Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Mar 1971

Vol. 252 No. 9

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Traffic Accident Compensation.

38.

asked the Minister for Justice if, having regard to the very serious injuries and loss often caused by traffic accidents as a result of a driver of a vehicle having a heart attack or other sudden illness as a consequence of which the injured parties are not entitled to compensation from the parties having such heart attacks or illnesses, he will introduce legislation to entitle such injured parties to compensation in such cases; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The payment of damages to victims of traffic accidents by persons who, through their negligence, cause such accidents is an application of the general principle that persons are liable for damage caused by their own negligence or fault. A reform of the law to ensure payment of compensation in road accident cases where negligence has not been established cannot be considered in isolation from the general question of the civil liability of motorists. No amendment of the present law in this field can be contemplated without a very full examination of many difficult and complex questions, including the amendment of the Civil Liability Acts, 1961 and 1964, and the problem of compulsory insurance.

Is the Minister aware that CIE will not accept liability for any deaths or injuries caused by one of their vehicles if its driver has suffered a heart attack prior to the accident or in the course of the accident?

CIE are not in a different position from any other owner of a motor vehicle in the State and they are subject to the general law like everybody else. In the last resort, it is not a matter for CIE to decide whether they are liable but for the courts.

Does the Minister not think there is an anomaly here in the administration of justice if, when a man has a heart attack while driving a car and severely injures somebody, the insurance company can disclaim liability?

That does not necessarily follow. There has been one rather unfortunate case recently, which is probably what the Deputy has in mind, but speaking very generally and without reference to any particular incident, I think it can be said that if the driver of a vehicle has reason to feel the onset of illness he could be held to be negligent, if he does not take precautions to prevent injury resulting from that illness.

The Minister is aware that hardship can be caused to people who suffer injuries in the case envisaged in Deputy Ryan's question?

I am aware in recent years of only one accident where it had a result of this nature.

Would the Minister not consider amending the laws in this regard, complicated as they might be?

If I were to amend the law to cover that case——

Not just that case.

——for example, I would have to amend the entire law of negligence in this country; and while I cannot be precise in saying what that would involve it could increase the insurance cover that would be required. The result could mean pushing to a great degree the already expensive premiums on car insurance policies.

The percentage of accidents like that is very small.

It is very small but if you were to cover it you would have to do away with the fault principle in negligence and substitute what is called the risk principle. They do this in certain countries. It can entail a new system of compulsory insurance which is very expensive.

It is very expensive here without it.

I know it is. That is one of several reasons why I am slow to consider this. As I have pointed out, there has been fortunately only one accident in recent years that I know of where the difficulty has arisen.

Top
Share