ROAD ACCIDENTS

Evening Post, Volume CXXIV, Issue 88, 11 October 1937, Page 10

ROAD ACCIDENTS

LIABILITY ISSUE

THE MINISTER'S PROPOSALS

MOTOR UNION'S VIEW

(By Telegraph—Press Association.)

HAWERA, This Day.

The published statements of the Minister of Justice (the Hon. H. G. R. Mason) that he was disappointed with the attitude of the motor unions towards the proposals for changing the • law in connection with compensation for road accidents was referred to by Dr. E. E. Porritt, president of the North Island Motor Union today. After conferring with Mr. W. R. Carey, chairman of the executive council of the South Island Motor Union, he made a statement in reply. ■ Dr. Porritt emphasised the appreciation felt by motorists' representatives of the opportunities given by the Minister to hold discussions but said that unless and until the Minister abandons the doctrine of absolute liability for which his proposals provide, the motor unions would strongly oppose what he described as the main object of the new legislation. The effect of the change in the law would be to make the owner of a motor vehicle liable for the payment of compensation where any person suffers an injury in a motor accident, irrespective of whether there is negligence or not on the part of the owner of the vehicle. The Minister had stated that the underlying philosophy on which his Bill would be .based was that motor vehicles were inherently dangerous to human life. It would be readily apparent how "negative" and inequitable the proposals were, stated Dr. Porritt. In the first place, their acceptance would presuppose that human beings were unable to adapt themselves to the use and presence of motor vehicles, but, as he pointed out, mechanical appliances of equal potential danger and such forces as electricity had been successfully Fubjected to human control. When a debate was in progress in the House of Lords in 1934 on the Road Traffic (Compensation for Accidents) Bill, ■which contained provision similar to that now receiving consideration, Lord Darling stated that the Government licensed vehicles and prescribed the regulations for observance by their users, and then this same controlling authority proposed to turn round and say "that the things you are doing and the machines you are using (with our authority) are dangerous and you ,must be penalised for doing what we permit you to do." Exactly the same position would suit from Mr. Mason's proposals. It was significant to note that the Bill was not proceeded with in England. After referring to Mr. Semple's campaign to imbue all road-users with a sense of responsibility, Dr. Porritt quoted Earl Howe in the House of Lords in 1934. He said that there would never be a way out of the road accident problem unless there was an equal responsibility among the different classes of users. It was considered lhat the adoption of such a Bill as proposed would destroy that co-opera-tion in road usage which was so essential in promoting road safety. Roadusers would be encouraged to take risks because when an accident resulted from such action the motorist would be called upon to pay. Dr. Porritt went on to remark that his organisation considered it to be against the very principles of British justice to make a person who was without blame responsible for injuries suffered by a second person through the second man's negligence. It had been pointed out by the Earl , of Plymouth in a debate in the Lords j that such a Bill imposed on careful . motorists, Where they were innocent ( of blame or responsibility, liability to \ pay damages. They were deprived of ] the opportunity of proving themselves ( blameless. It was stressed that the motor union's objection was to introduction of what might be termed "the • doctrine of absolute liability" against ] motor-vehicle owners. It did not in- i volve any endeavour to have unfortu- 1 nate persons deprived of anything to 1 which they were justly entitled. Motor- < ists' representatives had indicated to I the Minister that some aspects of his i proposed changes met with their entire approval, but for so long as the pro- ( vision of absolute liability was re- < tained opposition must necessarily be i maintained to a principle unreliably based in an endeavour to be construe- < tive. In the hope that the good fea- i tures of the Minister's proposals might 1 be included in Statute law, special at- ' tention was now being given by motor < unions to the drafting of provisions t which would be submitted to the Automobile Associations for their considera- 1 tion with a view to their being placed 1 before the Minister at a subsequent 1 conference. • *