UNIDENTIFIED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 205, 31 August 1933, Page 8

UNIDENTIFIED.

LORRY IN COLLISION. CLAIM ON INSURANCE POOL. CAB DRIVER'S LOST MEMORY. (By Telegraph.—Tress Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. Tho first action arising out of the agreement between the Minister of Transport and the companies which accept risk under the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party) Risks Act, 1028, is being heard in the Magistrate's Court to-day before three arbitrators, Mr. E. Page, S.M., Mr. W. Perry and Mr. W. E. Leicester.

The object of the agreement was to deal with claims in respect of death or bodily injury caused by the use in New Zealand of motor vehicles that could not bo identified. The agreement sets out that if any person is" killed or injured by an unidentifiable motor vehicle which has current registration plates attached tho underwriters will settle the claim in accordance with the decision of three arbitrators.

The plaintiff is Neil D. nood, who claims £1000 from the insurance pool in respect of an injury on December 8. When he was about three and a half miles south of Manakau what he described as a large, heavily-hulen transport lorry collided with his car.

Some discussion took place as to the admissibility of a statement which claimant made to his employers four days after the accident. Counsel explained that the circumstances of the accident were perhaps unique, in that, a month or so after the accident, claimant lost his memory of all events over a period of eight or nine years prior to the time lie came out of hospital Mr. H. F. O'Lcary, who appeared for the underwriters, said there was some conflict of medical testimony as to the extent of the claimant's loss of memory, and for that reason counsel wished to take the legal point that the statement was not admissible. It it were pertain that claimant had completely lo.st his memory he (counsel) would possibly be prepared to waive the point, but as it was lie would have to take it. The Court reserved its decision on the question. Mr. Smyth, for the plaintiff, said it was contended that the driver of the lorry was negligent in that he was on the wrong side of tho road, failed to keep a proper lookout, failed to give any or adequate or sufficient notice of his approach, and failed to stop, slow down or steer clear. The hearing is proceeding.