OWNER SUED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 160, 9 July 1935, Page 8

OWNER SUED.

STOLEN MOTOR CAR.

POLICE CONSTABLE'S CLAIM

INJURED INT ATTEMPTING ARREST. The gallant efforts made by Constable E. E. Stewart on a night in September, 1033, to arrest a motor car thief were recalled in the Supremo Court this morning, before Mr. Justice Fair, when the constable brought an action for £2000 general damages and £557 special damages against the owner of the stolen car, E. G. Bridgeus, manufacturer, of Auckland. The claim, an unusual one so far as motor accident cases are concerned, is being taken under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1930, and is based on the contention that ConstableStewart will be partially permanently disabled as a result of injuries lie received when the thief swerved the stolen car, to which the constable was clinging, and crashed into a stationary (jar. It was submitted on behalf of plaintiff that by statute the unknown driver, who successfully made his escape once he had dislodged the constable from the running board, was the authorised agent of the defendant. The facts placed before the Court in the statement of claim were that on September 19, 1933, the defendant's motor car was stolen by an unknown person. A complaint was immediately made to the police, and subsequently the plaintiff saw the car stationary in Williamson Avenue. Ho went to the car and jumped on the running board in an endeavour to recover the vehicle, and as he did so it was driven off by the unknown driver.

"Deliberately Crushed." The driver refused to stop. He deliberately drove an erratic course in an endeavour to dislodge the constable, and finally unlawfully and negligently swerved the car to its incorrect side of the road. There lie deliberately crushed the plaintiff against a stationary car owned by H. T. Pelham. As a result, Constable Stewart was thrown on the road, and suffered a compound fracture of the bones of the right lower leg, fractures of the bones of the right hand and wrist,, abrasions to the left knee and lower leg, facial abrasions and severe shock. He was confined to the Public Hospital from September 20, 1933, until December 10, 1933, readmitted on numerous occasions in 1934, and was still receiving treatment. The statement of claim added that the plaintiff, if recovery took place, would be partially permanently disabled, and unable to follow- his calling as a police officer. He, therefore, claimed £557 special damages, of which £440 was loss of wages for 82 weeks, and £2000 general damages. 1: Mr. V. R. Meredith and Mr. F. McCarthy are appearing for the plaintiff, and the defendant is represented by Mr. G. P. Finlay. "The circumstances of this case »re quite unusual in motor car accident cases," said Mr. Meredith, "and the claim has been brought by virtue of the legislation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1030." The defendant's car was stolen TJrom Heme Bay on the evening of September 19. 1933", and shortly before midnight Constable Stewart saw it being driven into Williamson Avenue. The constable went in pursuit in a taxi, and when the stolen machine was pulled up some distance down the street he went and endeavoured to arrest the driver.

The driver of the stolen car thereupon started the car and proceeded down the street at a tremendous speed, accelerating to the maximum. The constable hung on to the running board and called on the driver to stop. Instead of doing ;so the driver swerved wildly in an effort to dislodge the constable. Having failed in this, the driver swung to the wrong side of the road and drove close jto a stationary car. constable's ileg came in contact with this car, and lie was thrown on to the road. The stolen car then disappeared down' the street at a tremendous rate, and the driver was never caught. The constable himself was thrown to the road so violently that he suffered severe injuries. "Career in Force Finished." ■ The constable, added Mr. Meredith, had had five year l -' service in th-2 police force, and was stud? ; ng for his sergeant's examination. In consequence of his injuries his career in the forc-.i was finished, as he would never be able to comply with the physical requirements. The most that he would be able to do,

if a further operation were successful, would be to potter around for tho rest of his life. In the meantime he iiad lot been discharged from the force, but that matter would be finalised later. Medical evidence Avas given concerning the extent of plaintiff's injuries in support of the statement of claim. Constable Stewart in evidence said that when the driver was swerving from side to side of Williamson Avenue in an endeavour to dislodge him from the running board, he endeavoured unsuccessfully to : draw his baton from his pocket. The doors of the car were locked and it was his intention to break the window. The constable added that the driver had not- been traced, but he thought" he would recognise him if ho saw him again. Formal evidence was then given by eye-witnesses of the happenings in Williamson Avenue.

"Insurance Follows the Car." At the conclusion of the evidence, Mr. Meredith stated that the claim was governed by the third party risk, under the Motor Vehicles Act. It resolved' itself into the construction of the Act, which it was clear was brought into existence for the purpose of meeting the dangers of modern traffic. "The insurance follows the car and not the driver," Be said. "It does not matter in whose hands the car is." . His Honor: your submission is that if a thief takes a person's car and drives it for hundreds of miles recklessly the owner, or insurance company, is responsible for all personal damage caused in the course of the journey. Mr. Meredith replied that that was so. There was no difference in a thief taking the vehicle than a member of the family who was not so authorised. If a ; distinction was drawn between the classes of authority the ohject of the law would be- defeated. The clear intention was that every person who was injured by the improper use of a car must be compensated. ' Constable Not a Passenger. .'Dealing with the liabilities of the insurance companies under the Act, Mr. Meredith said that under the general clause in respect of a passenger (Vehicle the indemnity Was. limited to £2000 for each passenger, \Vith a maximum for the vehicle of £20,000. There was a clear liability for the?:insurance, company to,

indemnify the owner unless it could be held that the claim came within the scope of the exemptions. One of these exemptions was in respect of a person being conveyed in attempting to enter or alight from, a private vehicle. Counsel contended that that meant that the person was a passenger. His contention was that Constable Stewart was not a passenger in the ear when it was careering down the avenue, and that therefore he did not come within the scope of the exemption. (Proceeding.)