one-third of the " §3,500
Sung, chauffeur, and Tseng fi sang-ngan against Chen Huns Drought by one Wang
ings the, chauffeur's employer:
The claim wax for indemnity the plainti who claimed that, his fon, a 2-year old gardener, whilst Fiding a bleyele on Hungjao Road fon. November, last, vas. knocked Gown and. killed by a motorcar firiven by the fist defendant. The plainti continued that his 30 ring" ow lifetime earned falculating on this basis, the total thy wage of la that,
mount of his income in' ten yours would' be $9,000, "This amount, Together with "$900 as funeral ox: perses, totalled $3,500 which was Eccordingly claimed.
After "the accident, the plaintiff ted in Court, the rst defend Ant, instead of rendering aids the tay injured ma," attempted to escape by speeding up his motor fear, but he was arrested by a high Police officer after a chase. The tecond defendant was in the car the time of the accident, but he not only failed to. restrain his chauf-four from delving recklessly, but castigated him to run. away' immely after the accident, alleged the plainti, For this reason, Plaintiff said the two defendants Should' be held jointly and_several-responsible for compensa the' amount claimed. delivering its decision the court "stated "that evidence pro-Hluced in' the Court bad shown that the accident of November 8} 31 last was caused through the negligence on part of the first defendant However, it had been found out that the' first defendant was a licensed chauffeur and. that the second defendant had exercised due care in selecting his employee. This fect, the Court stated, ox: erated the second defendant from abilities under section T of Article 188 of the Civil Code, In view of the facts, that the frst defendant's. earning was very: small and that the'p tiff probably would find it impos sible to collect' any money as com pensation from him, the Couré stated the second "defendant Unble fo. compensate the" plant Chet Code. erncaey jer section 2 of Article 1
the amount of compensa tion, the "Court. ruled that the plainti's claim for §3,500. was a8 he failed to prove the fact that his son earned during his life time a monthly wage of §25 and that, even this fact had been proved, there: was little likelihood that deceased would have spent the Whole amount of his earnings support his family. For this reason, the 'Court awarded the' plaintiff about one-third of his claimy name> 200, including $200 for deceased's funeral. expenses,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.