XN000022-1986-01-29 — Page 21

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 1986

19

+ IF THE BENEFICIARIES UNDER THE ESTATE ARE NOT ALSO DEPENDANTS, THIS CAN MEAN THAT THE DEFENDANT PAYS TWICE.+

MR THOMAS SAID THAT ALTHOUGH THERE WERE AT PRESENT PROVISIONS IN THE LAW THAT IF A PARTY WAS ENTITLED TO AN AWARD UNDER BOTH ORDINANCES HE SHOULD ONLY RECEIVE THE HIGHER OF THEM, IT WAS POSSIBLE AS A RESULT OF A SERIES OF DECISIONS IN THE COURTS THAT WHERE THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE BENEFICIARY A DEFENDANT WILL HAVE TO PAY MORE IN TOTAL UNDER A COMBINATION OF AWARDS UNDER BOTH ORDINANCES THAN HE WOULD UNDER EITHER ONE ALONE.

HE SAID: THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT THESE PROBLEMS RESULTED FROM THE WAY IN WHICH AWARDS MAKE PROVISION FOR LOSS OF FUTURE SAVINGS, AND THE BILLS INTRODUCE A NEW FORMULA BASED ON THE DECEASED'S ACTUAL SAVINGS RECORD. THIS SHOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM IN FUTURE.+

MR THOMAS CONTINUED: +SECONDLY, THE BILLS ABOLISH SOME OUTDATED PROVISIONS IN THE PRESENT LAW AND REPLACE THEM WITH NEW REMEDIES. THE MAJOR ONE IS AN AWARD OF $40 000 AS DAMAGES FOR BEREAVEMENT WHICH WILL BE PAID TO THE CLOSE RELATIONS OF A DECEASED PERSON.

+WHERE A PERSON'S INJURIES REDUCE HIS ABILITY TO GIVE HIS CLOSE RELATIVES THE BENEFIT OF HIS SOCIETY COMPENSATION OF UP TO $40 000 CAN BE AWARDED.

+ IF AN INJURED OR DECEASED PERSON RENDERED GRATUITOUS SERVICES TO CERTAIN RELATIONS BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, COMPENSATION CAN BE AWARDED FOR HIS LOSS OF ABILITY TO RENDER THOSE SERVICE,+ HE SAID.

THIRDLY, HE SAID, THE BILLS PROPOSE THAT THE RANGE OF DEPENDANTS WHO CAN MAKE A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ANY PERSON'S DEATH CAUSED BY A WRONGFUL ACT, NEGLECT OR DEFAULT, BE EXTENDED TO COVER PERSONS OF MORE DISTANT RELATIONS THAN HITHERTO, SUCH AS GREAT UNCLES AND AUNTS, GREAT-GRANDPARENTS, GRANDCHILDREN AND GREAT-GRANDCHILDREN, GODCHILDREN AND GODPARENTS ACCORDING TO CHINESE CUSTOM, AND UNMARRIED CO-HABITEES, AS LONG AS THEY HAVE LIVED TOGETHER FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS.+

+ THE SAME RANGE OF DEPENDANTS WILL APPLY TO THE CLAIM FOR LOSS OF THE ABILITY TO RENDER SERVICES GRATUITOUSLY, HE NOTED.

MR THOMAS ADDED: +FOURTHLY, THERE IS A NEW PROVISION FOR THE COURTS TO MAKE PROVISIONAL ORDERS FOR DAMAGES WHERE THE EXTENT OF INJURY OR DISABILITY CANNOT BE FINALLY ASSESSED AT THE TIME OF THE COURT PROCEEDINGS.

+LASTLY THERE IS A PROPOSAL TO ABOLISH THE ARCHAIC REMEDIES WHICH ALLOW AN EMPLOYER TO SUE A PERSON WHO DEPRIVES HIM OF THE SERVICES OF A MENIAL SERVANT BY RAPING OR SEDUCING OR ENTICING HER. I CAN RECALL NO INSTANCE OF THEIR BEING USED IN RECENT YEARS,+ MR THOMAS SAID.

DEBATE ON THE BILLS WAS ADJOURNED.

/20