THIRD PARTY CLAIMS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 198, 24 August 1935, Page 9

THIRD PARTY CLAIMS

SHOULD JURIES FUNCTION? N.I. MOTOR UNION’S DISCUSSION DECISION DEFERRED. ( Per Presa Association. ) NEW PLYMOUTH, Aug. 23. Abolition of the jury system in dealing with claims from third parties for compensation for injuries in motor accidents was before the North Island Motor Union to-day, when it was suggested that such cases should be tried by a special tribunal of a Judge and two accessors. Decision was deferred. The subject was introduced by Mr. M. G. Shepherd, Wuirarapa, who quoted extensively the remarks of Mr. H. F. O’Leary, K.C., and Mr. Justice Smith iu the case where a jury’s verdict was challenged on the ground that it was against tho weight of evidence. The Judge said the jury’s view was not one ho would have taken, but he could not say that twelve sensible men could not have taken it. Mr. Shepherd alleged that juries were often influenced by a knowledge that damages would come out of a pool and not from the motorist. This made it difficult to secure judgment for the defendant. The motorist suffered two ways. The premiums on third party risk were not reduced and if a verdict was against him there was a stigma for being found guilty of negligence. The Chief Justice (Mr. Michael Myers) had commented that some change might lead to more just results in both civil and criminal cases. Mr. V. Duff, New Plymouth, said the proposal was so revolutionary that greater opportunity to consider it should be given. Mr. N. Little, New Plymouth, suggested that the position might be remedied by giving motorists more adequate power of appeal. Mr. N. R. Bain, Wanganui, said the suggestion was an indictment of juries. He doubted whether there were as many bad juries as was contended. Wellington and Wairarapa voted against the motion to defer consideration. The union also expressed a determined opposition to any proposal that compensation to third parties should be paid in all cases in the same way as under workers’ compensation, as proposed by Wellington barristers. The suggestion that damages should be paid whether the motorist’s negligence was proved was condemned. It was pointed out that if compensation was paid from n third party pool in all cases, tho premiums would be increased. Mr. W. G Walkley, in a lengthy report, said the proposal mea’ that one section of the community would provide the general public with accident co er and it involved a conception that the motorist was negligent in every case. He contended that the proposal would cost motorists an additional £400,000 annually. Mr. E. A. Batt said the English statistics were that in pedestrian accidents 85 per cent, of those killed were entirely blameworthy. The conference supported a remit advocating tail lights on bicycles.