Law:

Section:

P L D 1957 Privy Council 37       Tort-------Master and servant--Action per quod servitium amisit not available to Crown for loss of services of a member of the Police Force by the tortious act of a wrong-doer-Origin and deve lopment of action stated.   A member of the police force of New South Wales, was passing along the highway it a tram car when a motor vehicle was negligently driven against the tram car whereby the police constable received bodily injury disabling him from the perfor mance of his duties as a member of the police force. The Attorney-General claimed on behalf of the Crown to recover from the defendants responsible for the accident the salary and allowances paid to the constable till his discharge and to be reimbursed in respect of the monies paid and which were thereafter to be paid to him pursuant to the Acts governing the Police Force.   Held, that the claim did not lie.   There is a fundamental difference between the domestic relation of servant and master and that of the holder of a public office and the State which be is said to serve.   The relationship of a constable and the State is not in ordinary parlance described as that of servant and master.   Action per quod servitium amisit is therefore not available to the Crown.   This form of action is a survival from the time when service was a status. That status lay in the realm of domestic relations. It would not be in accord with modern notions or with the realities of human relationships today to extend the action to the loss of service of one who, if he can be called servant at all, is the holder of an office which has for centuries been regarded as a public office.   Origin and development of action per quad servitium amisit considered.   The Commonwealth v. Quince 68 C L R 227 approved in part.   Enever v. The King 3 C L R 969, Stanbury v. Exeter Corporation (1905) 2 K B 838 at 841, Fisher v. Oldham Cor poration (1930) 2 K B 36J, Coomber v. Justices of Berks 9 A C 61, 67, Lumley v. Gye 2 E & B 216, La Societe Anonyme v. Bennetts (1911) 1 K B 243, Admiralty Commissioners v. S. S. Amerika (1917) A C 38 at p. 60, Taylor…