MOTOR DAMAGES

Evening Post, Volume CXXIV, Issue 87, 9 October 1937, Page 10

MOTOR DAMAGES

QUESTION OF NEGLIGENCE

MINISTER IS FRANK

"A change must clearly be made, as no one can really deny that the existing law is unsatisfactory and works grave injustice," the Minister of Justice (the Hon. H. G. R. Mason) informed representatives of New Zealand motoring organisations that met him at his invitation yesterday to discuss the Motor Vehicles Damages Bill. He expressed his disappointment at not finding any constructive

help from the motor unions,

e Dr. E. E. Porritt, president of the a North Island Motor Union, thanked the * Minister for giving them the opportu--3 nity of discussing the Bill, and read a - resolution that had been passed by Y the delegates at a preliminary meet--3 ing held that morning to the effect * that on behalf of the motorists oi 1 New Zealand they opposed the proposal in the Bill that damages were to 2 be recovered by injured persons with--1 out proof of negligence. Mr. C. M. Rout, s acting chairman of the Automobile Asr sociation (Nelson) and representing the s South Island Motor Union, expressed i his union's opinion that the proposal i was an unfair one, alleging that it ; conflicted with the safety first scheme i and would tend to make motorists and i pedestrians more careless, that it . placed a stigma on motorists, ana i would penalise one section for the - benefit of others. Mr. T. N. Holmden , said that the Bill departed from the common law of negligence and for thai , reason should be opposed. The Minister observed that the law r relating to negligence was probably the most unsatisfactory of any portion i of our law. It was futile for the motor unions to demand a reverential ' attitude to the law concerning con--1 tributary negligence merely because i 1 * had been inherited from a past age. ■ Jurists condemned the law, which, I when both parties were negligent, often allowed one guilty of -trivia] negligence to carry the whole of the tragic loss, to the exclusion of the ' grossly negligent party. "Impossible for justice to be done under the present rule of law," was the expression used by the late Sir Francis Bell, continued the Minister. In his preface to the sixth edition of Torts, the late Sir John Salmond had been equally condemnatory of that law as a possible basis of justice. Courts having jurisdiction in marine collisions had never followed it. The juries had difficulty in applying it. One Wellington case had gone through five trials. CHANGE MUST COME. "When such results . are obtained," said Mi-. Mason, "the retention of the law has become a scandal. A change must clearly come, as 110 one can really deny that the existing law is unsatisfactory and works, grave injustices. It is disappointing to find nc constructive help " from the motor unions." ' < The Minister said that it was the present law which gave rise to the stigma of negligence, whereas the Bill would remove the necessity of branding the motorist as negligent before the injured person could be compensated. ' The present Third Party Risks Act indemnified the owner completely. He had now no civil responsibility in the matter. Under the law today he was personally liable in damages for injuring a dog, but not for injuring a human being. "It is therefore ridiculous for the Motor Unions solemnly to say that his feeling of responsibility will be lessened," said Mr. Mason. "Their arguments are really arguments against insurance, and show that the opposition to the Bill arises out of a misconception of the underlying principles and a failure to appreciate the significance of the modifications made. It is unfortunate that you have passed that resolution without considering the modifications made in the latest draft of the Bill." In reply to Dr. Porritt, the Ministei gave an assurance that the Bill would not be rushed through, and that the motorists would have a furiher opportunity of considering the matter, and if necessary of giving evidence before the Statutes Revision Committee, t< which the Bill would be referred.