Vol. 461 No. 4
20 Mr. Kirk asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the plans, if any, he has to review the Civil Liability Act, 1961, particularly the section which specifies the amount of compensation for death where there are no dependants; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1628/96]
Part IV of the Civil Liability Act, 1961, gives dependants a statutory right to sue where the death of the deceased has resulted from a wrongful act. The damages payable to such dependants under this type of claim fall under three headings: funeral expenses; compensation for mental distress — currently limited to £7,500; and, loss of pecuniary benefits.
As the Act is framed, the term "dependant" is defined to mean "any member of the family of the deceased who suffers injury or mental distress". Thus, it has a much broader meaning than one might, perhaps, first imagine.
I presume the Deputy's question is focused on the fact that, where a child suffers a fatal accident, damages under the more substantial heading of loss of pecuniary benefits would not arise normally and the principal head of compensation would be the £7,500 which is payable in relation to mental distress. The same situation could also arise, of course, in relation to other family members, for example, brothers and sisters. I appreciate that individuals in such circumstances might feel this amount does not reflect the pain and grief which such a loss would bring. However, the provision is not intended to place a monetary value on the life of the deceased person. Rather, it is a statutory acknowledgment that such pain and grief merits court recognition when a compensation award is being made. I propose to consider the question of an amendment to the 1961 Act to provide for an increase in the limit of £7,500 on compensation for mental distress. Any such proposals for legislation will be brought forward as quickly as possible.
I thank the Minister for his commitment in that regard. There is a section in the Civil Liability Act, 1961, which deals with liability for negligence by local authorities in relation to accidents on footpaths and roadways.
The non-implementation of that section has given rise to the ludicrous distinction between malfeasance and nonfeasance: if a person is injured after a local authority has carried out repairs to a footpath, they have a case against it if the work was done negligently whereas they have no case if the local authority ignores its responsibilities and an accident occurs as a result. Will the Minister consider implementing the section?
It is somewhat surprising that the section of the Civil Liability Act, 1961 to which the Deputy is referring has not been implemented, but I presume there must be a good reason for this given that successive Governments have failed to implement it.
Better late than never.
In all probability the matter would fall within the ambit of the Minister for the Environment. I will consider the matter, but the Deputy will understand that the question of the funding of local authorities would arise. I presume that is the reason the section has not been implemented.
The section was inserted for a reason. It is not logical to insert a section in legislation and then deliberately decide not to implement it. Will the Minister convey to the Minister for the Environment that the present position is ludicrous?
This question relates to the payment of compensation on death where there are no dependants.
It is a general question about the Civil Liability Act.
It relates in particular to the section which specifies the amount payable in compensation on death. If the Deputy wishes to table a specific question, I will reply to it.
Is the Minister aware that the figure of £7,500 prescribed as the statutory maximum for damages recoverable for mental distress on the death of a dependant does not vary with the number of dependants and, therefore, has to be divided up among all the dependants as the judge sees fit? Is he aware that this figure has been fixed for some time and must as a consequence have lost a considerable portion of its value? Will he indicate what new figure he has in mind? Would he be favourably disposed towards granting the Minister in any amending legislation a right to vary the amount by regulation rather than have the matter decided once every ten to 15 years when the amount in question becomes scandalously low because of the effect of inflation?
I am aware of all the points made by the Deputy. For all these reasons I am considering increasing the current figure of £7,500 which has remained unchanged since 1981. Prior to that date the relevant figure had remained unchanged for an even longer period. I will consider all aspects of the matter. I do not have any particular figure in mind. If the Deputy or any other Member wishes to make representations, I will consider anything they may say in this regard.
Does the Minister agree that the present position is unsatisfactory in that a parent who suffers from shock and trauma after his child has been knocked down can receive damages whereas a person who suffers serious psychological consequences on the death of a child without witnessing the circumstances in which the child was injured and who was not directly involved in the sequence of events cannot claim damages for shock? While some people rightly recover large sums of money for the devastation of their lives, others because of artificial rules of law are left with a derisory amount in compensation.
The law has evolved in two different streams. On the one hand, there is a direct damage relationship and, on the other, the provision under which the figure of £7,500 is payable which is on a different base. It is not intended to compensate for any particular monetary loss, but to be a solatium or recognition. It was introduced in 1961 for the first time.
By former Deputy Haughey.
Prior to that date, if I remember correctly, there was no equivalent payment. The figure has remained unchanged for the past 15 years. I will consider the issue.
What would the figure be if it had kept pace with inflation?
I do not have that figure.
One could have purchased a semi-detached house on the outskirts of Dublin with the figure originally provided for by the Oireachtas. One would not get very far with the current figure of £7,500.
