REVISING RULES.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 181, 1 August 1936, Page 12

REVISING RULES.

ACCESS TO JUSTICE. LAW REFORM BILL. ACCIDENTS ON HIGHWAYS. (By Trfegrapli.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Friday. Old rules of law which were in the way of justice would be abolished by tlie Law Reform Bill, sp.id the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Mason) when the measure was introduced in the House of Representatives to-day by Governor-General's Message. The bill is divided into six parts, each of which deals with a subject nov iiirectly related to the others. Part I of tlie Dili deals with the survival of causes of action after death, arid in effect abrogates, subject to certain expressed provisions, the rule expressed in the maxim "Actio personalis moritur cum persona," that the personal representative of a deceased person cannot sue or be sued in respect of a wrong committed against or by the deceased during his lifetime.

Highways Accident. The Minister instanced the case of an accßlent which occurred on the highways and the driver of the vehicle causing the accident was killed and others were injured. Under the existing law, he said, the persons injured could not obtain fitly remedy, as there was n-> one who could ■be sued and the insurance pool was not liable to pay damages. The lawyers of tlie country, said the Minister, were anxious that this rule should be abolished. So glaring was the injustice that in a number of cases he believed the insurance pools made ex gratia payments, though the law did not compel them to pay out anything. The rights conferred by the bill are in addition to any rights conferred by the Deaths by Accidents Compensation Act, 1908, and one result will be that where both tlie wrong-doer and the person whose dependents have a right of action die, a cause of action under tlie Deaths by Accidents Compensation Act will survive against the estate of the wrongdoer.

flio Deaths by Accidents Compensation Act is amended by Part 11. of the bill, and the definition of the term "child" is extended to include illegitimate and adopted children.

The rule that moneys payable under an insurance policy accruing to defendants by reason of the death of the person on whom the claimants depend, must be taken into account so as to reduce the amount of damages allowed, is abolished. The Minister stated that similar provision in respect of insurance moneys had been in force in England since 1908. Insurance Moneys. Part 111. creates a charge on all insurance moneys payable as indemnity for liability to pay damages or compensation. Similar provisions are already eontr'ned in the Workers' Compensation Act, 1922, and in the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks) Insurance Act, 1928, but under these provisions no charge on insurance moneys is created unless the insured is insolvent or becomes bankrupt. Clause 10 of the bill repeals these existing provisions.

Capacity, property, and liabilities of married women, and liabilities of husbands, are dealt with in Part IV.

This part, in effect, says that so far as the capacity to contract, to hold property, and to sue and be sued, is concerned, a married woman shall be in exactly the same position as an unmarried woman. A married woman will also be subject to the law relating to the enforcement of judgments, and a husband will not be liable for his wife's torts and ante-nuptial debts. Exemption. The exemptions which will remain are: —

(1) A husband will be liable in respect of contracts entered into by his wife after marriage to the same extent that he is now liable.

(2) A husband and wife, while living together, will not be able to sue each other in tort, except in order to protect their property.

Part V. deals with the liability of tort-feasers. This part supersedes Section 94 of the Judicature Act, in so far as it relates to actions in tort, and provides both for the liability of and contribution between joint wrongdoers. It also provides ' machinery for assessing the amount of contributions.

The defence of common employment is abolished in Part VI. This defence depended on a rule that damages could not be recovered from an employer in respect of the negligence of a fellowservant.

The bill was read a sccond time pro forma, and referred to the Statutes Revision Committee.