MOTOR ACCIDENTS

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 143, 18 June 1937, Page 14

MOTOR ACCIDENTS

PERSONAL INJURIES

DAMAGES AS RIGHT

MAGISTRATE'S VIEWS

The principle of persons injured in motor-traffic accidents receiving compensation as of right unless the injury is received deliberately and wilfully in such a way that it could fairly be described as self-inflicted was supported by Mr. J. H. Luxford. S.M., in an address given by him to the Faculty of Insurance last night. Mr. Luxford advocated that the law should be altered to provide for this, and submitted a number of reasons in support of the contention. The suggestion has been put forward previously, Mr. P. J. O'Regan, now.Mr. Justice O'Regan, being one who has expressed the view that such a change is desirable.

Those present to hear Mr. Luxford's address included heads of insurance offices, insurance assessors, and members of the executive of the Automobile Association (Wellington). Mr. W. T. Ikin, president of the faculty,.was in the chair.

The legal machine, said Mr. Luxford, had proved itself incapable of adjusting satisfactorily, within the four corners of established judicial procedure, claims for personal injuries arising in consequence of ,a motor vehicle accident. "I do not suggest," he continued, "that our Courts are incapable of determining whether an act is,negligent or of ascertaining the real and effective cause of the accident by which a person is injured, but I do suggest that where compensation is claimed for permanent personal injury there is a difficulty in obtaining a finding of a jury on these questions uninfluenced by other considerations. The outstanding feature of the administration of justice in our courts is the simplicity of its procedure and the absence of undue delay in tlie final adjudication of matters coming before them. That feature has made our system the envy of other nations, but one can say in truth that its reputation is not justified in cases involving claims for personal injuries arising out of motor accidents.

LAYMEN'S DIFFICULTIES.

"I am not going to say how much juries are to blame or how much the judiciary-is to blame, but this much is clear: the principles which Judges have attempted to enunciate for the purpose of determining liability have become so complicated and involved that it is indeed difficult for any body of laymen such as a jury to appreciate the issues put to it. It is not an exaggeration to say it is the exception to find a case of this description which ends with the jury's verdict. How different in other classes of cases, and, in particular, trials under the criminal law."

For illustration Mr. Luxford quoted the case of Robertson v. Ling Sing, in which there were three trials before a jury, a motion before a Judge alone, a motion before the Full Court, and an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The plaintiff did not' get the damages to which he was entitled until after almost, a year of constant litigation, and he had to utilise part of his compensation to pay the heavy- costs involved. In the case of Benson v. Kworig Chong, there were three trials before, a jury, a motion before a Judge alone, an appeal IoJ the Court of Appeal, a petition for, leave to appeal to the Privy Council in forma pauperis, because by that time one could imagine the plaintiff was in forma pauperis, and finally an appeal to the-Privy CouncU, which resulted in.the jury's verdict in favour of the plaintiff bemg restored. Almost three years elapsed between the date the plaintiff was injured and the final disposal of the case before the Privy Council. Mr. Luxford said he ventured the opinion that the ratio of costs to actual compensation paid by the "pool" would, if it were known,,' cause considerable surprise. y - ' ' The second reason for supporting the suggestion was that the motor vehicle was a dangerous machine, and mischief wrought by it should not be governed by the rules of the law of negligence— at least those rules should not apply when the mischief caused bodily injury. An innocent person might be grievously maimed when the driver was not at all negligent. He readily agreed it would be difficult for a driver to prove such a fact, because a jury would be loth to leave the innocent victim uncompensated, but legally the defence was available.

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

The third .reason was .the difficulty of assessing properly damages for permanent injury under the present system. There was always the danger of an excessive amount being awarded, because of the driver's conduct, or, on the other hand, of the damages being reduced in the jury room by way of compromise in order that an agreement might be come to on the general issue of negligence. The ideal method of awarding compensation for future incapacity was to adopt the principle applied in granting pensions for war injuries, and for tne assessment to be made by a similarly constituted tribunal. The administrative cost of such a scheme might prove an insuperable obstacle, but an alternative scheme, almost as fair and equitable, would be the establishment of a tribunal similar to the War Pensions Board, charged with the duty of awarding compensation on the same basis as if the'injured worker1 had been a worker in receipt of the basic wage injured in the course of his employment. The Workers' Compensation Act fixed the percentage of disability for specific injuries, and those unspecified were fixed according to medical evidence. That should be the function of the special tribunal, as would be the assessment of special damages.

STRIKING DISCREPANCY.

"Probably no more effective argument in favour of the reform which I advocate could be put forward than the figures I am about to quote. The total sum paid out of the pool for compensation to injured persons and the legal costs in respect of claims for 1936 amounted to £320,621. The Year Book does not disclose the number of claims, but I have ascertained that the average annual number for the years 1930 to 1933, both inclusive, was approximately 1400. I will be on the safe side if I take the number rt claims at 1000 for the years 1935 to 1936. This is the significance of ths figures:—Every person who causes the death of or bodily injury to another by his negligent use of a motor vehicle commits a crime. During 1935 only seven persons were convicted or sentenced for that crime and fifteen in 1936. Yet it has been held in New Zealand that the criminal law regards negligence in tlie driving of a motor vehicle in the same way in criminal as in civil proceedings. That is not the whole story; convictions in criminal proceedings should exceed in number the verdicts in favour of injured plaintiffs because the defence of contributory negligence and tlie subsidiary defences are available in civil but not in criminal proceedings.

"Why is this extraordinary discrepancy? I do not say the judicial system has been prostituted in order to