MOTORISTS’ LIABILITY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 242, 12 October 1937, Page 8

MOTORISTS’ LIABILITY

PROPOSED BILL OPPOSED DR. TORRITT’S STATEMENT [ I’cr Press Association. ] lIAWERA, Oct. 11. The published statements of the Hon. 11. G. R. Mason, Minister of Justice, that he was disappointed with the attitude of the motor unions towards tiie proposals lot’ changing ihe law in connection with compensation in road accidents was referred to by Dr. E. E. I’orritl, president of the North Island Motor Union, to-day. After conferring with Mr W. Carey, chairman of the South Island Motor union, he made a statement in reply. Dr. Porritt emphasised the appreciation felt by motorists’ representatives of ti/c opportunities given by the Minister to hold discussions but said that unless and until the Minister abandons the doctrine of absolute liability, which his proposals provide, the motor unions would strongly oppose what he described as the main object for the new legislation. The effect of the change in the law would be to make the owner of a motor vehicle liable for the payment of compensation where any persons suffers injury in a motor accident, irrespective of whether there is negligence or not on the part of the owner of the vehicle. The Minister had stated that the underlying philosophy on which his Bill would be based was that motor vehicles were inherently dangerous to human life. It would be readily apparent how “negative” and inequitable the proposals were, stated Dr. Porritt. In the first place their acceptance would presuppose that human beings arc unable to adapt themselves to the use and presence of motor vehicles, but, as he pointed out, mechnical appliances of equal potential danger and such forces as electricity had been successfully subjected to human control. Iniposible Position. When the debate was in progress in the House of Lords in 1924 on the Road Trallic (compensation for accidents) Bill, which contained a provision similar to that now receiving consideration, Lord Darling stated that the Government licensed vehicles and prescribed regulations for observance by their users, and then this same controlling authority proposed to turn round and say “that the things you are doing and the machines you are using (with our authority) are dangerous, and you must be penalised for doing what we permit you to do.”

Exactly the same position would result from Mr Mason’s proposals. It was significant to note that the Bill was not proceeded with in England.

After referring to the Hon. R. Semple’s campaign to imbue all road users with a sense of responsibility, Dr. Porritt quotes Earl Howe in the House of Lords in 1934, who said that there would never be a way out of the bad accident problem unless there was considered that the adoption of such a Bill as proposed would destroy that co-operation in promoting road safety. Road users would be encouraged to take risks, because if an accident resulted from such action the motorist would be called upon to pay.

Dr. Porritt went on to remark that his organisation considered it to be against the very principles of British justice to make a person, who was without blame, responsible for injuries suffered by a second person through the second man's negligence. It had been pointed out by the Earl of Plymouth in the aebate in the Lords that such a Bill imposed on careful motorists, where they were innocent of blame or responsibility, a liability to pay damages. The innocent were deprived of an opportunity of proving themselves blameless, and prima facie evidence would stand against them in proceedings resulting from motor accidents, such for instance as a charge of manslaughter. It was stressed that the Motor Union’s objection was to the introduction of what might be termed the “doctrine of absolute liability” against motor vehicle owners. It did not involve any endeavour to have unfortunate persons deprived of anyi thing to which they were justly entitled. Motorists’ representatives had indicated to the Minister that some aspects of his proposed charges met with their entire approval, but, for so long as the provision of absolute liability was retained, apposition must necessarily be maintained to a principle unreliably based. In an endeavour to be constructive, and in the hope that the good features of the Minister’s proposals might be included in statute law, special attention was now being given by the motor unions to the drafting of provisions which would be submitted to the Automobile Association for their consideration, with a view to their being placed before the Minister a subsequent conference.