The real problem is that the Compensation Act was too mealy-mouthed; and I suspect there's a danger of this measure having the same problem despite the apparent tightening-up. A duty to take a factor into account is too easy to weasel out of when faced with sympathy for the seriously hurt: it's also so uncertain that the defendant is likely to have to continue to take out insurance, just in case, which rather defeats the object of the exercise.

If we want to make a serious difference (and I think we do, even to the extent of being entirely hard-hearted to the grievously injured), it's arguable we should go further and take a leaf from the criterion for loss of the right to limit liability under transport conventions.  In other words, say that in the case of public-spirited actions there can be no liability at all except in the case of conduct intended to cause damage, or undertaken recklessly and in the knowledge that loss will probably result. Whether Parliament will have the courage to say this remains to be seen: but I'm not hopeful.

Andrew

"Extra legal protection is to be given to people carrying out good deeds, volunteering or planning local events who end up being involved in liability claims, the government has announced. Those thinking of doing something to help others should not be put off by the risk of being sued, ministers said ...": "Queen's Speech: Good deeds 'to be backed by law'", BBC News 1 June - http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27658594

For commentary see Thomas Crockett, 'Legislating for "Statutory Common Sense" and Personal Injury Litigation?', piBlawg 2 June - http://www.piblawg.co.uk/post/2014/06/02/Legislating-for-Statutory-Common-Sense-and-Personal-Injury-Litigation.aspx