COMPENSATION LAW

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 143, 18 June 1924, Page 6

COMPENSATION LAW

,'• ;.' /■' . ' -"..Ml THE EDITOR.' . / ■ ': Sir;— Your editorial of- Friday under this heading suggests some obvious com- i merits.. The case in' connection -with wiich his Honour tHff Chief Justice expressed -hjs' preference for medical assessors was not a compensation case bat an action for damages.'.The Court of Arbitration has exclusive jurisdiction in actions* for-.compensation, but the Supreme Court; or -in-minor cases' the Magistrate's Court;; ;deaJs with claims' for ; damages on account ■of personal injuries. In an action, for compensation the question.' of negligence, o* no negligence cannot arise, and, ithe action is necessarily bet-ween worker,'and employer. Claims for damages on account of personal injuries, however, are hecessar- '■'■ ily founded on negligence, or alleged ne-,! gligence, and they are certainly not limited to .actions by workers against employers. ; Accordingly, if juries are to be '■ discarded in this1 class of "case in favour .of medical ■ assessors,, it follows that the latter must be called upon to determine, not only the nature and extent of a/ plaintiff's injuries, 'but also ■ "such vital questions of fact as these:—Was the defendant negligent?, Did his negligence cause tbe accident? Was the plain'tifl guilty of contributory negligence? Could the plaintiff by the exercise of reasonable .enre .have avoir-led the ,irWdent? ; Did the plaintiff voluntarily agree to incur the risk of injury? " In plain1 English, Mr." Editor, the suggested alteration means that ' in respect of a large and important class of civil case the jury system is to <be abolished ! I am, aware that certain subterranean forces are at work to discredit the iurv system, but let us have at least a froiital,attack. As for the comments 'of our esteemed Chief Justice, it may be pointed out. that they were not relevant1 to the case under consideration at all. In other words they: yi-ere mere obiter dicta, and an. indulgent public will not be too censorious in judging his -Honour's pardonable proclivity for polemics. At the same time I venture'to think"-" that the majority of the, people who will give the matter proper consideration will aTe'e.that the Court of Arbitration, in compensation cases, and the''jury in actions fqr damages, on account of "personal injuries, are quite competent in their respective spheres to deal with all questions-of-fact, including the nature and extent of injuries.—l am etc.* . '.^. r P-.'-J- O'REGAN. 16th June.