• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

`The negligence formula is unfair to claimants as it places too many obstacles in the way of obtaining compensation for personal injuries. England & Wales should adopt an alternative system of redress to allow claimants to obtain the compensation they des

Extracts from this document...


Formative Assessment 1 `The negligence formula is unfair to claimants as it places too many obstacles in the way of obtaining compensation for personal injuries. England & Wales should adopt an alternative system of redress to allow claimants to obtain the compensation they deserve'. Discuss. The law of negligence aims to hold individuals liable for the infliction of damage through want of care in order to protect others from harm arising as a result of an individual's lack of care. When an individual is found liable, the law attempts to achieve redress by compensating the claimant. In order for a claim in negligence to succeed, all of the following elements must be established: (i) A duty of care exists between the defendant and the claimant (ii) The defendant has acted in breach of that duty (iii) Damage was caused as a result of the defendant's breach (iv) The damage suffered is not too remote from the breach These elements make up what is known as the negligence formula and each must be proven by the claimant to show that the defendant was at fault. ...read more.


This can be difficult element to prove due to the fact that the courts adopt an objective standard which involves comparing the defendant to the "reasonable person". This strict standard of the "reasonable person", used most commonly for learner drivers and trainee doctors where they are judged by standards of reasonably competent doctors or drivers, can in fact benefit the claimant as it means that the defendant cannot escape liability by arguing he was not fully competent or qualified.10 However, one might argue that it is unfair to impose a standard to which it is impossible for an inexperienced defendant to reach.11 In cases involving clinical negligence, doctors may be able to escape liability if they are able to show that their actions are "in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art"12 and furthermore, the responsible body need not be large. This was criticized for overprotecting the medical profession as it allowed doctors to set their own standards for what is expected of them. The are however examples of cases where the courts have moved away from this approach, such as Hucks v Cole13 in which a doctor was found negligent for the treatment of his patient, even though he acted in accordance with a responsibly body of medical opinion. ...read more.


Although it has not been without faults and subject to various reforms since it's introduction, the Accident Compensation Scheme has established positive elements. The insurance system has been described as "rational and comprehensive"20 and can provide damages to the claimant in the absence of fault. It is funded by levies placed on employers and drivers. The loss of earnings that arise from an employer's negligence are able to be compensated to the victims and are determined based on an individual's working hours and earnings. There is also a lump sum available to all claimants who suffer permanent physical injury, which is capped at $17000. In comparison with the fault-based system in the UK, the no-fault alternative takes into account the needs and requirements of the claimant and is more efficient in comparison to the high litigation costs involved in proving fault. In Scotland, the Scottish Executive is currently examining the possibility of a no-fault scheme. With the present inadequacy of the current negligence system of compensating victims, and the benefits experienced in New Zealand as a result of their no-fault alternative, it seems that England and Wales may too benefit from a trial run of the no-fault scheme to provide a more effective means of allowing claimants to obtain the compensation they deserve. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Tort Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Tort Law essays

  1. A Critical Examination of the Concept of Breach of Duty of Care

    Breach of duty is not restricted to professionals or persons under written or oral contract; we all have a duty to take reasonable care for others and their property. Anyone who unreasonably runs a risk that results in harm to others or their property, breaches their duty of reasonable care.

  2. Duty of Care.

    The informant suffered psychiatric problems. The courts found for the claimant on the grounds that there was sufficient relationship between them that the police owed a duty of care to secure the information given to the police will not leak. Further, it was said that, on policy ground, if such protection is not afforded no one would come forward with information.

  1. Consider the relationship between the torts of private nuisance and negligence and in doing ...

    'the extent of harm to P - and the traditional concern of nuisance - hardly mattered at all and indeed, it is very difficult to discern from the judgements in Sedleigh Denfield. This was negligence pure and simple disguised of nuisance.'13 The issue of imposing a duty on the defendant

  2. "A duty of care arises not merely when damage is reasonably foreseeable, but when ...

    Moreover, to impose a duty of care it must be fair, just and reasonable. 17Despite criticisms of the Anns test, issues of policy is still significant as such consideration of policy is an inescapable result, as many argued that the judges applying policy reasons are better than hiding this consideration behind reliance of precedent.

  1. To succeed in a negligence action in tort, the claimant must prove three things

    Section 1(3) of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 defines premises as any fixed or moveable structure. If what Lord Denning has said were to be taken in to consideration in our scenario, it would make Mr and Mrs Fontes the occupier of the premises.

  2. Negligence, causation and remoteness case. To advise the claimants, Abdul, Brian and Christie, it ...

    Chief Constable of South Yorkshire 1 and White v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire2, will be helpful as both set out a series of fairly arbitrary tests which have been formed over the past 120 years of cases involving negligence and psychiatric Illness. Claimants generally fall into two categories; primary victims and secondary victims.

  1. Remoteness of damage is an interesting principle especially when analyzing two specific cases. They ...

    On the other hand in Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Company11 the damage was too remote. It was not foreseeable that an explosion would occur. Harpwood10 gives entirely different explanation of the phenomenon. Whilst it may be foreseeable the lid may have caused a splash resulting in a scold.

  2. How courts determine causation

    establish that they have been injured by the defendant?s act.? 12 Therefore, ?claimants could receive full compensation if it was proved that the negligent part of exposure would materially contribute to the condition.?13 ________________ 9 V Bermingham & C Brennan, Tort Law DIRECTIONS (1st edn, OUP 2008)

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work