| From: | Nicole Moreham <Nicole.Moreham@vuw.ac.nz> |
| To: | Ken Oliphant <ken.oliphant@oeaw.ac.at> |
| Mamari Stephens <Mamari.Stephens@vuw.ac.nz> | |
| Neil Foster <Neil.Foster@newcastle.edu.au> | |
| Kylie Burns <k.burns@griffith.edu.au> | |
| CC: | Richard Wright <rwright@kentlaw.iit.edu> |
| obligations@uwo.ca | |
| Date: | 24/08/2013 09:00:07 UTC |
| Subject: | RE: NZ accident system on A(ustl.)BC |
Yes, as has already been acknowledged, these matters of culture are difficult to measure in any scientific way.
As for the statistics, you're right, I was looking at the youth statistics. The figures there say that among the 24 OECD countries with road user death rates measured by age, New Zealand (with Greece and Poland) had the highest death rate for children under 15 years (at 2.6 deaths per 100,000, it was double the OECD median of 1.3). It also has the highest rate for 15–17 year olds, with 15.0 deaths per 100,000 (more than double the OECD median of 7.3). A significant social problem in these parts.
Best,
Nicole
Māmari Stephens | Senior Lecturer and Project Co-Leader: the Legal Māori Project| Te Kura Tātai Ture - Faculty of Law| Victoria University of Wellington
Ph: 64 4 463 6319 Email: mamari.stephens@vuw.ac.nz
You can access my recent papers on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=1592795
I agree that this is an excellent teaching resource - thank you for posting it.
There is no doubt in my observation that NZ is free from the zealous health and safety culture that affects many developed nations. Our bottom-of-the-OECD road toll is a further case in point. What role accident compensation plays in this culture is impossible to say - NZ has always been a frontier society where risk-taking and physical challenge is valued. However, there is now an entire generation of NZers (including me) who have never seen a parent, friend or neighbour face a civil claim for injuring someone in a car, in a workplace accident or otherwise. Most New Zealanders regard this with pride - there is undoubtedly something civilised about universal compensation - but it is difficult to believe that it does not affect safety attitudes. I was stuck on my return from 7 years in the UK, how rarely one hears the word 'negligent' here. 'Accidents', however, are everywhere.
Mightn't one answer be, then, to give the Accident Compensation Corporation the right to sue tortfeasors? That way both deterrence and universal compensation can be retained. Government would also surely welcome the chance to claw back some of the costs of the scheme. Underfunded regulators might welcome it as well.
Regards,
Nicole
Interesting stuff, Richard, thanks for drawing it to our attention.
It's hard to know what to make of anecdotal evidence such as this, and there is a risk that it could be used to draw conclusions that aren't warranted by the proven facts. (In which context, I recall the American law review article that found that New Zealanders' lax attitudes towards safety was demonstrated by the playing of rugby without helmets and body armour...)
I would be interested in hearing more of what on another website is called the 'major study' conducted by the academic interviewed (Susan Watson - a company lawyer, it appears). I can't track down anything published by her on this topic at all.
Workplace health and safety has in fact been a very significant issue in New Zealand in recent times, though it appears that Watson's statement that "New Zealand has four times the rate of workplace fatalities than the UK and twice the rate of workplace fatalities than Australia” is open to serious question. One problem is that most other countries under-count occupational fatalities in comparison with New Zealand, which derives very comprehensive data from its accident compensation system. A recent government-commissioned report makes interesting reading on this (http://www.hstaskforce.govt.nz/index.asp; and see especially the working paper on the international comparison of workplace fatal injury rates).
Even if it were to be proven that New Zealand compares badly internationally, it wouldn't follow that the accident compensation system is to blame. The Nordic counties have (apparently) very low occupational fatality rates, but also have no-fault compensation for work accidents.
Von: Wright, Richard [rwright@kentlaw.iit.edu]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. August 2013 01:55
An: obligations@uwo.ca
Betreff: Fwd: NZ accident system on A(ustl.)BC
Interesting take on safety incentives in NZ.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard Peltz-Steele <rpeltzsteele@umassd.edu>
Date: Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:53 PM
Subject: NZ accident system on A(ustl.)BC
To: tortprof tortprof@chicagokent.kentlaw.edu
Greetings and happy new academic year, torts profs.Some of you might, as I do, infuse a bit of comparativism into your torts class. You might like to use parts of this nifty video I just came across from Australian Broadcasting Corp., about ten months old now, linking the New Zealand adrenalin industry with the NZ accident compensation system. Great stuff on deterrence. The legal parts kick in especially at about 21 minutes. There's a transcript, so you can get a feel for the whole thing.
http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2012/s3621762.htm
rick jps
Richard J. Peltz-Steele
http://ssrn.com/author=625107
Professor, UMass Law School
333 Faunce Corner Road
North Dartmouth, Mass. 02747 USA
+1 508-985-1102