Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 26 August 1933, Page 4

The select committee appointed by the British Government to consider the

Road Traffic (compensation for accidents) Bill decided that good reason had been ..shown for making a further departure from the general principles of the law of negligence. “From the point of view of the pedestrian,” states the report, “it seems to the committee that the roads of Britain have—at all events in certain places and at certain seasons—been rendered by the use of motor-vehicles, places to which it is dangerous for pedestrians to resort; that, nevertheless, it is necessary for pedestrians to resort to the roads; and that where a pedestrian, without negligence on his part, is injured 'by a motorist, whether negligent or not, lie should be entitled to recover damages. It may be said against this that it is a hardship on the motorist to be made to pay damages for an accident which was not attributable to his fault., The committee takes the view that this is, perhaps, a misleading way of regarding the question and would put it rather'that the payment of compensation to innocent pedestrians who suffer injury is a duty, not so much of the individual motorist who does the damage, as of the motoring community as a whole, and that the increased liability of the motorist ought to be covered, as provided for in the bill, by insurance against the increased third-party risk.” The committee think, however, that a pedestrian should not he entitled to recover for an accident caused solely by bis own negligence, ■ and that where there has been contributory negligence the pedestrian should be debarred from recovering full damages, though it does not propose that lib should bo deprived altogether of compensation. A provision has been introduced that “where an injury is contributed to but not solely caused by the negligence of the injured person, there must be taken into, account, in commuting the damages, the degree in which the negligence of such person contributed to the accident.”