The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

- l, APN L 26 . - on IB-at Judgment. . As revealed earlier In the session by Hon. T. B. McQuesten. Minister of Highways. the section was de" signed to limit the department's N Blll- BANNING liability. following a judgment given against the County of Went- worth by the Ontario Court of Ap- C peal. In this action. a woman success- DAMAGE SUITS fully sued the county against. the county as the result of an accident in which the car she was driving skidded against a guard rail, whic: . colla sed before the impart, an tuisartmtn! of Highways Not the Ear rolled into a ravine. The fo Be Liable When Cars driver was seriously injured. sad _ . Ia dau hter died o her njuries. e Crash Guard Rails or 'courtgheld tho driver was not net!- in Off-Highway Mishaps ligent and that the guard posts ., . were rotten. Mr. McQuesten held that neithe'r t the de artment nor any municipa - OPPOSITION CRITICAL' I" shgum he ronuired to erect ' guard rails of sufficient strength to The Hepburn Government. in a withstand the im'pact of! atmotor iv:- . . . _.. hicle. Moreover. e sat .i was - two-hours debate, yesterday resisted possible to erect a barrier of suffi- opposition to an amendment to the cient strength to withstand the im- Highway Improvement Act which pact of a fast-moving motor car would bar action for the recovery of or heavily Wadi? gruff Ith'zsi'dg: . nter retation a e s . damages against the Department tt of ig', roads included the "traver. Highways resulting from an we" led portion" within the meaning of dent occurring off the travelled the act and that the department portion of a highway. or municipality, iwas renuired to . . intain them n re mr. Conservative Leader Col. George m'a'The amen dme nt," h: said, "doeg Drew charged that the section not affect the department's liabil- deeply concerned the principal " ity in respect to the travelled por- to how tar common law rights are tion of the road." l t to be denied by arbitrary restrictive ofeJ,e1p2ipu"l',' 't'L't""trfi""i'l? legislation. Dubbing the whole sec- sence or insufficiency of a guard tion "objectionable," Arthur W. Roe- |rail should not be cause of action buck, former Attorney-General and in itself. ' . only Liberal voice raised in opposi- "We .c.an't/' said w. McQuesten. tion to the measure. declared, "Let i"establish f guard rail which would us say the individual has no civil with"? the charge of tl peram- . fights whatever, and be done with bulator. I t." Rule Out Amendments. "The Cabinet has carefully con- sidered the section and is in agree- ment, and we do not propose to _ allow any amendments," declared the Premier at one point when t Colonel Drew asserted that mem- bers could not possibly be aware of the significance of its wide terms. The Conservative Leader. by amendment. proposed to have the section read: "No action shall be brought against the department for the recovery of damages caused by the presence or absence or insuf- ficiency of any wall, fence, guard- rail, railing or barrier," by striking out the balance of the clause. The ' amendment was defeated in House Committee stage and only after the longest debate so far accorded to any piece of legislation during the current session. The balance ot the section, " which Conservative speakers took ' such sharp objection. continued. after the word barrier "or caused by or on account of any construe [ tion, obstruction or erection or any Eiii,iiiiia, arrangement or disposio, tion of any earth. rock. tree or other material or thing adjacent to or in, along or upon the highway lands or any part thereof not within "the travelled portion of such high- _ "ray." -