Law Revision
| Date | 01 June 1938 |
| Author | John Foster |
| Published date | 01 June 1938 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1938.tb00389.x |
14
MODERN LAW REVIEW
June,
1938
LAW
REVISION
HE law Revision Committee was appointed on 10th
TJ
anuary,
1934,
“to consider how far, having regard to the
Statute Law and to judicial decisions, such legal maxims
and doctrines as the Lord Chancellor may from time to time
refer to the Committee require revision in modern conditions.”
Since that date the Lord Chancellor has referred several problems
to the Committee which has from time to time published reports
upon them. The results of these reports up to the present are
seen in two statutes, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions)
Act,
1934,
and the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors)
Act,
1935.
These two Acts have incorporated the recommenda-
tions contained in the first four reports of the Committee dealing
with the following points-
(a)
the doctrine of no contribution between tortfeasors
;
(b)
the legal maxim
actio personalis moritur cum persona,
and the rule that “in a civil court the death of a human being
could not be complained of
as
an injury.”
(c)
the liability of
a
husband for the torts of his wife
;
(d)
the state of the law relating to the right to recover
interest in civil proceedings.
The legislation passed
as
a result of the labours of the Law
Revision Committee has proved almost entirely successful. The
purpose of this note is to indicate those limited grounds on which
criticism can be made, though even here criticism is by no means
unanimous, and is on the whole directed to small and relatively
unimportant matters.
The first interim report of the Committee contained recom-
mendations upon the legal maxim
actio personalis moritur cgm
persona,
and under this head the Committee examined the
Common Law rule known
as
the rule in
Baker
v.
Bolton
(1808),
I
Campbell
493.
This rule is that no one can maintain an action
against
a
person who by his wrongful act, neglect or default has
caused the death of another, and
it
was approved of by the
House of Lords in
S.S.
Amerika,
[1917]
A.C.
38.
The rule has
long been the object of criticism, and it was made the more
anomalous by the decision in
Jackson
v.
Watson,
[I9091
2
K.B.
193,
which laid down that it did not apply to cases of breach of contract.
The Committee dealt with all the criticisms of the rule and
finally recommended that
it
should be abolished. This recom-
mendation was not, however, incorporated in the Reform Act,
1934.
In fact,
s.
I.
(2)
(c)
of
the Act seems to reaffirm the rule
To continue reading
Request your trial