I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
The purpose of this short but important Bill is to amend the Civil Liability Act, 1961, and the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1936, so as to increase the maximum amount of compensation that may be awarded by the court for mental distress to dependants of a deceased in fatal injury cases under those Acts, and to extend the categories of persons who have a right to claim such damages as well as damages for loss of benefits and for any funeral expenses.
Part IV of the Civil Liability Act, 1961, gives to dependants of a deceased a right to claim damages as compensation for mental distress, for loss of pecuniary benefits and for funeral expenses where the death has been caused by the wrongful act of another. They are in the nature of a class action, where one case is taken for the benefit of all the dependants.
The dependants of a deceased generally have a cause of action under Part IV, if, first, the circumstances were such that but for his or her death, the injured party would have been entitled to take an action for damages against the party who caused the fatal injury. Second, the plaintiff must be able to demonstrate that there was a family type relationship in existence between the claimants and the deceased. The right of action is confined to family relatives including spouses, children, grandparents, brothers and sisters. Part IV does not extend to cohabitants or to a spouse whose marriage to the deceased was dissolved or annulled even though it may be the case that persons within those categories may have suffered loss.
In most actions under Part IV, the substantial damages payable are those which relate to the loss of pecuniary benefits, which take account of the deceased's income and future prospects. The level of damages are of such amount as the judge may consider appropriate resulting from the death, apportioned to each of the dependants. Damages are fixed by the court to compensate for the dependant's future losses. In the event of contributory negligence on the deceased's part, the level of damages are proportionately reduced. In certain circumstances, most commonly where a child dies, loss of pecuniary benefits does not arise.
The maximum amount of compensation payable for mental distress in fatal injury cases was set at £1,000 in section 49 of the 1961 Act and that figure was increased to its present level of £7,500 by the Courts Act, 1981. The level of damages fixed by the court, subject to the maximum prescribed by law, is the total of such amounts as the judge shall consider reasonable compensation for mental distress resulting from the death to each dependant.
The Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1936, as amended by a series of amending Acts, the latest being the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1988, contains provisions which correspond to those in Part IV of the 1961 Civil Liability Act.
Section 1 provides for certain important changes in the definitions section of Part IV of the 1961 Act. A fact in society in recent decades, which cannot be ignored, in terms of the law on civil liability, is that many couples, not being married to one another, live together as husband and wife and others still have foreign divorces which are entitled to recognition in the State. The narrow definition of dependants who are entitled to claim damages under Part IV of the 1961 Act needs to be broadened. Cohabitants and former spouses may suffer financial loss because of the death of their partner or former spouse. The 1961 Act does not cater for that and I am now glad to do something about it in this Bill.
Accordingly, the effect of section 1 is to amend the definition of "dependant" in Part IV of the 1961 Act so as to extend that definition to include persons who, not being married to one another, have been living together as husband and wife for at least three years before the date of death of the other. Those persons will be able to claim all of the damage provided for in Part IV, that is, damages for loss of pecuniary benefits, for funeral expenses and for mental distress. There is provision in section 2 (1) (c) to the effect that the court in determining the damages to be awarded for loss of pecunairy benefits, must take into account the fact, if it be the case, that the cohabitant had no enforceable right to financial maintenance by the deceased. A key feature of the claimant's entitlement to damages will be dependency.
Section 1 also broadens the definition of "dependant" to include a person whose marriage to the deceased has been dissolved by a foreign decree of divorce that is entitled to recognition in the State. Such a person could have been in a position of dependency on the deceased former spouse and it is reasonable to entitle that person to claim damages under Part IV. However, the effect of section 3 is that a divorced spouse will not be entitled to claim damages for mental distress.
I propose to bring forward an amendment in due course to the definition of "dependant" in the present Bill to include persons whose marriage has been dissolved in the State. Alternatively, should the Bill be passed before the Divorce Bill I shall propose an amendment to the Divorce Bill to cover the point.
Section 2 increases the maximum amount that may be awarded to dependants for mental distress in fatal injury cases from £7,500 to £15,000. The adjustment of the maximum figure to £15,000 is in line with the increase in inflation during the period from 1981 to date. In providing for this increase, I am conscious that no money can compensate for the loss of a close family member. However, the provision in the 1961 Act was not framed to place a monetary value on the life of a deceased person. Rather it is a solatium or a statutory acknowledgement that such pain and grief merits court recognition when a compensation award is being made. It is an admission of the need to recognise the existence of this distress in some tangible way. The law is not silent on the matter of grief and the provision probably goes as far as it can to give the matter recognition. Section 2 also enables any future increases in that level of compensation to be made by way of ministerial order, taking into account the value of money in the State at the time of the increase. The House will agree that is a sensible way to proceed for the future.
I mentioned earlier that the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1936, as amended, contains provisions which correspond to those in Part IV of the 1961 Act. Accordingly, section 4 makes provision for amendments to section 18 of the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1936, which are consequential on the amendments provided for in sections 1, 2 and 3.
A final point of detail is that, by virtue of certain subsections in sections 1, 2, 3 and 4, each of the amendments in those sections shall not have effect in relation to a cause of action that accrues before those amendments come into operation. The amendments will come into operation on the date of the passing of the Bill.
The House will agree that the changes provided for are important in their own right. The increase in the maximum level of damages for mental distress is overdue and that level can, on the basis of ministerial order provided for in the Bill, be subject to more regular revision in the future. The extension of categories of dependants who can claim damages for mental distress and for loss of pecuniary benefits or for funeral expenses makes the law more equitable. I am happy to take this opportunity to bring our law in this area up to date. I commend the Bill to the House.
