ACCIDENTS IN MOTOR-CARS

Southland Times, Issue 23208, 25 May 1937, Page 8

ACCIDENTS IN MOTOR-CARS

Insurance Claims MAGISTRATE’S COMMENT In commenting on the condition attached to every motor accident policy that the parties concerned “mfust not open their mouths,” Mr W. H. Freeman S.M., said at the Gore Magistrate’s Court yesterday that it was high time legislation was introduced to make that sort of thing void, as being contrary to public policy. He contended that this condition had resulted in more perjury than enough in the courts and that courts should not be governed by insurance companies. These companies, he said, should not be allowed to gag plaintiffs or defendants, and thus impede the course of justice. These remarks were made when a case in which a motorist was charged with failing to keep to the left, was called. Mr O. G. Howells asked for an adjournmnt as he wap waiting for a letter from an insurance company concerned.

Sergeant Abel asked the magistrate to give a ruling on such adjournments of motor collision cases, or accident cases involving a breach of the regulations. The practice in the past was to hold up such cases, even if they were comparatively trivial, until the civil case had been heard. He contended it was most inconvenient, frequently causing long delays. Mr Freeman said he had given the matter consideration. Frequently a civil case arose out of motor collisions or accidents in which a police action for negligence or breach of the regulations was brought. The matter was held up until the insurance companies threshed it out, and often a settlement was reached. When this occurred the tendency became prevalent at the subsequent police action for witnesses to be vague and gloss over their statements in order not to make it too hard for the party in the wrong, or the civil cases were delayed so long that the facts were forgotten and essential evidence was lost. He had in mind a case which occurred 12 months ago. Mr Freeman said he considered that if there were a flagrant breach of a bylaw or a glaring case of negligence or dangerous driving, the police case should be heard irrespective of whether there was a civil case or not. Mr Howells stated that the difficulty was created by the provision in the insurance policy that the parties should not make any statements. A defendant might consider he was in the wrong and might want to plead guilty, but he dare not do so. Exception Taken “I take strong exception to this condition that the persons involved must not open their mouths,” said Mr Freeman. Legislation should be introduced to make such a condition void as it resulted in more perjury than enough. I know there is a condition in every policy that you must not say anything to prejudice the insurance company, but we are living in 1937. It is high time such a condition was made void by legislation as being contrary to public policy.” Mr Howells said there was a similar provision in the Motor Vehicles (Third party risk) Act. Mr Freeman said that this was wrong. The trouble was that insurance adjustors reconstructed accidents and often put an entirely different complexion on them. The persons involved were tied down and could not admit liability, even if they felt disposed to do so. Mr Freeman said these cases, where a police action arose, should be heard as soon as possible after they happened, so that all the essential evidence would be fresh, and not smoothed down after months of negotiation. “We should not be governed or ruled by insurance companies, which should not be allowed to gag plaintiffs or defendants, and thus have the course of justice impeded.”