A Critical Analysis Of The Uk 's Compensation Culture

The Tort of Negligence put the claimant in the position to prove that the defendant owed to them a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty and the claimant must have suffered damages as result of that breach (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC562).

In Canada, when someone feels they have been wronged or injured by another, they can seek compensation through the courts. This area of law is known as tort law which examines conduct and consequences (Lin, 2010, p. 4). Tort law does not rely on promises or contracts. It is an area of law that examines the obligations and duties one party has to another. In relation to business and professionals, tort law aims to change the behavior of producers to prevent future harm or loss (Lin, 2010, p. 9).

This essay will argue that the decision reached in Cattanach v Melchior [2003] was the correct one. Supporting this argument is the courts departure from the principles established in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [1999].Additionally, Cattanach extends itself by attempting to address and give legal clarity to the idea of compensable harm in relation to negligence of medical practitioners. This has ultimately led to Cattanach establishing a positive framework, previously not recognised by the courts, to award damages for the torts of wrongful birth and wrongful life. Finally, the reaction to Cattanach on the judicial and executive branches of government have had significant impact on shaping public policy in relation to these complex issues.

In Who Gets What: Fair Compensation after Tragedy and Financial Upheaval, Kenneth R. Feinberg provides a brief overview of his unique career implementing large payout and compensation systems following tragedies. As the title suggests, the main goal of the book is to shed light on how Feinberg implemented a number of previously unprecedented compensation funds and decided which parties should be compensated, how much they should be compensated, and the burden of proof required by each party, all while operating in the shadow a national tragedy and intense political pressure.

Jeremy Waldron, a professor of law and society, demonstrates the institution of tort liability and the issues that arises on the desert-based system. With the example of Fate, having to pay a large amount of money to Hurt for a moment of carelessness while doing the same act as Fortune, he shows how tort liability can be unjust and unfair. Two cases present examples of how Waldron would approve and disapprove the rulings.

Just across the Tasman Sea is New Zealand who provides a straight-forward system of distributive justice through a ‘no-fault’ compensation system that is funded through general taxation and an employer levy. Under the system, patients are compensated for medical injuries within weeks and in turn surrender their right to sue for damages for personal injury. Similarly, their medical malpractice system punishes under-diagnosis which provides an incentive for practitioners to take more care rather than acting controversially.

Loss of chance is known as an alternative cause of action, particularly, in cases of medical negligence. In recent cases, where actions based on causation have failed, it has succeeded. The onus lies on the plaintiff to prove negligence by the defendant and loss of a chance of a better outcome. However, a plaintiff cannot establish that the defendant’s negligence probably caused their injury. The concept of loss of chance is defined as a doctrine that permits the recovery of damages upon destruction or reduction of prospects to ultimately achieve a more favorable outcome. In one particular case, Rufo v Hosking [2002], the court found, “In order to recover damages for the loss of a chance of a better outcome, the plaintiff is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that there did exist a chance that the plaintiff would have had a better outcome had the negligence in treatment not occurred”. This is where the qualitative concept of loss of chance was described and formed.

When you or your dearest suffer the injury because of someone else's negligence or deliberate action, then it appears natural that the person would provide you to compensation for your injury, or that their insurance policy can settle this case in a fair way. Unluckily, that seldom happens. Many of us won't take responsibility for our actions, and insurance firms take advantage of under compensating injury victims. Insurance firms and their lawyers do apprehend the governing law backwards and forwards, and they also know that that all non-lawyers don't have any information what legal

Furthermore Black’s Law Dictionary explores the two different meanings of this concept. Firstly; he who is responsible under legal provisions is liable to ‘either suffer or to pay compensation.’ It can be said that criminal responsibility is about being

In Rebecca & ‘Zorba’s’ Restaurant case, the main issue is whether negligence exists of the defendant? There are three prerequisites must be present before the tort of negligence can arise: a duty of care must be owed by one person to another; there must be a breach of that duty of care; and damage must have been suffered as a result of the breach of duty. (FoBL, 2005, p70) In addition, another element must be satisfied to prove negligence is the causation. This essay will analysis Rebecca v. ‘Zorba’s’ with these four issues.

Currently there are two major camps of tort scholars. One understands tort liability as an instrument aimed largely at the goal of deterrence, commonly explained within the framework of economics. The other looks at tort law as a way of achieving corrective justice between the parties. If these are alternative camps, they are also to a large measure unfriendly camps: much of the time each treats the other with neglect or even derision. The development of each scholarly

In a departure from the traditional application of long standing case law, the close connection test was altered. The crucial change was to give rise to vicarious liability if the exchange involved a seamless chain of events . This development came following crucial developments in the Christian Brothers case. Where the vicarious liability relationship was extended to those analogous to employment . The other crucial development arose in Cox. In which Lord Reed extended vicarious liability for a person acting in their own interests. However he stressed the importance of the person acting in the scope of the activities assigned to him by the defendant. The defendant in assigning these duties generates a risk of the tort .

However, due to this idea of strict liability offences not requiring proof of fault leads to the simple moral claim of ‘is it right to punish a person who had no intent to commit a crime, and took precautions not to let anyone get harmed in any way, to still be convicted?’ This opens the argument against the use of strict liability as it suggests that no matter what the opposing says, strict liability is a criminal offence and it is not vigorously enforced. This in turn lowers the respect to law and the criminal justice system as it appears that the justice system cannot

The purpose of this assignment is to discuss the creation and application the case law resulting from the decision in Donoghue v Stevenson . This decision is often cited in relation to the tort of negligence and a duty of care. As such it could be misunderstood as being the preeminent case for the principles of negligence or duty of care alone. It is however the landmark precedent case for the tort of negligence outside of a contract when taking into account ‘duty of care’ and the ‘neighbour priciple’.

1. Sullivan & Cromwell associates are likely to find the pay structure fair. Likely comparisons would be with similar positions at other law firms at similar locations. Sullivan & Cromwell, for example, operates mainly in New York, which means salaries could most reasonably be compared with other law firms at this location. Furthermore, the company is very forthcoming with its pay structure, offering a complete and thorough display of its pay structure for different positions online (Glassdoor, 2012). Some salaries are offered per year, while others are offered on an hourly basis. A 6th-year attorney, for example, is paid on an annual basis, while a paralegal associate would be paid per hour. Salaries are also varied according to the complexity and seniority level of the position.