HURT BY UNKNOWN MOTOR

Taranaki Daily News, 1 September 1933, Page 9

HURT BY UNKNOWN MOTOR

CLAIM MADE TO INSURANCE FIRST CASE UNDER AGREEMENT. ECHO OF MANAKAU COLLISION. ARGUMENT BEFORE ARBITRATORS. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The first action arising out of the agreement between the Minister of Transport and companies which accept risks under the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act, 1928, was heard in the Magistrate’s Court to-day before three arbitrators, Mr. E. Page, S.M., Mr. W. Perry and Mr. W. E. Leicester. The object of the agreement was to deal with claims with respect to death or. bodily injury caused by the use in New Zealand of motor vehicles that could not be identified. The agreement sets out that if any person is killed or injured by an unidentifiable motor vehicle which has current registration plates attached the underwriters would settle the claim according to the decision of three arbitrators. The plaintiff is Neil D. Hood, who is claiming £lOOO from the insurance pool, the claim being with respect to an injury on December 8. When about 31 miles south of Manakau what he described as a large and heavily-laden transport lorry collided with his car.

Some discussion took place as to the admissibility of a statement which claimant made- to his employers four days after the accident. Counsel explained that the circumstances of the accident were somewhat unusual in that a month or so after the accident claimant lost his memory of all events over a period of eight or nine years prior to the time he came out of the hospital. Mr. H. F. O’Leary, who appeared for the underwriters, said there was some conflict of medical testimony as to the extent of Hood’s loss of memory, and for that reason counsel wished to take the legal point that the statement was not admissible. If it was certain that Hood had completely lost his memory he would possibly be prepared to waive the point, but as it was he would have to take it. The court reserved decision on the question. Mr. Smythe, for plaintiff, said Hood claimed that the driver of the lorry was negligent in that he drove on the wrong side of the road, failed to keep a proper look-out, failed to give any adequate or sufficient notice of approach, and failed to stop, slow, or steer clear. At the conclusion of the case for Hood Mr. O’Leary submitted there was no proof that if Hood’s car was struck by some other vehicle that that vehicle had registration plates attached or that they were for the current year.

After conferring with other members of the tribunal Mr. Page said it might be a reasonable inference to draw that the lorry carried correct number plates. “However, we have not come to a conclusion on that,” he said, “and after further consideration we will advise counsel whether there is a case to answer.” The . tribunal then adjourned.