ARMY VEHICLES

Auckland Star, Volume LXXIII, Issue 125, 29 May 1942, Page 3

ARMY VEHICLES

CLAIMS FOR DAMAGE

SHELTER BEHIND ACT (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Thursday. "It will be unfortunate if the authorities are going to adopt this attitude, and if they do I hope the Legislature will see to it that the public are protected against this kind of thing," said Mr. A. M. Goulding, S.M., when it was stated by counsel in the Magistrate's Court to-day that the Army Department was using the laws as a shelter against claims by the public for damage done by army vehicles, and leaving the public to sue the individual soldier concerned.

Albert Comfort, an accountant, sought damages from Lieutenant Ci. D. Velvin, the claim arising from a motor accidcnt involving a car driven by Velvin in the course of his military duties.

Mr. Rollings, for Comfort, said the case raised an issue of very great importance. Claims against the Crown were brought by Petition of Right under the Crown Suits Act, 1908, but the Crown Suits Amendment Act. 1910, contained a provision which had the effect that no Petition of Right could be brought in respect of acts committed by members of the defence forces.

There could be little doubt that provision was enacted primarily with other activities in view than the driving of motor vehicles, and for some years past it had been the practice for legal advisers of the Crown to waive privilege in claims arising out of the use of army vehicles, and allow such claims to be neard on their merits. Recently, however, that attitude had been changed and shelter was being taken under the 1910 amendment, thus leaving the injured party with a remedy against the driver personally, by way of ordinary summons. Counsel also pointed out that in spite of prompt action it might be found the defendant had left New Zealand and could not be served. The number of claims affected was large and the situation was regarded as wholly unsatisfactory by motorists and those who indemnify them. Mr. Rollings said the army's attitude now was to leave the individual soldier to defend actions. If judgment went against the soldier the army might pay. The Magistrate: What disturbs me is whether or not the army vehicles are covered by the insurance provisions of New Zealand and whether they are covered by comprehensive P °M r y ' Rollings said that when written to about the case army headquarters said the Question of iiability had been referred to the State Fire Office, which replied that it admitted no liability and was not the insurer of Velvin. In reserving decision on the question of granting leave to defend, the magistrate said it seemed to him it would be singularly unfortunate if the army department or the Crown .proposed to take shelter behind the .Crown Suits Amendment Act. That i had not always been done in the past Action against an individual officer or soldier would be a return to the days before compulsory third party insurance.