COMPENSATION LAW

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 22, 21 October 1937, Page 10

COMPENSATION LAW

Proposed Bill Relating To Motor Accidents A CONDEMNATORY OPINION By Telegraph—Press Association. (Jlu'istdiui'cli, October 20. “What should be said to the Minister, I think, is ‘We do not want your Bill at all. It violates every wellrecognised canon of the law of tort aud it cannot be justified by any process of philosophy or logic,’ ” said Mr. Roy Twyneham at a special meeting of the executive of the South Island Motor Union to-day. The meeting, was called to consider the proposed Bill now under consideration by the Government to provide for the compensation of uninsured parties in motor accidents. The meeting had before it a letter from the Minister of Justice, Hon. H. G. R. Mason, outlining the proposed Bill and also his periodical statements to newspapers about his proposals.

“If t’-e Minister is determined to introduce this Bill,” said Mr. Twyneham, “then I think we should ask for the following concessions from him: (1) That all claims be tried by a judge and two assessors, whether such claims are founded on negligence of the motorist or not; (2) that it should be a condition precedent to the right of recovery of damages that plaintiffs other than a motorist covered by third party insurance should be holders of an insurance cover in respect of which they have paid a reasonable premium; (3) that premiums to be paid should be utilised for the purpose of providing compensation to claimants. “Ab- the same time it should be made perfectly clean that any constructive suggestions have been put forward under protest against the adoption by Parliament of the proposed measure, but are tendered merely to alleviate the hardship which would be imposed upon the motorist by the provisions of the Bill.”

No definite action was taken at the meeting, and it was decided to hold another shortly tp consider the matter further.