NEGLIGENCE IN LAW

Taranaki Daily News, 22 December 1930, Page 6

NEGLIGENCE IN LAW

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES.

DIFFERENCE IN. LIABILITY.

The difference 'between, civil'and-.crim-inal liability as a result of negligence was discussed by the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Mye.fs, in his; reserved, / decision in the: Appeal Court case at Wellington of Alfred Edward Storey, who was grputed a. new, trial on-his' appeal against his conviction for negligent, driving, when,, as the .result of an accident, two persons in a;motor-car Ibst their, liyes. : “In.a civil action between two-priyate parties,” said His Honour, “there isi every, good reason for the law-that where the plaintiff, as well as the defendant, has been , guilty of negligence, i and such negligence, continues up to the ,time of the impact which, results in the, injury to the plaintiff, neither party can recover damages from the other. In such circumstances . the. . defendant’s answer to the plaintiff is .in effect: ■ ‘lt was; your

own fault; .or at all events. as much, your fault as. mine. oYu could ha’ye avoid-, ed the impact, and. you were therefore 1 the author of . your own injury.’ “That is both good sense and justice where a, monetary claim is made for a. private/ wrong. - But . manslaughter, or an offpnee under/Section 27 ; of; the Motor Vehicles Act,. 1924,- is .a crime, a public wrong, an offence .against the State, and I cam See no good reason why the negligent actor should be excused because the killed or injured person was--also negligent.. His, act- is; none.the Tess an offence against the State, no. mattqr how negligent /some - other person, or persons may have been., ;

‘.‘The .truth, is, I think, .that.from .the point .of;.vie,w/, of the.,criminal law —I am referring now particularly to section 27 of the Act of 1924 —where two people are injured, each of them having been negligent up to..the .time-of the; impact, each of. them’; must',, be; regarded'as having .caused the an jury-to ■the other/'. For example, /, if / a head-on collision,; occurs twepn .two mptqr-cycles which are being .ridden after, dark - on' an uplighted country .road,' neither ./cyclist carrying any light, apd Both .cyclists are injured as the-result,of the collision, plainly-rieither j

ofthem.:coi)ld : Tecoverdamages .from: the other. Rut- in my opinion each of them woitl Iftbe guilty of an'-,offence under; section , 27.-” \ .ft , ,/ft.-- ;