SASU v. WHITE CROSS INSURANCE CO.LTD. Case Analysis

Podcast Beta

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

What was the outcome of the judgment for the defendants?

The defendants were fined for negligence in maintaining the vehicle.

The defendants were found not liable to indemnify the plaintiff. (correct)

The defendants were ordered to pay £855 to the plaintiff.

The defendants received a warning from the judge.

What was identified as the cause of the second accident involving the vehicle?

Defective steering wheel mechanism.

Non-maintenance of the vehicle resulting in a steering bolt falling off. (correct)

Incorrect tire pressure.

Negligence in repairing the car.

How did the judge characterize the expert evidence provided by automobile engineers?

Inconclusive and theoretical.

Scientifically sound and practically real. (correct)

Scientifically unsound and impractical.

Biased and unreliable.

What does the judge's statement 'expert evidence is to be received with reserve' suggest?

Expert evidence should be considered cautiously. Signup and view all the answers

What did the plaintiff claim from the defendants under his insurance policy?

Indemnification for damage to his motor car involved in an accident. Signup and view all the answers

What type of proceeding was the appeal in this case?

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendants by Ollennu J. Signup and view all the answers

When did the plaintiff insure his Morris Minibus with the defendants?

December 31, 1956 Signup and view all the answers

Who repaired the Morris Minibus after the first accident?

C.F.A.O. Ltd., Accra Signup and view all the answers

What caused the defect in the steering mechanism of the Morris Minibus during the second accident?

Disconnected ball-joint at the steering drop arm Signup and view all the answers

What kind of guarantee did C.F.A.O. Ltd., Accra provide to the plaintiff regarding repairs?

Same as the guarantee given by Nuffield on new vehicles Signup and view all the answers

Why did the defendants refuse responsibility for completing repairs after the second accident?

Plaintiff's failure to maintain the vehicle properly Signup and view all the answers

What was common ground between the parties regarding the cause of the defect in the steering mechanism?

Disconnected ball-joint due to a loose nut Signup and view all the answers

What is the main reason for the plaintiff's claim against the defendant company?

The plaintiff did not maintain the vehicle properly. Signup and view all the answers

Why did the defendant company refuse to complete the repairs on the plaintiff's vehicle?

They believed the plaintiff did not properly maintain the vehicle. Signup and view all the answers

What was the main argument of the plaintiff in this case?

The damages claimed failed to consider depreciation due to wear and tear. Signup and view all the answers

Why did the court reject the plaintiff's claim for the full insured value of the vehicle?

The vehicle had been involved in an earlier accident. Signup and view all the answers

What impact did the plaintiff's failure to maintain the vehicle properly have on his claim?

It caused the defendant company to deny liability under the policy. Signup and view all the answers

Why did the court find that £855 was not a valid amount for the plaintiff's claim?

It failed to consider depreciation due to wear and tear. Signup and view all the answers

What becomes synonymous with Faith according to the text?

Belief Signup and view all the answers

According to Lord Campbell, what is the bias that skilled witnesses come with?

Support for the cause Signup and view all the answers

Why do witnesses sometimes see their views align with the wishes of the parties calling them?

As a result of their warped judgments Signup and view all the answers

What does the text suggest about the judgments of zealous partisans?

They are incapable of independence Signup and view all the answers

What did the learned trial judge focus on when making the judgment?

Liability under the policy Signup and view all the answers

Why is it surprising to see witnesses align their views with parties' interests?

Their judgments become warped Signup and view all the answers

What was the main defence of the defendant company in the case?

The plaintiff failed to maintain the vehicle in efficient condition. Signup and view all the answers

Who had the burden of proving that the vehicle was not maintained in efficient condition?

Defendant Company Signup and view all the answers

What caused the accident involving GLR 4 according to common agreement?

A disconnected ball-joint at the steering drop arm. Signup and view all the answers

How did the nut on the steering drop arm come off, according to expert witnesses?

Gradually over a large number of miles. Signup and view all the answers

What did the trial judge's finding indicate about the defect in the steering mechanism?

It resulted from gradual wear and tear. Signup and view all the answers

Why did the defendant company fail to prove that the plaintiff did not maintain the vehicle efficiently?

The facts proved gradual wear and tear as the cause of the accident. Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

Insurance Policy Dispute

The plaintiff, SASU, insured his Morris Minibus with White Cross Insurance Co. Ltd. on December 31, 1956.
On March 27, 1957, the vehicle was involved in an accident, and the defendants instructed C.F.A.O. Ltd., Accra, to repair it.
On June 12, 1957, C.F.A.O. Ltd. wrote to the plaintiff, confirming that they gave a guarantee for the work done on the vehicle, similar to the guarantee given by Nuffield on new vehicles.

Second Accident and Dispute

On September 3, 1957, the vehicle was involved in another accident due to a defect in the steering mechanism.
The cause of the defect was a disconnected ball-joint at the steering drop arm, resulting from a nut on it having gradually worked loose and stripping the thread on the drop arm.
The defendants refused to be responsible for the repairs, claiming that the defect was due to the plaintiff's failure to maintain the vehicle in an efficient condition.

Court Proceedings

The plaintiff instituted an action against the defendants, claiming the full insured value of the vehicle, £855.
The learned judge, Ollennu, J., referred to the expert evidence and found that the cause of the second accident was the plaintiff's failure to maintain the vehicle, resulting in the bolt on the steering falling off.
The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the expert evidence was not sufficient to absolve the defendants of liability.

Judgment of Van Lare, J.A.

Expert evidence should be received with reserve, and judges should form their own opinion on the whole of the evidence.
The learned judge erred in accepting the expert evidence without question and dismissing the plaintiff's claim.

Decision and Liability

The defendant company failed to discharge their burden of proving that the plaintiff did not maintain the vehicle in efficient condition.
The facts proved that the cause of the accident was a disconnected ball-joint at the steering drop arm, resulting from gradual wear and tear, which was not the result of the plaintiff's failure to maintain the vehicle.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Description

Analyzing the court case of SASU v. WHITE CROSS INSURANCE CO.LTD. in the Court of Appeal on January 18, 1960, focusing on expert evidence, the judge's duty to form an opinion on all evidence, and the handling of vehicle insurance claims.