Should Motorist Tell Truth?

Manawatu Times, Volume 63, Issue 153, 1 July 1938, Page 7

Should Motorist Tell Truth?

If at Faille in Accident IMPORTANT POINT ARGUED IN COURT Per Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, Last Night. The extent of a motorists’ obligation to protect the interests of his insurance company when he is involved in an accident was the subject in the {Supreme Court 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 au insurance firm, who claimed that the driver had admitted liability soon alt.oi an accident and thereby prejudiced the firm s position, and under the Motor Vehicles insurance Act disentitled himself or his principals to the benefits oi the insurance policy. Mr. Justice Northeroxt reserved his decision. Tho claiui was lor £1225 6s 2d. The plaintiff firm was the {j.I.M.U. Mutual insurance Association, and defendants Minsons, Ltd., and Arthur William Minson and Evelyn Constance Minfeon, directors of Minsons, Ltd. Air. J. Bi.iu represented the plaintiff, and Air. M. J. Grcsson and with him Air. X’. H. T. Alpers appeared for defendants. The accident happened on January 13, when a motor-car owned by Min* soiis, Ltd., and driven by Minson collided with Airs. Emma Jane Rule, of Aiatai street, Kiccarton, who was in jured. A note handed by Minson to Airs. Rule’s nephew not long after the accident concluded with tho words: “Mrs. Rule has beou extremely nice to me and 1 am most anxious to do everything I can quite apart from the conviction that the accident was my fault. ’ ’ Air. Sim said tho insurance firm had paid to Airs. Rule general and special damages totalling £1225 Cfe 2d for her injuries, but in au 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 \he handed to Mrs. Rule’s nephew was *61117 a memorandum written for himself. ffho 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 Alotor Vehicles Insurance Act, included tho driver of tho car, who was not the actual owucr, but at the time of an accident was in charge of the vehicle with the authority of the owner. Air. Sim said that under the Act quoted a motorist disentitled himself to insurance privileges if he admitted liability without first having the consent of the 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. Tho 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. His Honour asked whether a motorist could give his barest version of the accident to a police officer Without losing hi 3 insurance privileges. He suggested also that a motorist Would not be expected to perjure himself in Court if he actuaj.lv believe** ll ° v ' ws al fault. Mr. Sim said there would apparently be certain exceptions when there wore over-riding considerations. llis Honour: Apparently a motorist may speak the truth in Court, but not in tho street. If in au ordinary impulse of decency, chivalry and honesty, not fully realising tho 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? Air. 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, 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 bo candid, to be unhelpful, to tho police? This would be contrary to good citizi •ship. Mr. Sim said that a motorist should postpone statements involving liability until tho company’s permission hucl been obtained. Air. Grcsson submitted that the Court was concerned not in the protection ot insurance firms, but with the interpretation of the Act. Under the Act a motorist was not allowed to admit liability to pq.y damages if 110 wished to retain his privileges. Alinsou had not admitted his liability to damages. Ilis note admitted only culpability and that was a different thing. Mr. Sim had found himself impaled upon tho 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 tc the rules of good citizenship.