The Prevalent Laws and Regulations Under Strict Purview of the Experts - Research Paper Example

Law of Tort Table of Contents Introduction 3 Law of Tort 3 Compensation Culture 4 The Response 5 Conclusion 8 References 9 Annotated Bibliography 11 Introduction The experts perceive that the improvements in the factors like that of communication process and information technology have been instrumental in changing the world fast. The terms and the tricks of the business and finance are experiencing paradigm shifts. The influential factors like globalisation also have been too important in the present era of today. Life has become fast – paced. The changing life styles of the people all across the globe have brought the prevalent laws and regulations under strict purview of the experts especially in the developed nations like that of United Kingdom. Law of Tort Tort law is one of the most important aspects of the legal industry. In simple words, tort law can be defined as a specialised body of law that provides solution for the mis – doings or wrong doings that are basically civil in nature and does not arise from any contractual obligations. In other words, tort law is the set of laws that are used to get legal damages by the accusers in case the accused is legally responsible for the damage caused. The prime difference in between any criminal case and a case of tort is that of motif and punishment. While criminal cases involve those that are motivated to hurt the other party in some way or the other, the cases that are of tort in nature does not hurt other knowingly. In most of the cases, damage is caused by chance. Therefore, also there is a major difference in case of punishment in between both the cases. Criminal cases basically involve harsh punishment as the intention was to hurt the other party while tort cases predominantly attract only compensation on the loss that has been caused because of the hurt. The tort cases primarily have two important pillars upon which the entire set of law revolves namely ‘the standard of care’ and ‘negligence’. ‘Standard of care’ is a legal phrase that helps the honourable court to identify if the case is of tortious in nature or not. The underlying point of contention for the ‘standard of care’ is that who actually suffers the actual loss from the injury, is it the person himself or is it transferred to some other party. The other important consideration is that of negligence. The charging party i.e. the accuser needs to prove in the court of law that the damage incurred was because of the negligence on the part of the other party. If is not proved that the damage was because of the negligence, one cannot be held responsible under the tort law. Compensation Culture Compensation culture is an ongoing trend especially in the states of England and Ireland i.e. the United Kingdom comprising of the fact that there should be compensation on each and every losses that has been incurred irrespective how trivial or small it is. This proposed culture falls under the purview of tort law as it essentially deals with compensation for a damaged caused through litigation. The enthusiasts of the ‘compensatory culture’ banks upon the points like those of lawsuits that have minimum chance of winning and where the cost of legalities is more than the settlement claim, can be easily settled outside the legal premises if the ‘compensation culture’ is legalised. The increasing ‘liability insurance’ is rendering hosting of the dangerous games which could be well avoided if ‘compensation culture’ is initiated. Certain claims that affects the physical distress and emotional strain might turn tough to be proved in the court of law. Such cases could be easily resolved if ‘compensation culture’ was in force. The Response The government of the United Kingdom along with the majority of the legal fraternity is vehemently against such a rising trend of ‘compensation culture’. From various trends and reports, it seems that the office – bearers are committed to reduce and wipe away such trends of compensation culture. In one of the publications in the year of 2004, the Government clarified its position on the ‘compensation culture’ saying, “the government is determined to scotch any suggestion of a developing ‘compensation culture’ where people believe that they can seek compensation for any misfortune that befalls them, even if no-one else is to blame. This misperception undermines personal responsibility and respect for the law and creates unnecessary burdens through an exaggerated fear of litigation”1 The experts of the legal fraternity perceived that the rising trend of the ‘compensation culture’ was facilitated by the various actions of the human rights activists. Many of the political leaders of the United Kingdom thought that there were no requirements of any such ‘compensation culture’ for all happenings that would only serve the purpose of the few opportunistic people and have nothing to do with the human rights. The instances show that a person was all enthusiastic to sue a coffee producing company only because coffee was spilled on his shirt and it made certain marks on his shirt. According to him, the coffee company should pay him for the damage. 2 The above case clearly depicts that the demerits of such culture of compensation. It is perceived by the majority of the populace in the United Kingdom that the ‘compensation culture’ has always been promoted by certain vested interests and the fear of compensation on even the trivial matters mis-uses much of the scarce resources. Not just the government and the political parties, even the court of law of the United Kingdom has been observed to negate such cases that pertain to ‘compensation culture’. In the courts case of ‘Poppleton v Trustees of the Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee - [2008] All ER (D) 150 (Jun)’, the court of appeal turned down the claim of damage as the aggrieved party had fallen down from that of a wall which cause the aggrieved party to be tetraplegic (spinal cord injury). 