263 / 364
beginning on the ............ day of ...... ...19......
and ending on the ......... day of ......... 19......
and that I am/we are are satisfied, subject to the
matters set out on the back hereof from such
examination and from the information and ex
planations given to me/us that during the said
accounting period you/your firm have complied
with the provisions of the Solicitors' Accounts
Regulations now in operation, and further that
the sum or the total of the sums at credit of the
designated client account or accounts and desig
nated trust bank account or accounts as defined
in the said regulations kept by you/your firm, was
not less than the total of the sums required to be
so kept in conformity with the provisions of the
said regulations.
Dated this ......... day of ......... 19......
Signature
................................................
Professional Qualification ...........................
Address ...................................................
Notes
(a) State full name of the solicitor or firm of
solicitors
in respect of whom the certificate is
issued.
(b) When the solicitor has two or more places
of business he may at his option lodge a separate
certificate for each office or one certificate
to
cover all. All addresses should be stated in the
certificate, if only one certificate is issued.
Dated this 28th day of July 1966.
Signed on behalf of
the
Incorporated Law
Society of Ireland.
ROBERT McD. TAYLOR
President
I concur in the making of the above regulations.
CAHIR DAVITT
President of the High Court
Explanatory Note
(This note is not part of the instrument and does
not purport to be a legal interpretation thereof)
The regulations oblige each practising solicitor
to lodge an accountant's certificate each year with
the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland and
define the minimum books of account to be kept
by solicitors.
ABSOLUTE LIABILITY IN ROAD
ACCIDENT CASES
The German Position
The following information was received from
a German referendar at present studying compar-
45
ative law in Dublin for his doctorate of law. He
specialises in the law of road traffic and negligence.
The German system is based on the law of
strict liability, i.e. the owner of a mechanically
propelled vehicle is strictly liable for damage to
third parties while it is in normal use. The defi
nition of normal use of a mechanically propelled
vehicle is a question of law on which there has
been litigation in the German courts. A car which
is permanently parked is not in normal use for
the purpose of strict liability of the owner. On the
other hand if the car is stopped or moving slowly
in traffic it is in normal use so that third parties
injured by collision by
the vehicle can claim
against the owner on the basis of strict liability.
The principle
is
that the presence of a motor
vehicle on the highway while in normal use creates
a
risk
to
the public for which
the owner
is
responsible in damages. A person injured as the
result of a collision with a mechanically propelled
vehicle in normal use has a right of action in the
courts against the owner. The principle of strict
liability applies only
to
the extent of damage
suffered up
to a
limit of 50,000 DM
(about
£4,000). The right to damages in an amount
exceeding £4,000 depends upon proof of negli
gence by the plaintiff on the part of the defendant.
In calculating the damages for the purpose of
strict liability it is understood that compensation
for pain and suffering will not be taken into
account. Damages for the purpose of strict lia
bility will be composed of medical and other
expenses, loss of earnings actual and potential and
other financial loss capable of ascertainment.
There
is compulsory insurance against
third
party liability under German law. Insurance is
effected through private enterprise companies, not
through
the State. Therefore
the majority of
claims are defended by insurance companies. The
injured party will negotiate through his lawyer
with the insurance company or their lawyer and
failing agreement may resort to the courts. As
their is strict liability in law on the part of the
owner of the vehicle all that the plaintiff or
claimaint need prove is that he was injured as
the result of an accident or collision with the
owner's mechanically propelled vehicle while it
was in normal use. This will usually be admitted.
The only question then arising is the quantum of
damage. Here there is an important principle. The
conduct of the parties is taken into account in
assessing the amount of damage. On a principle
similar to our apportionment of blame under the
Civil Liability Act 1961 if the defendant can show
that the conduct of the plaintiff was largely res
ponsible for the accident blame will be appor-