CLAIMS IN MOTOR CASES

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 24 August 1935, Page 8

CLAIMS IN MOTOR CASES

ABOLITION OF JURY SYSTEM UNION CONFERENCE DISCUSSION JUDGE AND ASSESSORS URGED. The jury system, in relation to the settling of claims arising from motorcar accidents, was the subject of considerable discussion, and the expression of different views at the annual conference of the North Island Motor Union at New Plymouth yesterday. After a report on the question had been submitted it was decided to refer the question to individual associations for an expression of opinion and to discuss it further at the halfyearly- conference of the union. The following remit from the Wairarapa association was moved hy Mr N: C. C. Shepherd: “That the North Island Motor Union take steps to have the jury system abolished in cases out of claims made under the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third-party Risks) Act, 1928, and advocate that these cases be heard -before a judge alone or a judge and two assessors.’’ .Mr Shepherd quoted extensively from the remarks of Mr H. F. O’Leary, K. 0., and Mr Justice Smith in a case where a jury’s verdict was challenged on the ground that it was against the weight of evidence. His Honour said the jury’s view was not one he would have taken, but he could not say that 12 sensible men could not have taken it. Mr Shepherd alleged that juries were often influenced by the knowledge that damages would come out of a pool, and not from the motorist. This made it difficult to secure judgment, for defendant. The motorist suffered in two ways. Premiums on third party risk were not reduced, and if the verdict was against him there was the stigma of being found guilty of negligence. The Chief Justice had commented that some change might lead to more just results in both civil and criminal cases.

Mr A. Grayson (Auckland) said that the question should not be considered purely for its insurance aspect, but from the point of view of motorists. There was undoubtedly a great deal of variation in the awards made by juries, and sympathy, despite leads frequently given by 'presiding justices, was undoubtedly a great influence. Actually the money to pay these damages came from the motor‘st’s pocket. If the present tendency .tept "ou the motorist would have to pay more and more in premiums for iis third party cover and comprehensive insurance. There were grounds for asking the Government to set up a special tribunal to hear motor accident claims.

Mr V. Duff (Taranaki) considered that the question was of such a revolutionary nature that associations should be given an opportunity of considering it. He suggested, as an amendment, that the matter be referred to the associations and be discussed again at the half-yearly meeting of the union. Public opinion was behind the jury system, arid with considerable ..justification, and the union should hear all arguments before it made any move. Mr Duff’s amendment was seconded by Mr F. Amoore (Taranaki). Unless the union could suggest some substitute, it was useless condemning the jury system, said Mr N. R. Bain (Wanganui). Sometimes juries did give exaggerated damages, but ou the whole satisfactory verdicts exceed unsatisfactory ones. When the question was before the South Island Union, some members considered that action could not be taken too quickly, stated Mr W. R. Carey (5.1.M.U.). The question really arose »ineo the compulsory third party insurance was placed on the statutes, tie considered that premiums under this Act would soon increase. The awards for personal injury made under the Workers’ Compensation Act were modest compared with those given against motorists. Dr W. D. Fitzgerald (Hawke’s Bay), replying to Mr Little, said that in a long experience with the Arbitration Court he had found that the opinions of the assessors carried a lot of .veight with the judge. _ j The amendment that the question be referred to the association and discussed at the half-yearly meeting was •:hen carried, delegates from Auckland, Hawke’s Bay, Manawafru, South Taranaki, Taranaki and Wanganui supporting it and Wairarapa and Welington delegates opposing it.