3 There are many other cases that clearly narrate the mood of the judicial system against the ‘compensation culture’. In one of such cases, ‘Goringe v Calderdale MBC’, the court of law undertook a strong position. There was a warning from Lord Steyn in lieu of “the courts must not contribute to the creation of a society bent on litigation, which is premised on the illusion that for every misfortune there is a remedy” 4 Another major case in this regard has been that of ‘Tomlinson v Congleton BC’ in which the court of law again vehemently protested against the ‘compensation culture’. It is perceived that the nation of England is under the grip of ‘compensation culture’ which has invariably raised the case of ‘litigation crisis’. The willingness of seeking compensation from each and every loss can be fatal, views the experts. The most of the litigation filed are related with the case of personal injury. The judicial and legal fraternity of the Great Britain is of the view that while genuine claims should always be addressed but the enormous number of minor cases like that of spilling coffee on the shirt or falling down from the wall just wastes the scarce resources of the system and the people in general. A task force (Better Regulation Task Force) was formed by the government in 2004 to review if the nation is in the grip of ‘compensation culture’. In fact, it was felt that the growth of such a culture can be pertained to the over enthusiastic actions and initiatives of the media. The Better Regulation Task Force reported that in 2004, United Kingdom spent 0.6% of the Gross Domestic Product on tort claims while most of the other developed nations spent much above the 1% (on GDP) mark. The BRTF denied the charges that United Kingdom was within the grip of ‘compensation culture’. The government accepted most of the recommendations made by the task force. 5 Conclusion In light of the above discussion and analysis, there is little doubt that the ‘compensation culture’ is growing at a high pace. While the genuine and the high value cases of tort and that of compensation are always appreciated, the major demerit of such a culture is that it creates an aura of fear among many entities particularly the smaller organisations because of the susceptibility of litigation suits. The bigger corporations have enough resources to fight such law suits but the smaller firms might get bankrupt in the process. In order to reduce and check the ‘compensation culture’, the government of United Kingdom enacted Compensation Act of 2006. It can be said without hesitation that such culture has considerable influence on the society and drains away valuable resources. References BBC. Is compensation culture on the rise? 2004. News. Retrieved March 29, 2010 The online news paper provided the much required insight over the issue of ‘compensation culture’. It narrated the thoughts of political leaders as well as public in general. Government of UK. Better Routes to Redress. 2004. Better Regulations Task Force. Retrieved March 29, 2010 This was the report that the Task Force, formed by the Government of United Kingdom, published in the year of 2004. The Task Force was aimed to find the better ways of regulations. Department of Constitutional Affairs. Government Response to the Better Regulation Task Force Report: ‘Better Routes to Redress’. 2004. Tackling the “Compensation Culture”. Retrieved March 29, 2010 This was a government published report that emphasised on various routes that would be feasible to redress the tort claims other than ‘compensation culture’. LexisWeb. Poppleton v Trustees of the Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee. All England Report Cases. Retrieved March 29, 2010 The judgment of the case was inducted as the case law. Williams. State of Fear: Britain’s Compensation Culture’ Reviewed. No Date. Sheffild Hallam University. This document provided comprehensive idea about the review of the compensation culture in the Great Britain and the arguments of the competing and contesting bodies. Annotated Bibliography Bailii. Brett v University of Reading [2007] EWCA Civ 88. 2007. England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions. March 29, 2010. The case law provides wide views in understanding of the Compensation Act, 2006 of the United Kingdom. Bailii. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd & Ors. 2002. United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions. March 29, 2009. This case law of the year of 2002 again helps the article with the intricacies of the relevant Act before the Compensation Act, 2006 was enacted. Bailii. Barker v Corus (UK). 2006. United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions. March 29, 2010. This was another important case in the related field that helped in understanding various minute details of the law. Deaklin, S. F. & Markesinis, B. S. Tort Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1999. The book provides the basic idea about the Tort law and was very helpful for the article. Departmental for Constitutional Affairs. Written Ministerial Statement. No Date. Compensation Bill. March 29, 2010. This document was published by the government of the United Kingdom and it provided detailed view of the government towards the Compensation Bill of 2006. Harlow, C. State Liability, Tort Law and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2004. This was another important book that again emphasised on the various aspects of the prevailing tort law with focus on standard of care and negligence along with ‘compensation culture’. Legal Service Commission. A New Focus for Civil Legal Aid: Encouraging Early Resolution, Discouraging Unnecessary Litigation. 2004. Annual Report 2003-04. The annual report of the Legal Service Commission provided due importance upon the legal aids and its relationship with compensation culture and unnecessary litigation. Veenables. Free Case Law Resources on the Web. 2010. Case Laws. March 29, 2010. This online source of case laws helped in understanding the reviews of various judgments held by the honourable court of law. Read More