THIRD PARTY RISK APPEAL

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 66, 5 April 1937, Page 7

THIRD PARTY RISK APPEAL

i— Preaa Aaaooiation.1

Sequel to Accident on Petone Bridge WH0SE LIABILITY?

(By

TelegrapJb

WELLINGTON, This Day. The Court of Appeal to-day is engaged in hearing the case of the A.P.A. Union Assurance Society v. Margaret Cree Ritchie, of Petone, widow (first defendant) and Barton Ginger and Co. Ltd. (second defendant). On a stormy day in December, 1936, a motor lorry owned by Barton Ginger was carrying two cases of motorparts from Wellington to Moera and when the lorry was passing over the bridge at Petone the cases were blown l'rom tho lorry, one of them falling on and killing the husband of the first defendant, Margiaret Cree Ritchie, who was walking over the bridge. The first defendant brought an actibn against the second defendant (Barton Ginger) in February last claiming damagea for the death of her husband and the jury awarded her £1,250 and costs. Consequent on this verdict, the plaintiff, the A-P.A. Union Assurance Company, issued an originating summons to determine whether it was liable under tho Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act, 1928, as statutory indemnifier, to indemnitfy the second defendant in respect of its liability for these damages. By consent an order was made by Mr Justice Reed removing the originating summons into the Court of Appeal, where the matter is being argued this morning on agreed facts and evidence taken at the trial, in which Margaret Ctree Ritchie was the plaintiff. The question before the Court of Appeal is whether, in tbe cixcumstances in which the first defendant 's husband was killed, the happening causing his death has imposed liability on the second defendant by reason of death "sustained or caused by, through or in connection with the use" of a lprry within the meaning of section 6 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act 1928. If so, the plaintiff company is liable to indemnify the second defendant respecting that liability. Opening the case for the plaintiff, the A.P.A. Union Assurance Society, Mr. W. E. Leicester submitted: (1) That neither the agreed facts nor the evidence given showed negligent use of the vehicle as sueh; (2) that the concluding words of section 6 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act, 1928, should be interpreted as creating an indemnity as the result of accident sustained or caused directly by, through or in connection with the lise of a motor vehicle; (3) that the accident in this case was not directly so sustained or caused; (4) that the scope or object of the Act was not to confer a public risks policy to cover all common law risks arising out of the conduction of an owner's business. (Proceeding).