My brother-in-law spent some time in New Zealand back in 2001, and he is fond of tossing around some variant of the following story -
“In New Zealand, they don’t have the problem with frivolous lawsuits the way we have in the US or in Canada. It’s enshrined in the legal system that you are responsible for the outcome of your actions. For instance, suppose you go dive off a bridge and it turns out the water was too shallow and you break your neck - around here, you can sue someone because there should have been a sign warning you not to jump. In New Zealand, the law says you can’t sue anybody - it’s too bad you broke your neck, but it’s your own bloody fault and nobody else’s.”
So my question is - is there really such a principle enshrined in NZ law? And if so, can someone point me to where it’s written? I’ve heard the story often enough, I’d like to hear some confirmation…
What they do in NZ is have an “Accident Compensation Corporation” for injuries frmo accident, rather than suing the person causing the damage. So lawsuits are reduced but not due to it being about 'individual responsibility.
Gross negligence still can be sued (cant remember term though), but many things come under accidents rather than negligence that people in the US would consider negligence.
I don’t know if there’s such a principle enshrined in New Zealand law anywhere. Perhaps during the recent bout of tort law reform across the common law world some such principle was inserted. The comments of your brother-in-law sound to me much more like a reference to the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC):
The ACC provides coverage to everyone (New Zealanders and visitors alike) on a no-fault basis for accidental injuries arising from any cause. On its establishment, the quid pro quo was that New Zealanders pretty much lost the common law right to sue for damages.
Since the NZ question is answered, I thought I would correct another misapprehension. The implication from the OP is that a litigant in the US or Canada could win a suit in the circumstances described above. (Otherwise, there’s no difference between the NZ and the US because in both places the suit will be dismissed). But, at least in most states in the US, this isn’t so. The law in this area is surprisingly complicated and dependent on who owns the bridge and why you were there, but almost all of the factual roads lead to one legal conclusion: if you jump off a bridge into shallow water and break your neck, it’s on you. There are some very narrow and limited exceptions to this, but that’s pretty much the rule.
Yes, and in return we (NZ taxpayers) pay an ACC levy which is built into our PAYE taxes.
A few years back when I had a wee jet-ski accident ACC covered all of the hospital treatment, specialists visits, and therapy, and paid 80% of my usual salary for the month I was unable to work. On previous (and far less serious occasions) ACC has paid for doctors visits, stitches in hands, etc.
I don’t know if it’s a system that would work everywhere, and I have no doubt that it screws up on occasion, but my experience of ACC has been generally positive.
I seem to recall that in Canada, the Crown cannot be sued in tort. That’s the general common-law rule, and there are exceptions.* But I wouldn’t be surprised if the same held for New Zealand, coming from the same legal tradition. If this is the general rule in NZ also, then the OP’s BIL (gosh, that makes for a number of acronyms) is close to the truth, but not all there. The general rule makes for a great “Hey, can you believe this?” story though.
I’m going off what I remember from a Canadian law school class. Although the general common-law rule seems harsh, I do remember that there were exceptions; and of course, they could be modified etc. by statute and other common law. The person who is injured due to governmental negligence is not totally out of luck–it depends on circumstances.
Note that I generally do not do personal injury, so nothing I say here can be taken as the last word on the subject. For accurate Canadian advice, consult a personal injury lawyer licensed to practice in the applicable Canadian jurisdiction.
As an aside, I understand that in Canada, we have our share of frivolous lawsuits, though not to the extent that they do in the US. For an example, see the Mustapha case.
And ‘No fault’ is of course much more than just ‘personal responsibility’ - the case in question I cited was where a restaurant accidentally gave someone a caustic substance to drink and the people were injured from drinking it.
It was still counted as a an ‘accident’ rather than ‘negligence’. Ie even when another person clearly is to blame, they still dont get sued. So its much more than just ‘you dont need to place a sign’.
Criminal charges can still apply of course, just in case anyone thinks that its amazing everyone hasnt killed each other.
Although, and I hope a little (IMO) is OK in this GQ, I do think the presence of the ACC safety net means some attitudinal differences.
If someone puts down their heavy suitcase in the hotel lobby while waiting to check-in and I trip over it while walking and texting and break my arm, I’m not going to be looking for someone to pay for my medical treatment – I may still not think charitably of the suitcase owner, but looking for someone else to blame / accept responsibility for my injury becomes less important.
ETA: Which (to finish my thought) means that I can consider my own foolishness more critically and rationally, rather than having to maintain that it wasn’t my fault, it was the owner, the hotel, the people who laid the floor, whatever.
The accident compensation scheme in NZ is governed by legislation - The Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001, as well as Regulations (laws) made under the Act. The Act defines the rights of claimants including all entitlements, the claims process and disputes, as well as how the scheme is funded.
Part 9 s317prevents any proceedings for damages from personal injury to be brought independent of the Act. But I think you can still sue for property damage, or personal grievances.
Important to note is that there is no allowance for contracting out of the Act (Part 9 299). But if you are a visitor to NZ, you are generally covered.
What I also like about the Corporation (I worked there for a year, and saw this part the most) is that a significant portion of their work is in accident and injury prevention. This could be anything from regular workplace inspections and levies for higher injury rates, research into acute lower back pain, grassroots level education about sporting injuries, and working in partnership with the Police and the Land Transport Safety Authority to reduce the road toll.
I think that makes a difference to the psyche of New Zealanders - there are regular reminders from many angles that we can all contribute to a reduction in injury rates - so as others have said, the rush to blame someone else is mitigated. It’s also reassuring that should something happen, there is a lot of support (financially and rehab wise) to get you back on your feet.
