MOTORISTS’ DUTY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23463, 30 March 1938, Page 7

MOTORISTS’ DUTY

IROMPT NOTICE OF ACCIDENT OBLIGATION TO INSURANCE COMPANY FIRST CASE HEARD IN DUNEDIN It is probable that there are many motorists who do not realise their duties under the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act, 1928, which states that a motorist involved in an accident is obliged to see that prompt notice of the accident is given to the insurance company concerned. This obligation on the part of a motorist was forcibly brought home to a defendant in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning when, through failing to notify the insurance company concerned, he was called upon to pay damages amounting to £47 7s 6d which otherwise would have been met by the company. The case, which is the first of its kind to be heard in Dunedin, was that in which the South Island Motor Union Mutual Insurance Association proceeded against James Anderson, a miner, of Ohai, Southland, for £47 7s (id, being the amount paid in respect of third party damage which had not been notified. Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., was on the Bench. The plaintiff company was represented by Mr E. J. Anderson, but there was no appearance of the defendant. Mr Anderson stated that the defendant was involved in a motor accident in which a young woman was injured. The insurance company was not notified of the accident until three months later, when defendant sent it a bill that he had received from the injured person’s solicitors. The Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act, 1928, stated that it was the duty of a motorist involved in an accident to see that prompt notice of the accident was given the insurance company. Counsel referred to a similar case heard by the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myet’s) at Wellington. It was pointed out in the hearing of this case that the Act dealt with the failure of an owner of a motor car to give prompt notice of an accident to an insurance company, which was entitled to recover from an owner as a debt all damage and costs paid to a third party by reason of the negligent driving of the owner when he had failed to give “ forthwith ” notice of the accident. The Chief Justice had stated that, in the intervening time, an insurance company might have been prejudiced as it was not in a position months afterwards to investigate the claim as it should be investigated. Evidence might have been lost or witnesses might have left the country. Mr Anderson said that the facts in the present case were similar. and he considered that the plaintiff company was entitled to judgment.

Evidence was then given in support of the claim, and the magistrate gave judgment by default to the plaintiff company for the full amount, with costs (£4 15s 6d).