THIRD PARTY RISK

Hokitika Guardian, 1 December 1933, Page 8

THIRD PARTY RISK

LAW ALTERATION. RECOMMENDED

PETITIONS COMMITTEE REPORT

WELLINGTON, November 28,

Alterations in the legislation dealing, with third party motor risks were recommended by the public petitions committee in the , House of Representatives thi s afternoon when presenting the report on the petition •praying for ..compensation pir alleged 'injuries arising out-of a motor ./accident, In recommending,'the petition, for most favourable consideration, the committee said that the evidence showed very decidedly that an .alteration ..of the gazetted arrangements with the motor vehicles third party pool to pay compensation in what were termed “hit and run’’ case s should be made. Th e present 'arrangement included two . important provisions

(T) The negligence of • the driver of the Striking ’ car must' be established ; ‘

(2) .It must' "be proved that the car or other motor vehicle was fitted with a number plate of the current year. As proof consistent with the latter clfn&e was -in nr ny cases quite impossible and tended to injustice the’ committee" ryas s impressed with the desirability of having the provision deleted, and recommended the Government to consider favourably opening negotiations with the insurance companies-, concerned with tint obiect in view.

The committee, being cognisant of the fact that with the growth of motor transport the number of accidents increased, .considered that the question of compensation for damages caused on the road by motor vehicles should be investigated by. a select committee, empowered to confer with interested bodies. The committee al-so considered that the investigation should cover the following proposals at present under consideration by .the British Parliament: — (1) That instead of a pedestrian having to prove on the part of the' motorist, negligence on the part of the motorist should be assumed until. the "'Outr’ry is proved. (2) That the defence .of contributory negligence be eliminated, the defendant being exonerated only where an accident is, wholly due .to' the fault of thh'.injured-person. . -'

(3) That .-in the ' case of “inevitable accidents,” that is, where no negligence is proved on either side, the. risk should be .covered. •

“The. proposals outlined are admitted’y of a draet : b nature, involving ' alterations . in; the law of negligence,” , said, the committee, “but are i n keeping with overseas . developments. and the committee considers that the Nejy Zealand Government should .no ■ longer deP-y -in'•considering the advisability, of adopting them, or some modification of theta that will .make possible . condensation for motor accidents not adequately covered by our existing;’law,.” M r H. Gy ; iR... Mason ; (Lab. Auckland Suburbs), said that the committee wished to . apply to collisions on land the same rules , as those which applied to collisions at sea. No unprejudiced, .person would, defend th,j present law, and it said little fof the eheTg’y of the governments of the last few that they had' done nothing to rectify the position. .- . , Mr J. *A;. Macpherson (C., Oariiaru) said the time had .arrived when a Parliamentary committee should, be set up, to; go into the whole position with . a view to amending the present legislation. It wag to be hoped that the Government would take cognisance of the report in order that New Zealand l-pnid be brought into line with more .enlightened practice. Mr C. .Carr’ (Lab.. Timaru) said •the He. was a, great deal of dissatisfaction with the present law. The report was tabled.