UNSOUND LEGAL MAXIMS

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19759, 28 March 1934, Page 9

UNSOUND LEGAL MAXIMS

SOME STARTLING INCONSISTENCIES DRASTIC AMENDMENTS URGENTLY NEEDED United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph —Copyright (Received March 27, 7.15 p.m.) LONDON, March 26. “The legal maxim that ‘personal action dies with the person,’ badly needs reform,” declares the interim report of the Law Revision Committee. “The frequency of deaths in road accidents emphasises the injustice. For example, sufferers from negligent driving have no redress if the driver is killed, his death voiding even the third party insurance. It is also anomalous that a husband cannot recover medical, funeral or housekeeping expenses if his wife is killed in a ’bus if she bought her ticket, although if he purchased her ticket he can contractually recover all expenses, including the loss of his wife’s ser-

The Committee refers to the maxim’s injustice in the case of a defamation action, abating with the defamed person’s death, although his estate may suffer, but if the defamation is impersonal, like the defamation of a trade mark, the owner of which died, the action can be continued.

“We do not see why a man’s estate should not be liable to compensate for his wrongs, at least within six months of his death,” says the report. “Secondly, where the wronged man dies or his wife is killed by the wrongdoer’s act, we believe that damages should be apportioned according to the loss to the estate, or to the dependents, or sometimes both.”