LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22514, 23 September 1938, Page 8

LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES

STATEMENT MADE BY CAR DRIVER

ARGUMENT IN COURT OF APPEAL (PH*SS ±3*ool**lo* TBLKORiM.) WELLINGTON, September 22. . The Court of Appeal to-day heard argument oh Questions of law arising out of an action taken by a the South Island Motor Union Mutual Insurance Association (Christchurch), against Minsons. Ltd., A .W. MirtSon, and E. C. Minson.. A. W. Minson is managingdirector of Minsons, Ltd., and E, C. Minson is his wife. In January, 1937. A. W. Mmson, while driving a car owned by Minsons, Ltd., collided with and injured Mrs Emma Jane Rule. After attending to the injured person, Minson went to his office and typed a memorandum setting out his recollection of the facts, which contained a statement that the accident was his fault. This memorandum was prepared for his own benefit, but he subsequently handed a copy of it to Mrs Rule’s nephew. Subsequently the insurance company, as statutory indemnifler of Minson’s Ltd., paid £1225 to Mrs Rule as damage for her injury, and then claimed to recover from the respondents the amount so paid by it, alleging that the memorandum prepared by Minson constituted - an "admission of liability by the "owner,” which, if made with* out the consent of the insurance company, entitles the insurance company under the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act, 1928, to recover from the insured amounts paid in the settlement of claims against the insured. Answers to Question* Two preliminary questions in law were argued in Christchurch before Mr Justice Northcroft, the questions being: (1) Was the memorandum an admission of liability Within the meaning of the Set? (2) Does the' Owner for that purpose include an authorised driver? HiS Honour answered the first question in the negative and the second ?uestion was answered in the affirmaive. In the Appeal Court to-day the appellants are appealing against the Judge’s answer to the first question, and the respondent against the answer to the second. , For the appellant, Mr W. J. Sim sub* mitted that it would be difficult to lay down any general rule for determ* ining whether a statement constitutes an admission of liability, and that each case should be decided in the light of the circumstances, and of the fact that the section in question was designed for the protection of Insurance Companies, He suggested that the seriousness of the admission was a factor In determining Whether it Constituted an, admission of liability. He further submitted that, although the memorandum did not specifically mention liability for damages, it was conclusive evidence of liability for the accident, and consequently to nay damages. Mr Gresson, for the respondents, argued that “admission of liability” must mean admission of liability to pay damages. . Otherwise, any Un* guarded remark by a driver as to the circumstances of an accident might be construed as an admission of liability, and eicpoSe him to liability to reimburse the insurance company. The hearing was adjourned.