MOTOR INSURANCE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 225, 23 September 1938, Page 13

MOTOR INSURANCE.

SEQUEL TO ACCIDENT.

DRIVER'S ADMISSIONS.

APPEAL COURT ARGUMENT, (By Telegraph.— Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Thursday. The Court of Appeal to-day is hearing argument on questions of law arising out of action taken by the S.I.M.U. Mutual Insurance Association, of Christ - church, against Minsons, Limited, A. W. Minson and E. C. Minson.

A. \V. Minson is th» managing-director of Minsons, Limited, and E. C. Minson is his wife. In January, 1937, A. W. Minson, while driving a car owned by Miit&ons, Limited, collided with and injured Mrs. Emma Jane Rule. After attending to the injured person, Minson went to his office and typed a memorandum setting out his recollection of the facts, which contained a (statement that the accident was his fault. This memorandum was prepared for his own benefit, but he subsequently handed a copy of it to Mrs. Rule's nephew. Subsequently, the S.T.M.U., as the statutory indemnilier of Minsoiv, Limited, paid £1225 to Mrs. Rule as damages for her injury and then claimed to recover from the respondents the amount so paid by it, alleging that the memorandum prepared by Minson constituted "an admission of liability," by "the owner," which, if made without the consent of the insurance company, entitles the insurance company, under the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act 1928, to recover from the insured amounts paid in settlement of claims against the insured.

Two preliminary questions of law were argued in Christchurch before Mr. Justice Northcroft, the questions being: (1) Wa« tlie memorandum admission of liability within the meaning of the Act, and (2) does the owner for that purpose include the authorised driver.

Mr. Justice Northcroft answered the first question in the negative and the second question was answered in the affirmative.

In the appeal to-day the appellants are appealing against the judge's answer to tlie first question, and respondents against the answer to the second.

Mr. Sim, for the appellants, submitted tliat it would be difficult to lay down any general rule for determining whether a statement constitutes an admission of liability, and that each case should be decided in the liglit of the surrounding circumstances and of the fact that the section in question was designed for protection of insurance companies. He suggested that the seriousness of an admission is a factor in determining whether it constitutes an a lmission of liability. He further submitted that although the memorandum did not specifically mention the liability for damages, it was conclusive evidence of liability for the accident, and consequently to pay damages. Mr. Gresson, for the respondents, argued that "admission of liability" must mean admission of liability to pay damages, otherwise any unguarded remark by a driver as to the circumstances of an accident might be construed as an admission of liability and expose him to liability to reimburse the insurance company. The hearing was adjourned.