MOTOR ACCIDENTS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22069, 27 September 1933, Page 8

MOTOR ACCIDENTS

PROBLEMS OF LITIGATION A SOLICITOR’S OBSERVATIONS. Some interesting facts with respect to the problem of motor accidents and the difficulties encountered in dealing with cases that go to the courts were placed before members of the Otago branch of the Real Estate Institute of Otago last night in the course of a brief lecture by Mr J. M. Paterson. ;■ v- W'i To show how much of the time of the courts was occupied by motor accidents, Mr Paterson stated, he would quote a recent assize at Leeds at which 52 of the 54 cases set, down for hearing were motor accident cases. The question of the motorcar in the community, was attracting an enormous amount of attention. Statistics showed that America was losing as many people each year in motor accidents as Wellington did in the whole of his Peninsula campaign. He had read recently of a house at a corner 20 miles out of London where no one would live. At that corner there was an average of 30. accidents a month. Something must be done about it. Many proposals had been put before Parliament at Home, and in one Bill it had been suggested that motor bars should be declared dangerous instruments. That meant that a person would take a car on the road at his own risk and that it would not be necessary to prove negligence im order to obtain compensation for injury. That propctal had received an excellent hearing. New Zealand had tackled the question with the Third Party Risk Act, the effect of which was that an injnred person could recover frpm an insurance company through the owner of the car. Even if a car was'stolen the thief was deemed to have the consent of the owner to drive it, and the owner could be sued. This scheme was working yery well so far as money could compensate people who were perhaps maimed for life. There had been one appalling omission in the Act. It was that a person could not recover damages if the owner of the car was killed in the accident. The defect had been pointed out all over New Zealand, and it was to be hoped that it would be considered by Parliament: Referring to the psychological side ot the matter, Mr Paterson said that motor car actions were very difficult to try tor many reasons. In the first place, the accident occurred in such a short space of time that it was difficult, indeed to obtain a proper account of the occurrence. Experience of such cases showed how exceedingly fallible human testimony was. Often different witnesses gave different accounts. The natural inclination was to say that if A was telling the truth B was a liar, but often that was not true. Each witness might be telling the truth to the best of his ability. He knew, of a case in which a policeman, an independent witness, said that an accident occurred on one side of a street, while a tram conductor, who was supported by the driver, said that it occurred on the other. These people had no intention of misleading--the court, but one or the other was obviously wrong. Some very interesting experiments had been carried out at the University and other places. Before a class of 25 some dramatic incident would be staged, and, in giving their accounts, at least one-third would be wrong in some important particular. This difference in people’s recollections of an incident was one of the great difficulties which faced juries. There was _ a movement on foot to abolish juries. Legislation was on foot in. Great Britain to abolish grand juries, and there was a strong feeling against common juries. He, however, was a strong supporter of the common jury, and was satisfied that it was the best tribunal before which motor cases could be tried. It came to'a conclusion far better than any tribunal of judges. ,