IMPORTANT CASE

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVIII, Issue 182, 2 July 1938, Page 7

IMPORTANT CASE

MOTORISTS’ LIABILITIES. VERSIONS OF MISHAPS. Per Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, June 30. The extent of a motorist’s obligation to protect the interests of his insurance company when he is involved in an accident was the subject, in the Supreme Court, to-day, of an argument of great importance to insurance interests and to drivers of cars. An action to recover insurance moneys paid out was brought by an insurance firm, who claimed that the driver had admitted liability soon after an accident and had thereby prejudiced the firm’s position and under the Motor Vehicles Insurance Act had disentitled himself or his principals to the benefits of the insurance policy. Mr Justice Northcroft reserved his decision. The claim was for £1225 6s 2d. The plaintiff firm was the S.I.M.U. Mutual Insurance Association, and defendants Minsons, Ltd., and Arthur William Minson and Evelyn Constance Minson, directors of Minsons, Ltd. Mr J. Sim represented plaintiff , and Mr M. J. 1 Gresson, with him Mr P. H. T,’Alpers, appeared for defendants. The accident happened on January 13, when a motor-car owned by Minsons, Ltd., and driven by Minson collided with Mrs Emma Jane Rule, of iMatai Street, Riccarton, who was injured. A note handed by Minson to Mrs Rule’s nephew not long after the accident concluded with the words: “Mrs Rule has been extremely nice to me and I am most anxious to do everything I can quite apart from the conviction that the accident*-was my fault.” Mr Sim said the insurance firm had paid to Mrs Rule general and special damages totalling £1225 6s 2d for her injuries, but in an agreement reserved the right, which it was now exercising to claim the recovery of that sum from defendants in this action. Minson had since said that the note lie handed to Mrs Rule’s nephew was only a memorandum written for himself. The Court was now asked to consider two questions : (1) Whether this document was an admission of liability under the Motor Vehicles Insurance Act, and (2) whether the word “owner,” as given in the Motor Vehicles Insurance Act, included the driver of the car, who was not tlie actual owner, but at the time of an accident was in charge of the vehicle with the authority of the owner. Mr Sim said that under the Act quoted a motorist disentilted himself to insurance privileges if he admitted liability without first having the consent of tlie insurance company. If a motorist were allowed to accept responsibility before a claim was made or before it was heard, the insurance firm would be in a hopeless position going before a jury. The law provided that a motorist must not admit liability and thereby prejudice the insurance firm’s chance" of defending the claim for damages suffered by the third party.

J URGE’S QUESTIONS. Ilis .Honour asked whether a motorisi could give his barest version of the accident to a jjolice officer without losing his insurance privileges. He suggested, also, that a motorist would not be expected to perjure himself in Court if he actually believed he was at la ult. Mr Sim said there would apparently be certain exceptions when there were over-riding considerations His Honour : Apparently a motorist may speak tlie truth in Court, hut not ill the street. . If, in an ordinary impulse ot' decency, chivalry’ and honesty, - not fully realising the events which may follow, a man admits that he believes himself wrong, then must that in cold blood afterwards be called an admission of liability Y Mr Sim said that even this impulse must be held in check. A motorist could not even make a statement admitting liability to the police. . His Honour said that, having regard to the frequency of statements to the police, it seemed that all motorists did not know this. Was a motorist required not to be candid, to be unhelpful, to the police Y This would be contrary to good citizenship.

Mr Sim said that a motorist should postpone statements involving liability until the company’s permission had been obtained. Mr Gressou submitted that the Court was concerned not with the protection of insurance firms, but with the interpretation of the Act. _ Under the Act a motorist was not allowed to admit liability to pay damages if he wished to retain his privileges Minson had not admitted his liability for damages. His note admitted only culpability, and that was a different thing. Mr Sim had found himself impaled upon the horns of a dilemma when he came to consider the statements to the police. Insurance companies could not have the right to even these. That would be contrary to the rules of good citizenship.