asked the Minister for Justice if he will introduce amending legislation to provide for an increase in the rate of compensation paid to the wife of a man who has been killed in a road accident.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Accident Compensation.
70.
I presume that what the Deputy has in mind is an amendment of the provision contained in subsection (1) of section 49 of the Civil Liability Act, 1961, whereby damages in a fatal injuries case are to include such amounts, not exceeding in the aggregate £1,000, as the judge considers reasonable compensation to the dependants of the deceased for mental distress resulting to them from the death. The position in that regard is that no representations have been made to me for an increase in the statutory limit of £1,000 and I do not at present contemplate the introduction of amending legislation on the subject.
Compensation for mental distress— or what is known in Scots law as solatium— is to be distinguished from damages to which the dependants of a fatally injured person may be entitled in respect of expenses, outlay and loss of support resulting from the death. The amount of damages under these latter heads is entirely at the discretion of the jury — or, in non-jury cases, of the judge — and is not subject to statutory limitation. Solatium on the other hand is an acknowledgement of grief rather than an attempted compensation for financial loss and in consequence it should be variable only within comparatively narrow limits. In Scotland, where our provision for solatium originated, the courts have taken the view that, while the sum awarded should be a substantial acknowledgement of the grief caused to those concerned, it must strictly be confined within a moderate range and ought to be reckoned in terms of hundreds of pounds. It was in the light of this that the Oireachtas settled on a maximum of £1,000 in the 1961 Act.
No sum of money can ever compensate for the loss of a husband. Would the Minister introduce amending legislation, however, to increase the solatium? The breadwinner of a family might be killed, without any witnesses, in a road traffic accident and there would be no case — as the legal luminaries sitting behind the Minister will know — whereby the relatives would be justified in going before the courts.
The Deputy has completely misunderstood my reply. Solatium is not damages. It is not supposed to be compensation for the death of a husband or anybody else. It is purely an acknowledgement of grief. On top of that, damages for the death, and financial losses accruing from the death, are awarded.
I am in no doubt about what the Minister means by solatium. Cases arise in which claims for damages cannot be brought to court because sufficient evidence is not available.
That is a separate question.
Would the Minister consider amending the legislation to increase this amount at least pro rata.
The Deputy is completely mixed up. The question of some people's not having a claim comes under the law of negligence. If someone is precluded in his negligence claim from succeeding in an action the question of the amount of the solatium and/or of the damages does not therefore arise at all.
I think the Minister is misunderstanding his own reply.
I certainly am not.
I understand the solatium perfectly, but this was introduced in 1961.
I hope the Deputy is more accurate on medical matters than on legal matters.
This is practically ten years later and the amount has not been changed. What I am asking is: will the Minister consider investigating this and introducing amending legislation to increase this amount?
I have already told the Deputy twice that I do not propose to increase the figure.
Why?
Because the figure is quite adequate.
£1,000 is adequate?
It is adequate as solatium in addition to damages. It is only on very rare occasions that the court awards the full figure or, indeed, anything approaching it.