VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE

Southland Times, Issue 23308, 18 September 1937, Page 8

VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE

HOUSE OF LORDS DECISION FAR-REACHING EFFECTS IN LAW (WRITTEN FOR THE SOUTHLAND TIMES) By LEX Once in a while there comes before the Courts a case that effects profound and far-reaching changes in the law. It is no exaggeration to say that , the case of Rose v. Ford, recently decided in the House of Lords, has resulted, in a complete revision of the conception of the law relating to deaths by accident. In the past,, the death of a man by negligence was actionable by the suit of a person losing something thereby—in most cases, the widow and children who were deprived of his earnings. There was, however, a wellestablished rule of law that it was not an - actionable civil wrong to cause the death of a human being and that any wrong done to the deceased himself by the taking away of his life died with him. This was expressed by the maxim, “actio personalis moritur cum persona.” This law was repealed by Section 3 of the New Zealand Law Reform Act 1936 (which closely followed the English Act) with the result that any cause of action survives and passes to a man’s representatives who may, and—we can be sure—will, sue for damages for loss of expectation of life. The question arises as to the competence of anyone, be they judge ,or jury, to place a value on human life. What factors are to be considered? Should the life of a child with many years ahead of it be valued at a greater sum than that of an octogenarian? Are health and sickness to be factors in this reduction of the abstract to concrete figures? Should a millionaire receive more consideration than a crossing-sweeper? The difficulties are appalling and indeed an able and experienced judge in an earlier case is reported to have said, “It was impossible to form an estimate of the value of human life.” The present decision, of course, respectfully disagrees with this dictum and in effect says: Difficult it may be, but not impossible; and mere diffiqulty in assessing damagesis no grounds for refusing them. We can but watch with interest each case as it comes before the Courts and see how the judge and jury deal with what at present seems almost to border on the fantastic. One thing is certain, and that is that in every case of death due to accident the damages claimed will be increased very substantially. It must not be forgotten that this will apply not only to accidents on the highway but also to all other cases of loss of life by negligence. It seems inevitable that there must be a revision of insurance premiums which cannot but be materially increased.