Vol. 153 No. 8
I move:—
That it is expedient to authorise such payments out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas as are necessary to give effect to any Act of the present session to make better provision for compensating members of the family of any person killed by the wrongful act or default of another.
The main difficulty that I see in this Bill is the possibility of juries going wrong in the assessment of damages. I think it is a matter that the Minister should think over again. Under Lord Campbell's Act the chief people who lost by the death could sue and juries assessed damages accordingly. Now, I appreciate that the main people who lose are the dependents of the bread-winner and I fear that if these other categories are brought in juries will be side-tracked.
I feel this would be more relevant on the Committee Stage and not on the Money Resolution.
With respect, I say the principles are quite relevant on the Money Resolution and I am only talking about principles. I suggest the Minister should think again. I am in agreement with the main principles of the Bill. My contention is that, if there is a fatal accident and a widow is suing for the death of her husband, and these other people are brought in, a jury will be side-tracked; instead of assessing damages for the main dependent, because these other dependents are introduced, they will be inclined to overlook the fact that the principal loser is the widow.
Taking the Bill as a whole I approve of it. I wonder wheather the Minister, and particularly the Taoiseach, could devise some type of safeguard for the danger that I see in this Bill. I am sure the Taoiseach will appreciate the point I am making that, whereas it is quite proper that some dependent like a brother or sister should be able to sue, the Minister goes so far as to bring in the question of the dependency of an illegitimate child. What I am afraid of is that, having regard to all the people brought in under this Bill, the main loser might suffer in the question of damages. Taking a hurried view, I cannot see how that can be guarded against, but I have no doubt that if the Minister, particularly the Taoiseach, looks at this matter, he will appreciate the danger I envisage under this Bill.
I appreciate what Deputy Moran said. Really, the essence of what he wishes to urge was very much present in the mind of the Minister when this Bill was being framed. There were two problems to be solved. One was the measure of damages and the other the question of how far we should extend the scope of the dependents—how far he would stretch out the elastic. If the elastic is stretched too far it is bound to break. The more dependents you put in, the less there is for what Deputy Moran calls the principal person. We were fully alive to that.
On the Second Reading, we were anxious to get the views of Deputies of the House on how far we should widen the range of dependents. The Minister pointed out that he had left out a provision which is now being inserted—to bring in those people who stand in loco parentis to other people, and vice versa. It was felt that the number of dependents had gone as far as it was wise to go if not too far, but in deference to the views expressed by the House the Minister decided to bring in this amendment which will be moved by him to bring in people who are in loco parentis and vice versa.
There is the danger that if you widen the scope the damages, being only one sum, will be thinned out according as they are distributed. On the measure of damages we would like to have had more discussion than there was. Originally, we thought of following the principle that was laid down tentatively by Mr. Justice Casey, when Attorney-General, and bringing in a new measure of damages. We came to the conclusion, however, that to do that would make confusion worse confounded and possibly, after a whole series of cases in the Supreme Court, we would find ourselves with a direction from the Supreme Court that the principles laid down on the decisions in the Fatal Accidents Act are still to be followed.
There is only one sum for all dependents and the jury will judge how to divide that amongst them. The only safeguard against the danger adverted to by Deputy Moran is the fact that it has been decided by the Supreme Court that you must, in order to establish dependency, give evidence of the fact of dependency, the nature of the dependency and the amount. That decision was responsible for the practice that grew up of giving evidence by actuaries. Each dependent would have to make his case and prove it in court. It would then have to be left to the good sense of a judge or jury to assess the relevant claims of each dependent.
Has the Taoiseach considered the suggestion in regard to the percentage of the damages for the widow or the main loser?
I think that would be unwise. My experience with juries is that first of all, they give to the last penny that they can give, on the evidence given by the actuaries. Generally, they take a common-sense view of the claims of the widow. The Deputy will agree that the widow got the major share almost always. I think the matter will have to be left to the good sense of the jury. If anything emerges as a result of this Bill in practice, we shall be very glad to be informed of the difficulties and to take steps to try to remedy them.
