• HINTS FOR HAULIERS.
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
An Occasional Chat on Subjects and Problems of Interest to Those Who are Engaged, or About to be Engaged, in Running Commercial Vehicles for a Living.
MANY YEARS AGO, when I was one of the proletariat, and went to and from my work in the wee sina' hours of the •naoming and evening, dressed in blue overalls (other things as well, of course), and riding in workmen's trams, I overheard a Lancashire collier, discussing the capaaity of a confrere, declare that he would not pay him his wages "wit' th' 'oles eaut o' washers." The expression has always remained with me, and I think that, if I had to pay some of our legislators their four hundred a year, they would receive their remuneration in " th' 'oles eaut o' washers." Motoring, in various forms, has been well to the fore in the subjects which have been appearing of late on the agenda of the debating society which holds its meetings alongside the river just by Westminster Bridge, and the other day one member asked if it .,, could be made compulsory for owners of motor vehicles to insure against thirdparty risks. The question reminded me of a. contrary, opinion, expressed by a, friend of mine, an ardent cyclist, and a fervent anti-motorist, who used to aver that half the accidents which occurred in connection with motorcars were due to the fact that the motorist invariably insured against third-party risks and, therefore, relieved himself of any anxiety as to the injury he might inflict on an unfortunate cyclist, who was, in the event of a collision, helpless, and seldom if ever inflicted any damage on the motorist. He was strongly in favour of the prohibition by law of third-party insurance, at least in connection with motorcar policies.
Protecting the Public.
The moral should be fairly plain. The object of the parliamentarian is clearly that of protecting the third_ person against damage which he may sustain by the act of a motorist who is without the means to pay substantial but nevertheless reasonable damages, and really the suggestion is no more unreasonable than the one that employers of labour, no matter how small or insignificant their staff, should insure against accidents which may occur to their workmen in the course of their employment. A man may employ a charwoman who, as the result of a fall, may injure herself for life. If uninsured, no award of any court could make the employer compensate her if he had not the means to do so. If he is_compolled to insure her, then the question of his means does not arise. He simply pays a small premium— it is infinitesimal, and the insurance company pays the compensation. In the same way, the owner of a motor lorry which has become concerned lira mishap, may not be' able, unaided, to compensate the injured for the damage suffered. In that event, both the motor owner and his victim suffer irreparableloss. If the motorist is compelled to insure against third party risks, he does so at slight cost, and, in the event of an accident, both he and his victim are saved from absolute loss.
Perhaps that M.P. deserves a lithe of the metal of the washers after all!
A case of considerable interest to readers of this page has just been decided in the Scottish Courts, which, by the way, are generally regarded as being more rigid in their application of the strict letter of the law than those on the south of the border. A man insured his motor lorry and, on the proposal form, for some reason or other (whether as the result of an error, misunderstanding of the meaning of the B32 form, or otherwise, is not clear), made a misstatement in respect of the address at which the lorry was usually garaged. A fire occurred, and the lorry was totally destroyed. He claimed 400 compensation, and the underwriters who effected the insurance disputed the claim on the ground that the proposal was incorrect and contained a false statement. The man lost his case, although the major part of the costs had to be borne by the defendants. On the face of it, and without having the full report of the case before me, it would appear that a mere technicality had turned the scale against the insured.
Accuracy in One's Application:
There are one or two points which clearly arise out of this, but the outstanding one is the importa.nce of taking care that the form of proposal is correctly filled up in every particular, right down to the minutest detail. If there is any doubt whatever about anything, then the insured should communicate direct with the head office of the company, telling them the circumstances, and have their written assurance that the point raised is in order. It does not do to rely on the spoken word of the agent, however good his intentions or apparent standing with his company. It is not safe to allow the agent to fill in the form, but, if he does so, then the insured must read it through carefully and see that it is correct. Do not allow the agent to make statements on the form which are not strictly accurate and for which you cannot vouch, exactly, without any hesitation, ifs or buts. If, for example, question is asked on the form, the answer to which is, to your mind, in doubt, do not allow the agent to reassure you. His word is of no account in a court of law, if the matter comes up for dispute later. It has been held, with one or two exceptions which had special significance, that the insurance company's agent, during the time in which he is filling up a form for the insured, or even helping or advising him as to how that form should be filled in, is actually the agent of the insured and, for the time being, the insurance company are not responsible for what he may say, or do. In case I have not made myself clear on this important point, the following example, which is of direct interest to all vehicle iusers, may elucidate matters. A milk purveyor desired to insure against accidents while driving. The insurance company's agent filled in the form without obtaining from the insured correct information as to the answers to be given to the questions on the proposal form. One of the questions was, "Has any accident happened in connection with the vehicles or horses now inyour use? " The question was answered, by the agent, in the negative, although, as a matter -of fact, there had been an accident, although only a slight one, involving negligible damage. One of the conditions of the policy was to the effect that any misstatement in the proposal rendered the policy void. The assured never took the trouble to read what the agent had written, but boldly signed his name to the foot below a printed declaration to the effect that all the statements made in the form were true, to the best of his knowledge and belief. It was held: (I) That there,was a material misstatement of fact. (2) That the person filling in the proposal (the insurance company's agent, as a matter of fact) did so as agent of the assured and not as agent of the office. (3) The policy was void.