“CONVULSION OF NATURE”

Wairarapa Times-Age, 11 May 1943, Page 2

“CONVULSION OF NATURE”

EXPRESSION CONSIDERED TOO VAGUE. INSURANCE COMPANY LOSES CASE. (Bv Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, This Day. Declining to decide what a “convulsion of nature’’ is, Mr Justice Noithcroft has given judgment in favour of the widow of a man who lost his life in a flood but whose insurance policy provided that the company should not be liable for loss resulting from “earthquake, hurricane, volcanic eruption or other convulsion of nature.” Plaintiff was the widow of the Rev. G. E. Williams, Anglican vicar of Eketahuna, who was drowned in his car before the eyes of onlookers on the main Eketa-huna-Woodville highway last July. Mr Williams died on July 13 when heavy rain had caused the Mangatainoka River to overflow on to the highway. He attempted to drive through flood waters near Hamua, but was washed off the road. An attempt was made to rescue him, but just as a ladder with a rope tied to it had been floated cut to him, the car with him in it was washed away and he was drowned. The car was insured with the Wairarapa Automobile Association Mutual Insurance Company, and Mrs Williams claimed from the company £lOOO on her husband’s life and the value of the car. His Honour, whose reesrved judgment was delivered yesterday, said the expression “convulsion of nature” could not be found in dictionaries. Counsel had not been able to offer any direct help, but had had to resort to what might or might not be regarded as a “convulsion of nature.” The discussion and the offering of many examples had only tended to increase his difficulty in fixing the meaning of the words. He had searched dictionaries, including “Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary,” collections of synonyms and of quotations, “Thesaurus,” and Fowler’s books in vain. “This negative search inclines me to the view that the expression is colloquial only, and has no settled place in our written language,’ ’said his Honour. “Certainly I think it is an expression too vague, indefinite and ambiguous to have the effect in this case of excusing the company from its obligations under the policy. While he was not prepared to say what might or might not be a “convulsion of nature,” he thought the expression did not fit the facts of the case.

Mr G. G. G. Watson appeared at the hearing for plaintiff, and Mr C. E. Evans-Scott for defendant.