THIRD-PARTY RISK

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 135, 5 December 1933, Page 11

THIRD-PARTY RISK

» . PKOPOSED CHANGES CONCERN EXPRESSED Great concern at the proposed altera ) tions in the legislation dealing witl third-party motor risks as recommend i ed by the Public Petitions Committei of tho House of Representatives, wa: s expressed by members at a meeting o: 1 the Wellington Automobile Club las j night. Tho Public Petitions Committee con i sidered that a Select Committee shoulc " investigate the following proposals ai " present under consideration by tin ' British Parliament: —(1) That insteac .of a pedestrian having to prove neglig ! enco on the part of tho motorist, neglig 1 once on the part of the motorisi •to be assumed until the contrary is 1 proved. (2) That defence of contributory ' butory negligence bo eliminated, the L defendant being exonerated only when | the acoidont is wholly due to the faull 'of the injured person. (3) That in the ' case of "inevitable accidents," that is ( where no negligence is proved on eithei side, the risk should bo. covered. Tho chairman (Mr. E. A. Batt) saic ,tho matter was ouq of tho most important that had como before the clul for a long time. It was proposed tc throw all the liability on the motorisi and ndne on the pedestrian. The secretary (Mr. W. A. Sutherland) said that when, the matter came before tho House of Lords, tho English Automobile Association prepared evidence which covered tho position in New Zealand. A proof of tho evidence of Sir Stonson Cooke, secretary of the Automobile Association, England, given bofore a Select Committee of the House of Lords concerning the Road Traffic (Compensation for Accidents) Bill was present.cd to the meeting. In his evidence Six Stenson said that in . his opinion the Bill suggested that merely because a motor vehicle was involved in an accident that should bo presumptive evidence of negligence on the part of the motorist. Tho fact that the negligence of other road users was frequently the cause of accidents seemed to be in danger of being ignored. Tho proposal that although a person had been guilty of a substantial measure of contributory negligence he should bo entirely absolved from tho consequences of his action, was directly opposed to tho principles of common justice and in practico would operato most harshly against the motorist. He had yet to hear any convincing argument, as distinguished from personal expressions of opinion, in support of tho suggested alterations of the law for the benefit of tho individual whoso negligence might have substantially contributed to an accidont. In his opinion, there was little doubt but that tho drastic proposals to facilitate the recovery of compensation would result in increased claims on insurance companies, and that in turn would react on the motorist in the form of increased insurance premiums. The exclusion of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, the shifting Of the onus of proof from the claimant to the motorist, and the obligation on the motorist-—where there were two parties involved—first to pay tho injured party, would undoubtedly have the effect of encouraging unjustifiable claims.. It had been suggested in support of the Bill that the precedent of certain foreign countries where the onus of proof was upon tho motorist, should be followed. , He suggested that that was also substantially in line, with the criminal, law in some foreign countries, namely, that an alleged offender was presumed to bo guilty until he had proved his innocence. The principle was one which he. personally hoped would never be introduced into England either in the Civil or criminal law. British justice was renowned the world over, and he submitted that—from the standpoint of what was best in tho public interest—it should bo possible to come to a decision without adopting the somewhat dangerous practice of borrowing law from their Continental neighbours. He had no desire to-be-little the responsibility of the motorist in road accidents, but submitted that the Bill did not mako the slightest contribution towards the prevention of accidents. On tho contrary, it actually sought to relieve pedestrians, cyclists, and others of their ordinary responsibilities when making use of the highway. ' "NOT THEIR OWN BRAIN WAVE." Mr. Batt said he understood that tho Public Petitions Committee had taken tho-; proposed alterations from the British Legislation. "It is not their own brain wave in tho matter," he said. '(The question must be taken up by the North and South Island Motor Unions. If tho Government goes any further with a view to putting such legislation j into force, we must fight it to the death. Tho matter will require a good deal of national support otherwise it will be going through. It' appears to me that it is going to thrust the Whole onus oh tho motorist of proving himself not guilty." ■■■..".•■■■ It was decided on tho motion of Mr. E; Palliser, to refer the matter to the North Island Motor Union with a view to it seeking the co-operation of the South Island Union in taking urgent action to oppose any proposed alterations to the present law.