Abstract:
This dissertation analyses selected issues that undermine the coherence and the purposes of the Swiss and New Zealand accident compensation schemes. Unlike other European states the Swiss accident compensation provides cover for non-work related accidental injury, which makes it a useful subject of comparison with the New Zealand
accident compensation scheme which provides a comprehensive, no fault compensation scheme for personal injury. In undertaking a largely comparative approach the paper argues that both schemes have drifted away considerably from the original underlying purpose to provide compensation for work incapacity and, on the other hand, to restore the claimant to a level of work capacity as soon as possible. This thesis is illustrated by examining the vulnerability of the schemes to political change, the arbitrary dichotomy between incapacity to work caused by accidental injury and incapacity caused by sickness, the definitions of an accident in both schemes and the assessment of evidence. The paper finds that both schemes should be amended and suggests alternative approaches for each issue.
