Does Third Party Insurance Cover Criminal Negligence?

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 46, 17 May 1927, Page 11

Does Third Party Insurance Cover Criminal Negligence?

Important Decision is Given by British Judge CAR DRIVER WAS DRUNK In an important English decision, reported in the “London Times,” and concerning cover under third party insurance, Mr. J astice Roche held that a motorist who had been convicted of the manslaughter of a motor-bicyclist with whom he collided was not precluded by considerations of public policy from claiming indemnity under a policy of insurance in respect of his civil liability arising out of the same collision, since the criminal act was negligent and not deliberate.

The case wis that between F. C. James and the British General Insurance Co.

James was at a wedding in 1925, and it appeared at his trial that he was foolish and wrong enough to get drunk.

Driving afterwards, he collided with a motor-cycle and side-car, killing one man (Tait) and injuring another (Shadwell). James was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. A charge of wounding Shadwell was laid, but was not proceeded with.

Shadwell bi ought a successful action for damages, which James was unable to pay unless he had recourse to the insurance company. Judgment for Shadwell amounted to £1,682 7s 7d, and James claimed this amount, plus costs of his jwn repairs, defence of the action, and of his own trial. Judgment was given for £1,857 4s lid, the judge cutting out £252 ss, which were legal costs or. the criminal trial, and held to be not covered under the insurance.

defendants deny liability The defendants contended that they were not liable, as the accident happened vvhile the plaintiff was committing criminal acts, in that he was drunk and driving a motor-car to the danger of the public, which resulted in his conviction for manslaughter. They contended that the plaintiff thereby increased the risk borne by the defendants, ancl if and so far as the Policy constituted an indemnity to the Plaintiff against the consequences of dis criminal acts, it was contrary to public policy and void. thH* 3 said that he thought tnat where a man committed a crime which necessarily involved intention, th 6? }} was contrar y to public policy Jhut he shou.d be indemnified against Jhe consequences. In the case of trier crimes it was a question whether there was indention. Unless he were ompeltea by decided cases to hold otherwise, he thought that it would be t k ? ther c,;>ntrar y to public policy o hoid that a. man could not cover by ~_.u . l ance liability to third persons tsmg out cf dangerous driving. . ** would be a serious thing if Juries, magistrates and Judges had J? . n l ow that if a man were convicted of any offence the injured Party could not recover any effecIVe damages, because his insurance cover was voided. PUBLIC POLICY

It remained to deal with the question of public policy. That was a Question of very general importance, oecause if tie contention of the defendants was right it cut at the root A a very large number of motor insurances. tie could see no half-way oaee. The principle, if applicable rt . . was applicable to all persons to 1116 Public danger. It uid extend, moreover, beyond motor-car insurance. It would extend in '^’ orkmen s compensation insurance where workmen were injured y accidents caused by breaches of the factory Acts.

th? Q Was not P re Pare<3 to hold that in a H a Case of ne Sligence there was such trn^, gr f e ° f ,?rim *nality as made it contifp t 0 public Policy that the plaintiff should recover. th??L» fo . u “ d U dif ficult to believe that .. p aintlf;: was any worse morally drnvA^ 6 w ho in their sober senses war! L° € dan^er of the public. Both th e v o£ ne £iise#ice for which npif .. ere liable in a criminal court. In jury r cas<l had they intended the in-

Un co u l? eC \° f holdi «S that the plainno casein A >t recover would be that In to the n,fl, h ‘ ch a person was driving to rei„ P , C danper Would he be able thn t k Pn Jds insurance. The proposal Who si? been made that all persons Polina r< J ve motor-cars should be comri^L*u 7°, :nsur e against third-party for be mea tioned as a reason to in extending the rule as Public policy.