The Franklin Times PUBLISHED EVERY MONDAY, WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY AFTERNOON. MONDAY, APRIL 3, 1933. THE LAW'S VAGARIES.

Franklin Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 38, 3 April 1933, Page 4

The Franklin Times PUBLISHED EVERY MONDAY, WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY AFTERNOON.

MONDAY, APRIL 3, 1933. THE LAW'S VAGARIES.

Office and Works: HOULSTON STREET. PUKEKOHE. 'Phone No. 2. P.O. Rox in "We Homing extenuate nor augtu set down in malice."

CONSOLIDATION of the New Zealand Statutes was advocated for quite a number of years before tlie late Chief Justice Sir Robert Stout was specially commissioned to prepare the Statutes of the Dominion in consolidated form, and the task was a huge one, that at that time probably only the late Sir Robert Stout was competent to undertake successfully. But

that was away back in 1907 and 1908. Since Mien an almost unending stream of legislation has issued from Parliament, and the time has undeniably come for a fresh consolidation. Judges, counsel, and the public have frequently expressed the opinion that a revision of the existing laws is needed, and it is easy to conceive that simplified Statutes would materially lessen the costs of litigation. At present we have frequent cases of decisions of lower Courts reversed on appeal to the higher authorities—decisions that were given in all good faith and apparently good in law as understood by any but the highly-critical judicial minds of members of the Court of Appeal. Cosis mount in successive appeals, and that is a factor in determining whether notice of appeal will he acted upon. It almost scorns that continuance of (he present methods results in practically there being one law for the rich and another for the poor. But there are many other reasons why revision, and consolidation, of the Statutes' is desirable. For in-

| stance, the law relating to insurance •risks affecting individuals may be reI garded as far from settled. A ques- | tion of great importance to the legal ! profession, insurance companies, and • the public was argued in (lie Court i of Appeal only last week. In it two ! or three issues of distinct importance ; have been raised. None of them, however, is of more general importance than the question of the adequate protection of the individual or his representatives in the event of a collision on tin 1 highway involving his death or serious injury. The passage about five years ago of the Motor Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act was intended to ensure that redress should in such an event be made commensurate with the loss or injury. The law is valuable in the sense that, owners of .motor vehicles shall insure against their liability lo pay damages on account of death or bodily injury caused by the use of such motor vehicles, it does provide the means by which an injured ■ person or his representatives, if he should be lulled, may obtain eompenI safion from a negligent owner. But, j as has often been said, "the law is an j ass," for' tin's provision applies only if the negligent driver is not himself killed in the accident! The estate of the motorist whose negligence has caused the death both of another person and himself is not subject to any liability in respect of personal injuries. Curiously enough, however, ids estate is liable for the. damage caused by Hie collision to the properly of the person whose death' is due to his negligence. If, that is to say, the person whose death he caused was j himself driving a car which was J wrecked as the result of the collision j the estate of the deceased negligent j motorist would be liable for damages j to the extent of I he value of the wrecked car. This anomaly would J seem to be a survival of the time in which special rights were supposed to

attach to property. If, on the other hand, the owner of the car that was so negligently driven as to cause the death of another person was not himself the driver of his car, an action

for damages would be liable under his policy. The principle, however, of the provision for the insurance of thirdparty risks is not effectually asserted in the legislation on "the subject. It is, in fact, very ineffectually asserted. The frequency with which motor accidents occur renders it necessary that consideration should be directed to anomalies in the law. It may be hoped that the financial problems of New Zealand will not be so urgent when Parliament again meets as to prevent attention to manifest defects in the legislation affecting personal rights. That is the obvious solution to the case under review, but so many cases of anomalous legislation could be cited that there is a good deal of reason for claiming that the whole of the Dominion's legislation should be reviewed and consolidated.