FULL LIABILITY

Evening Post, Volume CXXIV, Issue 90, 13 October 1937, Page 11

FULL LIABILITY

ACCIDENTS ON ROAD

PROPOSAL CRITICISED

MOTORISTS' VIEWS

lively interest was taken by the mat meeting of the Automobile sociation. (Wellington) last night in i proposal by the Minister of Jusz (the Hon. H. G. R. to intro:e a Bill to enlarge the scope of the sility of drivers of motor vehicles ising injury to third parties. A tion was carried, approving of the itude of the North and South Island •tor Unions in opposing the prinle of absolute liability for damages itained arising out of the use of tor vehicles.

At. E. P. Hay, a member \of the' icutive, explained the main points the Bill. An important principle was •olved, he said, as what was proied v was a departure from the «pted law. The Minister's argunt was that the principle should be slied to the motorcar because it i become a potential instrument of ury on the public highways. There re certain exceptions, to the prinle of absolute liability which the 1 established, and these he outed. iir Alexander Roberts suggested tt members should support ,the jcutive in the work it had Under:en in the matter. EFFECT ON PREMIUMS. V member asked what effect the new , islatlon would have upon insurance smiums. >ir Alexander said that some of the urance members might be able to ke'a forecast. It appeared to him tt a pretty solid premium; would w'e to be paid to cover motorists unst the liability proposed, iir. G. Thomas inquired whether > Bill made any provision for a case ere an accident was caused partly the definite negligence of the in•ed party and also through the deLte negligence of the motorist. Did j absolute liability principle apply the motorist then? Ax. Hay said that the measure as it od at toe moment—it was purely in » embryo stage—could cover such :ase. The injured party, even if .*tly negligent himself, would be ■itled to a full award of damages. He ght even be 80 or 90 per cent, rerasible for the accident; he would on the same footing as a man who s only 5 per cent, negligent. Ax. Hay moved that the meeting prove of the action of the North i South' Island Motor Unions in opiing the principle of absolute liabilfor damages sustained arising out the use of motor vehicles. * ■« ?he resolution was seconded by Mr. S. Wilson. Sir Alexander Roberts said it was ped by the united efforts of all the ociations to be able to side-track, the jposed legislation. ' MEANING OF PROPOSALS. iir. G. R» Powles said he was unable support the motion in the form in iich it Was worded. He was opsed to the Minister's proposals, but fc because they involved the principle absolute liability. To his mind the nister's proposals were directed by reform of the law of contributory gligence and ; not to'a"ref6rlri;of the vof negligence as a whole. As i law stood at present a motorist to was 51 per cent, responsible for accident could recover damages in I against a motorist who was 49 per it. responsible for" ai. accident;, but lversely, the motorist who was 49 r cent, responsible for the accident K unable to recover anything. He mght the present rule was a rough-d-ready rule and had resulted in a ge" amount of costly litigation; and believed that the Minister was atnpting to remove a blot on our legal ;tory. He thought that changing im the rough-and-ready rule of the >sent contributory negligence system the admittedly rough-and-ready rule absolute liability would be a change • the better. But, he was in entire ceement with what the chairman of j executive set out in the circular to ■mbers. In the circular Mr; Batt inted out that the most serious aspect the proposal was that motorists >uld carry the entire responsibility : all accidents in which injuries were jsed to a third party, whether motoror pedestrian. His submission was it the proper course for motorists to se was to fight the Minister on that ?ect of the matter, pointing out to n that.it was most unjust that motors should pay an additional premium srely because they insured pedesans against the risks of accident. He aught it was unwise for motorists to press an opinion on the legal prin)le. After all, if the effect of the II had been to reduce their premiums >uld they not all be hailing it as a mderful example of British justice? VCr. Powles moved as an amendment it the meeting express its opposition the proposed Bill upon the ground at it imposed a further unwarranted d inequitable burden on motorists. Mr. Andrews said he >could not see iy' if they took "these dangerous nicies on the roadway" they should t accept the whole responsibility for sm. *■ & voice: Take his r away from m. ' Amidst some dissent Mr.' Andrews id he thought it was paltry of them object to paying a few mora pounds protect people would could not pro:t themselves. AN EXTRA POUND OR TWO. A member said he also was surprised at there should be any quibbling out paying an extra pound or two. A voice: It won't stop at that. The member asked whether all were /are of the greater cost of car regisition in Australia. To register a car small horse-power there he had had pay £7 a year. A voice: What insurance company; • you represent? (Laughter.) Replying to Mr. Andrews, Mr. J. Mc-1 iy suggested that if Mr. Andrews felt i was taking a dangerous vehicle on e road he should not do so. The lint was that every motorist should i courteous and show consideration other motorists and»pedestrians. He ought the relative cost of registration as beside the point. In his opinion a pedestrian and a motorist there as a good deal of negligence on both ies, and he thought the guilty party ould pay. Mr. E. Palliser said that the point ised by Mr. Powles had not been 'erlooked in the negotiations and disissions that had taken place, and he ggested that the motion and amendent might very well be combined, le point mentioned by Mr. Powles as now the subject of consideration ' the solicitors of the North and South land Motor Unions in the framing an alternative constructive proposal hich it was desired to submit to the overnment. "There is a principle British justice involved," he added, fone of us wish to be held wholly sponsible for an offence we are the ir cent, responsible for." Mr. Palliser's suggestion fcrcombine e motion and the amendment was >t acted upon. The amendment was sfeated, and the motion was carried ith few dissentient voices.