Our manager used to have regular international trips to explain the Corporation to other countries interested in implementing a similar idea - but starting it from scratch (setting up the scheme, the funding and the removal of some legal rights to sue) seemed to be too much of a barrier, and so far NZ is the only country in the world to have this sort of scheme.
The major attitudinal difference in my view is proportionality.
As in if you dent someones car at low speed you’ve dented their car, not inflicted overwhelming and irrecoverable mental and physical pain that you are going to be financially ruined by.
That was the common law position, derived from the maxim, “the King can do no wrong.” (Probably grossly expanded beyond what the original meaning of the maxim was trying to capture, but hey, these things happen.)
However, the injustice of not being able to sue the Crown in tort was recognized, and dealt with in two stages.
The first was the evolution of the Petition of Right, in which the plaintiff would petition the Crown for the right to sue the Crown. If the Crown granted the petition, it gave jurisdiction to the royal courts to hear an action against the Crown in tort. This began as an exceptional procedure, but as time went on, it became routine for the Crown to grant the petition.
Then, in the middle of the last century, most commonwealth jurisdictions began passing statutes governing actions against the Crown, replacing both the common law immunity of the Crown and the petition of right procedure. For example, the federal Crown Liability and Proceeding Act provides:
There are still some quirks of procedure (e.g. - can’t sue the Crown for an injunction), but by and large the Crown can now be sued in tort in Canada in the same way as a private citizen can be sued.
I’m not sure what the situation is these days in NZ regarding what happens if you injure yourself committing an illegal act. I vaguely remember a bit of an outcry long ago when someone was receiving ACC compensation because he injured himself while escaping from prison.
The Act was amended in 2005 (not sure if it was due to that case) but if you are a prisoner you aren’t eligible for weekly comp (makes sense, you’re not earning), a death benefit or permanent impairment lump sum. You may still be eligible for rehab and vocational training.
Getting back to the OP, I think there’s a mistaken assumption in the brother-in-law’s comment - that other countries’ legal systems don’t enshrine a principle of individual responsibility in their law of torts. I don’t think that’s an accurate assumption.
Under the law of contributory negligence, it’s recognized that there can be more than one contributing factor to an accident, including the contribution of the person suing. If the court concludes that both the plaintiff and the defendant contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries, then their liability is apportioned accordingly. So if the plaintiff’s claim is for $100,000, and the court apportions liability 40% to the plaintiff and 60% to the defendant, then the defendant is only on the hook for $60,000.
The brother-in-law in the OP seems to want the law to be that if the plaintiff contributed in any way to the accident, no-one else is legally liable. That’s what the common law used to provide, before the advent of contributory negligence statutes. That approach created great unfairness, because the practical reality is that any time there’s an accident, it’s rare that it’s entirely caused by one person. Even a minor contribution to the accident by the plaintiff was enough to let the defendant off the hook entirely.
I would argue that that common law approach actually negated the principle of individual liability for defendants, because it meant that if defendants who were primarily responsible for the accident could point to even a minor, fleeting contribution to the accident by the plaintiff, they were not liable at all. They could escape their liability by pointing to the plaintiff’s liability, a rule which clearly favoured defendants and released them from personal responsibility.
Contributory negligence statutes enshrine the principle of individual responsibility for everyone involved in the accident, according to their share.
(The situation then gets complicated by joint and several responsibility of defendants, but that’s another issue.)
My brother-in-law’s assertion is based on the popular notion that there are a lot of lawsuits where the damages awarded are larger than merited, particularly where there appears to be a lack of common sense on the part of the plaintiff. Whether this popular notion is bourne out in fact is another issue - there have been infamous cases (the McDonald’s coffee scalding incident, for example.), but there are also many examples of lawsuits that are simply thrown out of court for being frivolous.
At any rate, I think I see where he has confused the No Fault insurance and the lack of precedent-setting awards in courts for an actual statute that states ‘you can’t blame other people for your own stupidity’*. (Richard Parker - I really wish I could state with certainty that the example my BIL and I made up would not result in excessive damages for the plaintiff. Sadly, I don’t think Justice is infallible, and although I’d like to think such a case would go nowhere, if it came to pass that that person was awarded $2 million for pain, suffering and mental anguish because he had a really good lawyer, I would not be surprised. Perhaps I am too cynical, and also, I probably should not deal in such a hypothetical matter in GQ.)
At any rate, thank you all for helping me clear this one up. It’s been bugging me for a while.
*paraphrased, though I’d personally love it if something like that could be passed into law.
Don’t want to turn this into a GD, but why? As I mentioned earlier, that’s what the law originally was. If you’re involved in an accident caused in part by your stupidity, and in part by the other person’s stupidity, why should that other person get a free pass from harming you?
Take a common episode: the fender bender at a traffic light. Suppose you run a yellow but it turns red just as you enter the intersection. The other guy guns his car as soon as his light turns green, without checking that the intersection is clear, as required by law. You’re injured in the accident, but the other driver isn’t.
Now, it’s arguable that you were stupid to run a red light. But the other guy was stupid in jumping on the green without checking that the intersection was clear. If you’re injured, why should he not be responsible for his stupidity, to the extent it contributed to the accident?
Why does the idea of personal responsibility act against the person who was injured, and clear the person who wasn’t? Shouldn’t they both be personally responsible for their stupidity, to the extent their actions contributed to the injury?
Please do a search for the True Stellar awards for the facts of this particular case - in acutal fact the award was fully merited and warranted. Although the author of the site, Randy Cassingham is fighting for tort reform to prevent the sorts of cases you are talking about
