MOTOR ACCIDENT RISK

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 244, 14 September 1932, Page 4

MOTOR ACCIDENT RISK

QUESTION OF LIABILITY

WELLINGTON, Sept. 13

An important principle as to whether certain special damages are a liability of the insurance company under the compulsory insurance section of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party lt-isks) Act. 1928, was disposed of by Mr Justice Reed in a judgment given in the Supreme Court. In the case in question His Honour decided that the insurance company was so liable. Plaintiff in the action was the South British Insurance Company, Ltd., the first defendant being John James Eeelv, dairyman. Wellington, and the second defendant George Soteros, fishmonger, Wellington. Some months ago Fecly obtained judgment against Soteros for £6OO general damages and £164 14s lid special damages in respect of a motor collision. The South British Insurance Co. then asked the Court to determine whether the contract of indemnity between the company and Soteros covered two items in the special damages. £63 wages paid for additional assistance, and £SB 10s hoard and lodging for that- assistance. The Court was also asked to determine the company’s liability in regard to costs: whether

it should pay the whole of the costs or a proportionate ratio to the full amount of damages awarded. It was submitted for the company that the disputed items were not damages directly connected with the bodily injury, but were more in the nature of a property loss not covered by the statute. His Honour said the finding of the jury must be taken that the expenses were reasonably incurred by Feelv owing to his inability to carry on his ordinary avocation. Soteros having no money professed not to be interested and was not represented in Hie action brought by tne company. The contest was between Feely and the company, the former losing the fruits of the'judgment in respect of the two items if they were not covered by the indemnity. The point depended upon the tine construction of the Act. said His Honour. In the interpretation of an obscure statute it had been laid down that it should receive a large and liberal construction and interpretation, such as would attain the ol>ject of the Act according to its true intent, meaning and spirit. The mischief that the Motor Vehicles Insurance Act sought to remedy was the failure of persons suffering bodily injury, through the negligent driving of a motor vehicle, to recover the fruits of a judgment for damages through the possible impeeuniositv of negligent drivers and owners. The

Act extended to injuries, but had no application to damages to property. In negligence cases, in addition to the usual headings damages could be awarded for loss through inability to earn wages, expenses of assistance in business necesitated by the injury, or in the case of a woman, through I being unable to attend to her household affairs. Was there any indication in the Act that those heads of damages should be excluded Ironi consider!l '“l am of opinion,” continued His Honour, “that the amount allowed bv the jurv on both these disputed items is payable by plaintiff (the insurance company) under the contract of indemnitv. and the question asked on this point will he answered accordingly.” , , “In the present case the damages assessed bv the jury included as special damages (if my judgment with regard to the two disputed items is sound) a comparatively small sum admittedly irrecoverable against plaintiff, it being for damages to property,” continued His Honour. “The amount does not alter the scale of costs, and there is only a few pounds difference between the full costs as allowed and the costs that would have been allowed had these small amounts not been recovered. In ther - circumstances the costs payable under the indemnity by plaintiff to the second defendant should be ascertained, I

think - bv assuming a judgment confined 'to the amount of the total damages for which the plaintiff is required to indemnify the second defendant and adjudging that the costs should ho that scale. I repudiate in advance any suggestion that I am stating this a.yi general principle. Kyery ca.,e must he with in the light of it* <> n facts.”