MOTOR ACCIDENT

Evening Star, Issue 21510, 7 September 1933, Page 12

MOTOR ACCIDENT

CLAIM AGAINST INSURANCE COMPANIES A NONSUIT ENTERED [P«* Ukitib Pam Association] WELLINGTON, September 7. On the ground that there was substantially no evidence as to how or where the accident occurred or as to whether there was negligence on the part of any person unknown, Neil D. Hood was nonsuited in a claim for £I,OOO from insurance companies subject to the Motor Vehicles Insurance Third Party Risks Act, 1928. Mr Page, S.M., intimated that the tribunal considered that it was bound by the ordinary rules of evidence, and as a matter of law did not think the account of the accident written by the claimant before he lost his memory was admissible. Clauses 9 and 12, said Mr Page, required that before a claimant could recover he had to prove, inter alia, that a person unknown would, if ascertainable, be under, legal liability to him on account of bodily injury that he sustained —i.e., that the accident was due to negligence of such unknown person. The tribunal did not find it necessary to decide the question of whether on the evidence it was a proper inference that the vehicle said to have come into collision with the claimant’s car bore the current number plate. The tribunal thought the proper judgment to record was of nonsuit against the claimant. The companies were awarded costs, but no amount was decided upon, as there was no scale of fees for such proceedings.