PERSONAL INJURIES

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 136, 25 June 1937, Page 14

PERSONAL INJURIES

Compensation For Accidents PRINCIPLE 0F DAMAGES The principle of persons injured in motor-traffic accidents reeeiving compensation as of right unless the injury is received deliberately and wilfully in such a way that it could fairiy be d0" scribed as self-inflicted was pupported by Mr, Luxford, S.M.* ia an address j "given by him to tha Faculty of Insur- t ance on Friday night at Wrilington. , Mr. Luxford , advocated that the law j should be alfered to provide for this | and enbmitted a nnmber of xeasons in support of the contention, The legal maohine, said Mr« Luxford, had proved itself incapable of adjusting satisfactorily, within the four cofners of established judicial procedure, claima for personal injuries arising in consequence of a motor vehicle accident. "I do not suggest," he continued, "that our Courts are incapable of determining whether an act is negligent • or of ascertaining the real and effective cause of the accident by which a person is injured, but I do suggest that where compensation is claimed for permanent personal injury there is a difficulty in obtaining & finding of a jury on these questions uninfluenced by other considerations, The outstanding feature of the administration of justice in our courts ia the simplicity of its procedure and the absence of undue delay jn the fina\ adjudication of mattera coming before them, That feature has made our system the envy of other nation?, but one can say in truth that its reputation is not justifled in cases involving claims for personal injuries arising out of motor accidents. Laymen's Dlfflculties. "I agn not going to say how; much juries are to blame or. how much the judiciary is to blame, but this much is clear: the pxinciples which Judges have attempted to enunciate for the purpose of determining liability have become so eomplicated- and involved that it is Jndeed difficult for any body of laymen such as a jury to appreciate the issues put to it. It is not an exaggeration to say it is the exception to find a case of tk-ia description which ends with tho jury's verdict. How different in other classes of cases, and, in particular, trials under the criminal law.',, For illustration Mr, Luxford quoted the case of Bobertson v. Ling Sing, in which there were three trials before a jury, a motion before a Judge alone, a motion before. the Full Court, and an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The plaintiff did not get the damages to whieh he was entitled until after almost a year of constant litigation, and he had to utilise part of his compensation to pay the heavy costs involved. In the case of Benson v. Kwong Chong, there were three trials before a jury, a motion before a Judge alone, au appeal to the Court of Appeal, a petition for leave to appeal to the Privy Council in f orma pauperis, because by that time one could imagine the plaintiff was in forma pauperis, and iinally an appeal to the "Privy Council, which resulted in the jury's verdict in favour of the plaintiff being restored, Almost three years elapsed between the date the plaintiff was injured and the final disposal of the ' case before the Privy Council. Mr. Luxford said he ventured the opinion that the ratio of costs to actual compensation paid by the "pool" would, if it were known, cause considerable surprise. The second reason for supportiug tho suggestion was that the motor vehicle was a dangerous machine, aud misehief wrought by it should not be governed by the rules of the law of negligenee — at least those rules should not apply when the misehief caused bodily injury. Au innoeent person might be grievously lnaimed when the driver was not at all negligent. He readily agreed it would be difficult for a driver to prove such a fact, because a jury would be loth to leave the inuocent vietira uncompensated, but legally the defence was available, i

AflBMsment of Damages, The third reason was the diflleulty of assessing properly damages for permv nent injury under the present system. There wae always the danger of as exceseive amount being awarded, bo cause ox the driver -s cenduet, or, oe the other hand, of the damages beins reduced in the jury room by way oi compromise in erder that an ajireemant might be come to on the general isene q£ negligenee, The ideal method of awarding compensation for fnture incapaoity was tt adopt the principle applied in grantiug - pensions for war injuries, and for the assessment to be made by a similariy eonstituted tribunal. The administrative cost of such § scheme might prove an insuperable obstacle, but an alterna-* tive seheme, almost as fair and equitable, would be the establishment of a; tribunal. similar to the War Pensions Board, charged with the duty of awarding compensation on the same basis as if the injured worker had been a worker, in receipt- of the bagic waga injured in" the course of his' employment. The Workers' Compensation Act fixed the percentage of disability for specifle.injuries, and those unspecifled were flxed according to medical evidence, That should be the functien of the special tribunal, as would be the assessment of special damages. Striking Discrepancy. ; "Probably no more effective argumenL in favour of the reform which I advo«! eate could be put forward than thei figares I am about to quote. The totaisum paid out of the pool for eompen*; sation to injured persons and the legafj costs in Tespect of claima for 1936 J amounted to £320,621, The Year Book' does not disclose/the number p£ claims, ; but I have ascertained that the average | annyal number for the years 19SQ toj 1933, both indusive, was approximateiy ! 14Q0. I will be on the safe eide if I; take the number of claima af 1000 for1 the years 1935 to 1936. This . is the! significance of the figures: Every per-: son who causes the death of or bodilyj injury to another by his negligent us®. of a motor vehicle commita a- crime. During 1935 only seven persons were convicted or sentenced for that crime and fifteen in 1936, Yet it has been held in New Zealand that the crimmal law regarda negligenee in the driving of a motor vehicle in the same way in criminal as in civil proceedings, That is not the whole story: convictions in criminal proceedings should exceed is number the verdicts in favour of injured plaintiffs because the defence of contributory negligenee and the subsidiarj defences are available in civil but not in criminal proceedings. "Why is this extraordinary discrepancy? I do not say the judicial system has been prostituted in order t® give an injured person compensation, oii the one hand, and on the other to save! a reputable citizen who had nq intent to kill or injure his fellows from being branded as a convicted felon, but ' the discrepancy is such that in the publie ioterest the common law action for personal injuries arising out of motor accidents should be aboljshed and the injured person receive a statutory compensation as of right, plus such Amount as :>e secured to himself by au appropriale policy of insurance,"