A New Road Traffic Bill
| Date | 01 October 1933 |
| Published date | 01 October 1933 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X3300600402 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
A
New
Road Traffic
Bill
A
BILL
which is not without interest to the police in both
their official and private capacities is the Road Traffic
(Compensation for Accidents) Bill, which received a second
reading in the House of Lords in March last and after con-
sideration in amended form by a Select Committee has now
passed the House of Lords and may appear after the Recess
in the Commons.
The
Government are examining the Bill
and the report of the Select Committee, with a view to
deciding as to its further progress.
The
Bill has been generally described as
one'
for shifting
the
onus'
(i.e. the onus of proving negligence) in the case of
motor accidents from the injured pedestrian (or pedal cyclist)
to the motorist, in other words from the claimant to the
defendant.
It
would be more correct, however, to say that
the Bill relieves the pedestrian of the onus, which at present
rests on him, of proving negligence on the part of the motorist.
Unless the accident was wholly due to his own negligence,
the pedestrian would be entitled under the Bill to compensa-
tion irrespective of whether or not there was negligence on
the part of the motorist; if, however, the accident was partly
due to the fault of the pedestrian, this degree of fault would
be taken into account when assessing compensation. As the
law stands at present, apedestrian or a pedal cyclist injured
by a motor-car is not entitled to recover compensation unless
he can prove (a) thatthe driver of the motor-car was negligent,
and (b) that he himself was in no way negligent.
The
Bill would in effect apply to motor-vehicles the prin-
ciple laid down by the decision in the leading case of Rylands
v. Fletcher (L.R. 3H.L.C. 330). Under the general principles
391
To continue reading
Request your trial