Driving is different: we already have compulsory insurance.

On others, I'm simply not sure if "Responsible volunteers will insure", or whether they should have to. Take a  village sports day: on a good day the total monies raised are likely to be £100-£200 for the church roof or whatever. Insurance will make a grievous hole in that, and may well make the operation not worth it. If my negligence in placing the finishing line too near a wall causes a child to become paraplegic, I don't see why either I or the organisers should be expected to insure against that, or otherwise to be liable. It's unfortunate, but I see nothing wrong in saying to the child and its parents (with sympathy, of course) that it's just one of those things. Again, at a charity barbecue -- or for that matter a barbecue put on for free by the retired City solicitor who lives in the village --  it seems to me it is monstrous to make the amateur burger-flipper or home-made mayonnaise-maker potentially liable for the food poisoning -- serious or even deadly --  that may be suffered from inadequate cooking or refrigeration. We can, quite simply, have too much safety.

I suppose it all comes down to whether you think it's a good thing that it should be made difficult for anyone to run fun without grievous risk to the bank balance unless they are a local authority bureaucrat or an establishment organisation like a big charity. I for one don't.


Andrew

One's motive (commercial, self-interest, public service, altruism) is entirely irrelevant to the level of one's competence. Are we really going to say that, e.g., someone volunteering (from the very best of intentions) to take disabled children out on a day trip in a mini-bus will escape any liability for negligently driving over the edge of a cliff?

 

Surely one doesn't have to be a bleeding heart liberal to think that a rule excusing the incompetent do-gooder from liability would be a bad rule? If that discourages some people from volunteering then so be it. Responsible volunteers will insure. It's the irresponsible who don't protect themselves and their victims (as, e.g., with uninsured motorists); and the rest of us pick up the tab (as, e.g., with uninsured motorists).

 

Michael 

 

--------------------------------------

Michael A. Jones

Emeritus Professor of Law

School of Law and Social Justice

University of Liverpool

Liverpool

L69 7ZS

www.liv.ac.uk/law

--------------------------------------

---

From: Andrew Tettenborn [a.m.tettenborn@swansea.ac.uk]
Sent: 02 June 2014 18:32
To: Hedley, Steve; obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: Re: UK: New "good samaritan" legislation planned

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

On 02/06/2014 18:08, Hedley, Steve wrote:

"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

--

Andrew Tettenborn Professor of Commercial Law, Swansea University Institute of International Shipping and Trade Law School of Law, University of Swansea Richard Price Building Singleton Park SWANSEA SA2 8PP Phone 01792-602724 / (int) +44-1792-602724 Fax 01792-295855 / (int) +44-1792-295855

Andrew Tettenborn Athro yn y Gyfraith Fasnachol, Prifysgol Abertawe Sefydliad y Gyfraith Llongau a Masnach Ryngwladol Ysgol y Gyfraith, Prifysgol Abertawe Adeilad Richard Price Parc Singleton ABERTAWE SA2 8PP Ffôn 01792-295831 / (rhyngwladol) +44-1792-295831 Ffacs 01792-295855 / (rhyngwladol) +44-1792-295855

 

Lawyer (n): One versed in circumvention of the law (Ambrose Bierce)

 

 

***