Safety on Roads.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 543, 27 August 1932, Page 8

Safety on Roads.

Accident Cases

Jury System Upheld by

Lecturer

THE SUGGESTION made by the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, that civil actions in which damages are claimed in respect of motor accidents should be heard before a Judge and two assessors, one appointed by each party, is not looked upon favourably by Mr Julius Hogben, lecturer in law at the Auckland University, who sees in it only the providing of each side with an extra advocate, which would mean that in most cases the Judge would decide. Mr A. Grayson, president of the Auckland Automobile Association, who was also interviewed recently, expressed alarm at the fact that juries should award such large sums as compensation. “ It seems to me,” said Mr Hogben, “ that the Chief Justice’s suggestion would mean, not that any substitute had been provided for the jury, but that each side would be provided with an additional advocate; and the insurance pool would no doubt always appoint the same advocator assessor in the hope that his ability and experience wouid be sufficient to outweigh that of the assessors appointed by claimants. The effect of such a method would surely be that in most cases the Judge alone would decide.” A legally-trained mind was inclined to find against a plaintiff where there was conflicting evidence on both sides, whereas a jury was inclined to take the bolder course and to find definitely for one side or the other, believing the witnesses who they think are truthful and rejecting the evidence of those whom they do not believe, he added. He did not think the fact that there was an insurance company interested weighed with the jury. “ The suggestion that more rigid control would have a beneficial effect upon the safety of the roads appears to be a reasonable one,” continued Mr Hogben. “ Magistrates and Judges have perhaps been a little reluctant to take away licenses. If the cancellation of licenses were more frequently used as a method of punishment it should have a considerable deterrent effect. It is to be remembered that in the case of motor offences, as in many classes of offences, the offender is probably only found out once out of several occasions in which he has actually offended.” Mr Grayson said that motorists were rather perturbed that juries should award such large sums as compensation, apparently from the view that insurance companies were a kind of goldmine. Juries, unconsciously perhaps, were carried away by sympathy. Any injured person should get justice, but motorists were concerned also with the premium for third-party insurance risks, to-day £1 a year a car. If injured persons were going to be awarded such large amounts as compensation, it was quite within the bounds of possibility that motorists would be called upon to pay a higher premium.

Mr Grayson added that motorists’ organisations had discussed the matter for some time, and further discussion would take place at the annual conference of the North and South Island Motor Unions, to be held at Palmerston North on September 6. Possibly the conference would send a recommendation to the Government on the linos of the suggestion made by the Chief Justice.