MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM

Evening Star, Issue 22989, 21 June 1938, Page 8

MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM

LETTER WRITTEN BY DRIVER QUESTION OF ADMISSION OF LIABILITY £Pe2 United Peess Association.] CHRISTCHURCH, June 21. Legal argument on the admissibility; of certain, evidence in a case -to bo heard in the Supreme Court was heard by Mr J ustice Northcroft this morning. The case was adjourned sine die in preparation for a case between the South Island Motor Union Mutual Insurance Society and Hinsons Ltd. and others. His Honour was asked to decide whether a letter written by Arthur William Minson, driver of a motor vehicle involved in an accident, waa an admission of liability. His Honour was also asked to decide whether Minson could be defined as the owner of the car, or agent of the owner. Mr W. J. Sim, who > appeared for the insurance society, said the insurance society had settled out of court and without prejudice a claim arisipg :out of an accident in which Emma Jana Rule was injured by a car driven by Arthur William Minson and said to be owned by Minsons Ltd. The insurance society now sought to recover from the defendants _ £1,200 on the grounds that the driver of the cat; had contrary to the terms of the policy written a letter which might be cohstructed by the court as an admission of liability. The question that would bo submitted to the jury, said Mr Sim, would be whether the driver wrote the letter (which could not be denied), whether it was an admission of liability, whether he was the owner of the car, or whether he was the . authorised agent of the owner. The facts could not be contradicted; it was purely a question of law. Mr K. M. Giresson submitted that the document in question was hot a letter written by Minson to a third party, but a memorandum which ho jotted down shortly after the accident so as to record the facts while they were still fresh in his mind.

If it came into the opposition’® hands by Minsdn’s design, said His Honour, such a letter became a communication, but if it was an affidavit that changed hands by some unknown means ths question was still in doubt. Mr Gresson said that Mr Sim’s application was permissible only if the facts were agreed upon, which they were not. In adjourning the application sine die His Honour said that, as the case now. stood, he would be bound* to reject the application, but he would stand it oyer for the parties to consult. Coetly litigation might thus he avoided.