CREAM STAND DANGER

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 9, Issue 29, 4 December 1945, Page 5

CREAM STAND DANGER

QUESTION of insurance COUNTY COUNCILS LIABILITY The matter introduced by the Rangitaiki Branch" of the New Zealand Farmers' Union with regard to the danger from cream stands on the side of the road t and the possibility of accidents arising out of their presence was advanced an. other step at the County Council meeting rccentlj 7 ? when a* reply was read from the New Zealand Counties' Association on the subject of insurance . The Counties Insurance Co. stated that it had no knowledge of any decided cases which clearty showed the legal position. It was however that the position could arise where a County could be held liable for damages because the County had permitted or acquiesced in the erection of Cream Stands or Calf Pens or Rural Mail Boxes. The present insurance practice Avas to include cover for the Council's liability in respect of Cream Stands in a Council's general Public Risk policy without extra charge. If the Council did not hold or did not wish to have- a general Public Risk Policy, it might arrange a Public Risk Policy in respect of Cream Stands only. The rate oT premium for £1000 indemnity any one accident was usually 1 - per stand for the first 50 stands plus per stand in excess of 50 to 100 -and -/- per stand in excess of 100.

It should be clcarly understood that such policy eovercd the Conn, cil'.s liability only. It did not cover the liability of the stand owner or "Of any other person.

By way of instancing the elTeet of the position outlined the Council -was asked to consider a ease where a motor driver negligently collided -with a cream stand -which was badly placed in relation to the roadway. A passenger in the vehicle was injured. The passenger, not desiring to take action against his uninsured friend the Motor Driver claimed against tb'e County Council, alleging that the County Council was negligent in permitting the erection •of the cream .stand. The County Council or its insurer would probably be advised to deny liability defend any ease brought and issue Third Party notices, joining in the litigation the Motor Driver because of his negligence in colliding with the cream stand, owner because of his negligence in erecting or using jt in a position dangerous in relation to the roadway. In the event of the County Council being found negligent, the Court could and probably would order contribution towards the damages awarded, by one jor both of the other parties.

As far as the N.Z. Counties •Insurance Company Ltd. was aware, it had not been the practice lo issue a policy covering a large number of cream stand against their liability. The Counties Company could not legally do so. Other offices had the power to do so but it -was probable that an office issuing such a policy would give cover only in respect of such' cream stands as had been accepted by the County Council as satisfactorily placed: probably also a franchise would apply in respect of each claim. It was, understood that the Executive of the Counties Association would shortly consider the general question of cream stands and it was hoped that further information would then be available. The Chairman of tile County Council Mr J. L. Burnett said the mat- ' +. ter had been discussed at a recent •conference whore it haid been stated that in most> cases the dairy eonipanys concerned had accepted re,sponsibility and taken insurance covers. Crs McGougan and Hunter said they failed to see any real danger where stand's were erected well oil' the roads and could be clearly seen. The Chairman: There are more accidents from power and telephone poles. Cr McCrcady: There are more ol them, that's why. The Council decided to forward a copy of the reply to the Farmers' Union stating that in its opinion, the limited cover offered under the scheme outlined, was in no way -sufficient.