ACCIDENT RISKS

Evening Star, Issue 24217, 10 June 1942, Page 3

ACCIDENT RISKS

MILITARY VEHICLES CROWN NOT LIABLE An anomaly in the third party insurance risk, ill that persons injured by military vehicles had no redress in law against the Crown, was the subject of strong comment by Mr G. W. Kerens at the monthly meeting of the executive of the Automobile Association (Otago). If any redress were possible either for personal injury or for damage to property, Mr Kerens said, it was , against the driver of the vehicle only. The Government, Mr Kerens said, | had taken advantage of an Act 32 years old, and passed before a median- | ised army was thought of, to evade responsibility for damage to person and property by a military vehicle. The South island and North Island Motor Unions had made representations to the Government, and, pointing out that the present state of affairs imposed distinct'hardship on the victims of such accidents, had urged that the | law should lie amended. NO LEGAL REDRESS. “ I wonder,” Mr Kerens asked, “ if the members of the public realise that if they or their property are wrongfully damaged by a vehicle driven by a member of the Army, tbo Homo Guard, the Air Force, or the Navy, the driver, and not the Crown, is personally liable? Moreover, do those members of the forces who, in the

course of dutv, have to dri\ c vehicles, know that if' they are involved hi an accident causing damage to person or property and are found liable in the civil court, they are responsible for damages with no legal redress against the Crown ? We, who pride ourselves on our advanced legislation, Jhid ourselves amazed that the AttorneyGeneral, who, in his zeal to protect the pedestrian was moving for absolute liability on every motorist, is now dumb when this glaring injustice exists.” Mr Kerens explained that the Crown, like any other employer, was liable for the wrongful acts of its servants except in the case of members of the armed forces. In the event of an accident in which a military vehicle was involved, the right of action existed ; only against the driver. Action must be commenced within three months of the accident—a limitation which, where personal injury resulted, was distinctly unfair, as frequently a claim . could not be formulated for many , months after the accident. POOL’S WIDE DISCRETION. . Personal injury was normally covered ' by third party insurance, Mr Kerens said, and it, was understood that the Crown paid third party insurance premiums to the insurance pool, and had ■ an arrangement under which the pool ; met claims at its discretion. As, how- ■ ever, there was no right of action ’ against the Crown, the pool assessors ; were put into the position of judge and , jury, and anyone making a claim had ■ to accept what was offered. This position was contrary to all ideas of British ; justice, and in any case it applied to