Report comment

I have some sympathy with some of the broader issues Sumton raises, but not all his conclusions. There is absolutely a case for non pecuniary losses being axed for minor 'injury' claims. There is also quite clearly instances where the whole notion of negligence has been erroded. For example, take a case where a defendant with no relevant medical history has a heart attack at the wheel and causes an accident. He has not been 'negligent' at all, but I defy anyone to name an insurer who wouldn't settle the resulting claim. In these sorts of cases non fault indemnity is provided voluntarily (probably for reasons of publicity - 'Insurer doesn't pay compensation for child paralised by driver who ended up on pavement' is not the sort of headline that makes for a good reputation). In other cases Courts have blithely allowed betterment on various heads of claim and reguarly demonstrated they have no idea what it means to put the claimant in the same position they were in before the accident. They have also shown (intentionallhy or unintentionally) bias to claimants by allowing claims for credit hire from millionaire footballers who have a fleet of alternative vehicles (as in the Bent case)

Bluntly the entire system needs a root and branch overhaul, and some innovative thinking not tinkering with what is there. The old case laws and common law is not fit for purpose in this modern age. Sumtom doesn't have the best answers but he is asking the right questions.