CORRESPONDENCE A SHOCK FOR MOTORISTS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LX, Issue 72, 22 February 1940, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE

A SHOCK FOR MOTORISTS.

(To tlie Editor.) Sir, —Tire following paragraph which appeared in tlie “evening .Standard' 1 a tew days ago, interests me very much indeed: “ ’Since we inet last we have received a bombshell in the shape ot an announcement of the Mi.nisi.er of J ustice to set up a. committee to hear evidence oil tlie desirability or otherwise ot altering the law oi negligence and increasing the liabilities ot motorists, even to the length ot absolute liability,’ said Mr A\ . R. Carey, president, at a meeting ot the executive of the South Island. Motor Union. ‘This is a travesty ot British justice’. As you are doubtless aware, the Government has set up a commission to go hilo the cjuesticn of negligence m I motor accidents, and has appointed I Dr. A. M. Findlay as chairman. 1 have pleasure, tlieretore, in enclosing herewith a copy of a letter 1 sent to Dr. Findlay on'the Bth iust. 1 submit same I without comment. —i am, etc., C. LASMLIE, | Palmerston North, 20/2/40. I Dear Sir, —As tlie author of the present system of third party risks, I am interested in tlie Commission which has been appointed to go into the question ot liability. Personally, i 1 agree that all this wrangling about j negligence should be abolished. No sane mail is going to deliberately get injured for the tun ot collecting money from the insurance companies. Ihe money spent on lawyers’ lees could be put to oetter purpose. 'When 1 originally handed my scheme over to Mr Coates, I suggested that the scale of compensation lor accident should be based upon the Workers Compensation i Act. 1 did so then because I saw no ! reason why a man injured in the ‘ street should receive more compensation than if the same man had been injured at work. At present absurd claims are being made, and in some cases paid. Sympathetic juries imagine that they are on to the insurance companies. That, of course, is ridiculous. We all know that it is the motorist who pays in the last analysis—the recent increase in premiums proves that. This may not come within your scope of reference, but what 1 wish to say is this: The present position is farcical. A man can claim under the Workers Compensation Act and the Social Security Act at the same time, and (I may be wrong) but I tlii.uk he can also claim under the Third Party Risk Act as well. I think it is time the position was altered. No man should be allowed to claim damages under more than one Act. The Workers Compensation Act is a direct charge upon industry —the worker pays nothing, and yet, as I say, he can claim benefits under both Acts. I think it is time the law was altered. If I can be of any further service to you please let me know.