ROAD ACCIDENTS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 12, 14 July 1938, Page 11

ROAD ACCIDENTS

DUTY OF MOTORISTS

THIRD PARTY RISK

JUDGE'S RULING

(By Telegraph—Press Association.)

CHRISTCHURCH, This Day.

Giving judgment for the defendants in a suit brought by the South island Motor Union Mutual Insurance Association against Minsons, Ltd., Arthur William Minson, and Evelyn Constance Minson to.recover £1225 6s 2d paid to Mrs. Rule, who was injured by a car owned by Minsons, Ltd., and driven by A. W. Minson, his Honour Mr. Justice Northcroft today discussed at length the: duty of a motorist towards the insurance company carrying his third party risk.

After the accident in which Mrs. Rule was knocked down, -said his Honour, Minson typed a memorandum, concluding-with the words: "I am most anxious to do everything I can quite apart from the conviction that it was my fault." -

The first question before the Court was whether these words were an admission of liability within the meaning of clause 11 of the. Motor Vehicles Insurance Act, which says that the owner shall not, without the consent of the insurance company, "make any offer, promise of payment, or settlement,' or any admission of liability."

"Admission of liability is not necessarily the same as a statement by a person that he is to blame for a happening, for the reason that the former must constitute acknowledgment of obligation to pay damages for the happening," said his - Honour.. "An accident may be acknowledged as having arisen from the fault of the speaker without his intending to acknowledge obligation to pay damages because he may be of the opinion, without expressing it, that the act of some other party—victim or third person—may, in the final analysis, have been the cause of damage. Again, a person who confesses fault in having caused an accident may not intend thereby to acknowledge liability to pay damages because he may be of opinion that no damage has been sustained. Each statement must be considered in the light of its own circumstances to determine whether it goes beyond mere expression of wrongdoing and attains to the status of liability to pay damages." '

After discussing'the purport of Minson's memorandum, his Honour said it could not be .that the sub-section forbade every statement that could be used in Court against its maker. Were this the case no motorist who believed himself in the wrong could give -an honest statement to a police-officer making the proper and necessary inquiries unless he. had prior consent of his insurer lest the statement so given might subsequently become available in an action for damages arising from the accident. "Indeed, this view of restraint upon the motorist would require him to refrain from impulses of courtesy, chivalry, honesty s or even of self defence lest he shouldj thereby prejudice his insurers." His Honour said that he was unable so" to regard the intention of the legislature. Minson's statement, although it was ah; acknowledgment of fault, did not amount, his Honour held, to admission of liability within the contemplation of the section, and he therefore answered the question in the negative. The second question was whether the word "owner," used in sub-sections 3 and 4 of the Motor- Vehicles Insurance Third Party Risks Act, 1928, included also the driver, who was entitled to indemnity under the Act. In this case, said the Judge, the person who made the statement complained of was not the actual owner, but it was argued for the plaintiff that the driver who was indemnified was bound by' the word; "owner" used in those sub-sections. This was upheld by the Jjudge who said it sometimes happened as in this case, that it was not the owner who was sued for damages but the driver.