DAMAGES WITHOUT NEGLIGENCE

Evening Star, Issue 22775, 9 October 1937, Page 20

DAMAGES WITHOUT NEGLIGENCE

MOTORISTS MEET MINISTER MR MASON EMPHATIC CHANCE MUST BE MADE [From Oue Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, October 9. “ A change must clearly be made, as no one can really deny that the existing law is unsatisfactory, and works grave injustices,” the Minister of Justice informed representatives of the New Zealand motoring organisations that met him at his invitation to discuss the Motor Vehicles Damages Bill. He expressed his disappointment at not finding any constructive help from the motor unions. Dr E. E. Porritt, president of the North Island Motor Union, thanked the Minister f<ir giving them an opportunity of discussing the Bill, and read the resolution that had been passed by the delegates at a preliminary meeting, to the effect that, on behalf of the motorists of New Zealand they opposed the proposal in the Bill that damages were to be recovered by injured persons without proof of negligence. .. ... . Mr 0. M. Rout, acting chairman of the Automobile Association, Nelson, and representing the South Island Motor Union, expressed his union’s opinion that the proposal was an unfair one, alleging that it conflicted with the safety-first scheme and would tend to make motorists and pedestrians more careless; that it placed a stigma on motorists, and 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 that reason should be opposed. The Minister observed that the law relating to negligence ' was : probably the most unsatisfactory of any portion of our law. It was futile for motor unions to demand a reverential attitude to the Jaw concerning contributory negligence merely because it had been inherited from a past age. Jurists condemned a law which, when both parties were negligent, often allowed one guilty of trivial negligence to carry the whole of a tragic loss to the exclusion of the grossly negligent party. “It is impossible for* justice to be done under the present rule of the law, was an 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. The courts having jurisdiction in marine collisions had never followed it, and juries had difficulty in applying it. One Wellington case had gone through five trials.

" When such results are obtained,” said Mr Mason, “ the retention of the law has become a scandal. A change must clearly come, as no one can really deny that the existing' law is unsatisfactory, and works grave injustices. It is disappointing to find no constructive help from the motor unions.” The Minister said it was the present law which, gave rise to the stigma of negligence, whereas the Bill would remove the necessity of branding a motorist as negligent before an 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 to-day, 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 its underlying principles, and failure to appreciate the significance of the modifications made. It is unfortunate that you have_ passed that resolution without considering the modifications mad© in the Latest draft of the Bill.”

In reply to Dr Porritt, the Minister gave an assurance that the Bill would not be rushed through, and that the motorists would have further opportunity of considering the matter, and, if necessary, of giving evidence before the Statutes Revision Committee, to which the Bill would be referred.