The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

1 e e o o e e sefi ' Arm\ C . House Committee Refuses to Deny All Claims for Life Expectancy Loss REJECTS CONANT PLEA No damages shall be allowed for | the death or for the loss of expec-- 'tation of life to a y one other than ' the wife, husband, parent or child 'ot the deceased, according to the terms of an amended amendment | to the Trustee Act which was re-- ported by the Legal Bills Commit-- tee of the Legislature, yesterday. The original amendment or bill * sponsored by Ian T. Strachan (Lib-- eral, St. Andrew), sought to wipe out all assessment for damages for loss of expectation of life, and, in effect, to restore the law in On-- tario to the 50--year--old position it had enjoyed prior to the House of Lords' decision in the now--famous Rose v. Ford case. Attorney--General Conant urged the committee to report the bill | without amendment, and that it be 7 | given further trial for a year, with his department, in the interval be-' __| tween sessions of the House, | | thoroughly studying the advisabil-- ity of loosening up the now re-- strictive scope of the Fatal Acci-- dents Act. The committee, how-- ever, disregarded the proposal and adopted the amendment of former , Labor--Welfare Minister D. A. Croll limiting damages under the bill to the wife, husband, parent, or child. Sees Effort to Avoid Paying. Former Attorney--General Arthur W. Roebuck charged that the sole object of the measure as sponsored s by Mr. Strachan was an effort on the part of insurance companies, the 'T.T.C. and the Ontario Motor Leagup_ Ior instnncp' to avo'd pay-- fimount' of damag('s they "r'i" ha\'e ing damages. "We had a law for| to Pay. fifty years," he said, "that did not | Sides With Conant. work out very well. Now, this oill| Major James Clark (Lib., Wind-- would have us go back to that law. sor--Sandwich) felt that the bill | I suggest that we should make some | should go through without the Croll | change in it at least. If we find | amendment. He took the same stand next session that the change has | as Mr. Conant, claiming that "liber-- been in error, then we can try some--| alizing" of the Fatal Accidents Act thingthu;lse. But let's at least try | might correct ary injustice that a something now." might now obtain in the way of Y. 4& ima (Cons. High Park),| assessment for and collect or{' of expressed the opinion that the com-- damages. To pass the bill would mittee should hesitate to interfere mean, he said, "a hopeless muddle with the law as interpreted by the | under two different acts." House ?l Lords and the Canadian Representatives of the Toronto courts." After all, he said, "the Transportation Commission and the move in this bill before us is simply | Ontario Motor League appeared be-- an attempt on the part of the in-- | fore the committee and stated their surance companies to lesser the support of the Strachan bill. \ &