FATAL SIDE-CAR ACCIDENT

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 740, 13 August 1929, Page 1

FATAL SIDE-CAR ACCIDENT

Axilbiguity in Insurance Policy

WTING LEGAL POINT ' RAISED T is the plain, ordinary and popular meaning of motor- " cycling? Is a person riding in a side-c2ll- motor-cycling in the .ccepted sense 9f the term? ‘ Interpretatlvn Of these intvrcsting questions was sought from Mr. Justice Ostler, who heard 21 claim for insurance, inthc supreme (‘ourt today.

y“ chimnnt was Bessie Isabel pg. , whose husband, S. H. Raster, VII ”Bed in an accident while rid~ ‘fl'.motor-cycle Sidecar in January, ”’7' no sum. of £SOO was claimed ”an Commercial Union Insurance W under the terms of an acclpz Wee policy. ‘3 the facts were admitted. except w. sldecar passenger was “en- ”; In motor-cycling,” which was '¢ the exceptions the policy did u ylnlntlfl's behalf. Mr. Finlay W“ that a motor-cycle was conW Into a three-wheeler car by the " ot the Sidecar, as the rider : got required to exercise poise : balance that the machine alone

When counsel claimed the ”nu wu ambiguous, his Hon.urrunarked that he was always mm to go against insurance companies where there was ambi“my. It was their language, he aid, amid laughter. In pointlng out the exceptions and!!! the policy, counsel said they kindled o number of dangers from ”on to which the public did not many expose itself. Football was ”In!!! among the exceptions. ‘ Ell Honour ((smillng): I don't W thb policy would be much use “him man. The mass seems to ma. lbs]! to the danger of footMl,” he edded, amid laughter. lullaby went on to argue that I the motor—cycle did remain a.

motoE-cycle when a Sidecar was attached. the passenger did not take an active part in ,the control of the machine.

“I don't know," remarked his Honour. “I owned one once and I had to lean over going round a bend." {Laughienl The judge added that the clause that included motor-cycling had evidently been drawn up by a. lawyer long past his youth. Mr. Finlay’s third point was that “engaged in motorcycling” was equivalent in its meaning and it was clear; he maintained that plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount claimed. Agreeing that the phrase had to be construed in its plain, ordinary meaning, Mr. Johnstone claimed that a person was engaged in motor-cycling whether it was the rider, a girl sitting on the back, or a passenger in the Sidecar. “If a man was ~knocked unconscions in the street and was picked up by a motor-cyclist and taken to the hospital, would he be “engaged in motor-cycling?” asked the judge. smiling. "He might be spending his time in the machine. though he wouldn't know it.” (Laughter) Counsel did not attempt to answer this question beyond saying there was no analogy between an insensi’ble body and a conscious person. Mr. Johnstone quoted authorities in support of his contention that passengers in airplanes had been held to be participating in aeronautics, and maintained the same applied to a. motor—cycle sidecar passenger. Decision was reserved.