Acc Summary Notes

Q2 ACC This question is part problem and part essay. It tests understanding of the Accident Compensation Scheme and also the availability of common law damages. You are not expected to memorise legislative provisions but you will need to be familiar enough with them so that you can apply them to fact situation presented. Woodhouse Report. - Comprehensive entitlement - Community responsibility - Real compensation Principles turned into key concepts 1. Social Contract - nation had to agree. Give up right to sue for personal injury. Might get a little less under ACC in some cases but everyone would get something quite generous. 2. No fault - all entitled as don't need to point finger 3. Personal injury by accidnet (not sickeness, yet although no logic in that) 4. Static monopoly scheme - take away from realm of insurance 1972 ACC Act: Didn't go so far as Woodhouse has hoped. 1973 Labour Government, amended the Act. Comprehensive no fault scheme that covered everyone. Funded by levies. Key Benefits:Cover all medical treatment for injuries and for rehabilitationExtra rehab and supportProvisions for lump sump paymentsFor permanent loss or impairment of bodily function ($17,000 initially). For pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life ($10,000) Gateway provisions: Act declared a code, no opting out, barring provision, not allowed to sue. 1982 Act: s26(2)(a): All persons who suffer personal injury shall have cover.Physical and mentalMedical, surgical or first aid misadventure.Occupational disease (does not cover strokes and heart attacks (unless work related), damage to the body or mind caused exclusively by disease, infection or the aging process. Wallbutton v ACC: Back injury case, hurt it when getting the milk bottles. She succeeded in the case. Clearly indicated the courts were going to take a very generous view of the Act. Looking at the action from the victim's point of view. Unintended event with misfortune, but could cover an intentional act with unintended misfortunate results. She had a bad back already, but the provision says must be exclusively caused by disease etc. Green v Matheson:Cervical cancer debacle. CA looked at the ACC legislation and who was covered. Medical misadventure covered by ACC. Sir Robin Cooke said would be covered anyway - any unlawful mishap or untoward event, something goes wrong, even if it was the result of a deliberate action by another. "Mishap causing harm to the person". Should be looking at the

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Tort Law Notes.