Motor Union's Objection to New Damages Bill

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 16, 12 October 1937, Page 13

Motor Union's Objection to New Damages Bill

Press ABSociation.l

REPLY TO MINISTER

(By Telegrapli—

HAWERA, Last JNiglit. The published statements of the Hon H. G. R. Mason, Minister of Justicc, that he was disappointed with the altitude of motor unions towards the proposals for changing tlie law in conncction with compeusation for rOhd aceh dents were refeffed to by Dr, E. E. Poritt, presideilt oi" the North Islnnd ftlotor Union, to-day. After cohferrmg with Mr W. R. Carey, chairmaii of i the executive council of the Soutli Island Motor Union, he made a state- . ment in reply. Dr. Porritt emphasised the appreoiation felt by motorLsts' r6preSentatives of the opportunitieB giver by the Minister to hold discussions, Lut said thnt unless and until the Ministef abaiidoned the doctfine o£ absoltite liabil1 ity which his proposals provided, the motor unions would strongly oppose what he described as the main object for the new legislatioft, The effect of the change in the law would be to make the owner of & motor vehicle liable for payxhent of compensation where hiiy person snii'ered injiiry in a motor aceident, ifrespCctive Of whether therh waS flegligenee dr iiOt on the part of the owner of the vehicle. Dr. Porritt said. The Minister had stated that the uwderlying philosophy on ivhieh his Bill would be based was that motor vehieles were inherently dangerous to human liie. It would be teadily apparent how "negative" and inequitable the proposals were, stated Dr. Porritt. In the iirst place, their aceeptauco would presuppose that human beings were unable to adapt themseives to the use and presende of motor vehieles. But, as he pointed out, mechahical appliances of equal potential danger and such forces as electricity had been successfully subjected to human control English Bill Was Dropped When the debate waS in progresS in the House of Lords in 1934 on the Rbad Traffic (Compensation for Accidentsl Bill which contained a provision similar to that now receiving cOnsideratiOn, Lord Darlng had stated that the Gov ernment licensed vehieles and prescrlb' ed regulations for observance by their users, and then this same controiling authority proposed to tiirn tottnd and say that "the thingS you are doing and I the machines you are using (with oUf 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, Dr. Porritt declared. It was Bigniiicarit to note that the Bill was iiot proceedeu with in Eugland. After referfing to Mr Bemple's carn1 paign to imbue all roati-Users with a sense of responsibility, Dr Porritt quoted Lbrd Howe iu the Houae of Lords in 1934. He had said that there would never be a way out of tbe road-accidbnts problem unless there was equal responsibility among the dif-' ferent classes of iisers. it was considered that the adoption of such a Bill as proposed would dCStrOy that C0-0p6ras tion in rdad usage which was b0 essential in promotmg road safety. Roadasers woiild be encohraged to take risks because ah acCident rosulted from suiih action. The motofist Would be called upon to pay. Against Principles of Justic* Dr. Porfitt went on to remark that his organisation considered it to be agamst the very principles of Britisb justice to mkke a person who was withput blame responsible fOf injuries SUfferred by a second person through a second man's negligence. It had been pointed out by the Earl of Plymouth in a debate in the House of Lords that such a Bill imposed on careful mdtorists, where they were inflocent of blame Of responsibility, the li&bility to pay damages. They were innocent, but were deprived of tbe dpportunity of ' provitfg themseives blameless, and the prima-facie evidence would stahd against them in proceedings resulting from motor accidents — such, for instance, as a charge of manslaiighter. It was stressed that the Motor Union 's objection was to the introduction of what might be tCrmed the "doctlrine of absolute liability" against motor vehicle owners. It did not involve any endeavour to have unfortunate persons deprived of anything to which they were justly entitled. Mdtofists' representatives had indicated td the Minister that some aspects of his pro' poscd changes met with their entird approval, but for so long as the provision of absoluto liability was retained opposition must necessarily be main« tained to a principle unreliably based. In an endeavour to be construetive, and in the hope that the good features of the Minister 's proposals might be included in the Statute law, special at* tention is now being given by motor unions to the drafting of provisions which would be submitted to automobile as&dfiiations for their consideration with a view to their being placed bofore the Minister at a subsequent conference.