LAW REFORM

Thames Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 19686, 18 April 1936, Page 4

LAW REFORM

OLD LEGAL MAXIM. DEATHS BY ACCIDENT. An important law reform affecting every user of tlie road is reported to have been taken in hand by the AttorneyGeneral, Mr. H. G. R. Mason. The reform will give satisfaction to legal men and motorists, and particularly so to Mr. F. D. Sargent, a prominent Christchurch solicitor and motorist, who has ben a leader in the agitation for the change. The reform will have an important bearing on accident claims. As the law in New Zealand at present stands, a man cannot take action to compensate himself for injury should the negligent person in an action die. In other words, a man’s responsibility for anyone dies with him and a party he may injure cannot claim damages from his estate. The Minister is reported to have in hand plans for the abolition of this rule. It is a rule known to legal men by the Latin maxim: “Actio personalis moritur cum persona,” which Mr. Sargent has explained means, in a rough translation, that if either party to a tortious wrong dies then the right of action dies too. This maxim is of obscure origin and uncertain meaning. Mr. Sargent has explained, but it is established beyond doubt as a part of the common law of England that the tortious act of an individual is wiped out by the death of either the injured person or the wrongdoer, whether such death be due to the wrongful act or to some other independent cause.

Mr. Sargent said that provision to remedy the situation had been made in England thanks to Lord Sankey and the Law Revision Committee in 1934. Legislative provision was now made for the case of a man injured by a negligent party who himself died. Relatives of the injured in such cases in New Zealand had no remedy to-day, not even for funeral expenses. It was provided in the English Act that damages were not to be exemplary nor vindictive, so proper protection was given to the estate of the wrongdoer.

The Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, had reminded the public of tlie defect in this law in 1931, when he said in one case that he had arrived at the conclusion “wtih much reluctance.” It was thought, Mr. Sargent said, that the Attorney-General would have had his attention drawn to the observations of the Chief Justice and legislative effect would have been given to the proposed alteration, but for some time—until the last few months—the Attorney-General was not a member of the legal profession, and possibly it did not come under his notice.