Compensation culture

Last updated

"Compensation culture" (often shortened to "compo culture") is a pejorative term used to imply that, within a society, a significant number of claims for compensation for torts are unjustified, frivolous, or fraudulent, and that those who seek compensation should be criticised. [1] [2] [3] It is used to describe a "where there's blame, there's a claim" culture of litigiousness in which compensation is routinely and improperly sought without being based on the application of legal principles such as duty of care, negligence, or causation. [4] Ronald Walker KC defined it as "an ethos [which believes that] all misfortunes short of an Act of God are probably someone else's fault, and that the suffering should be relieved, or at any rate marked, by the receipt of a sum of money." [5]

Contents

The notion of a compensation culture has also been conflated with health and safety legislation and excessively risk-averse decisions taken by corporate bodies in an apparent effort to avoid the threat of litigation. [6] [7] [8]

The phrase was coined in an article by Bernard Levin in London's The Times newspaper dated 17 December 1993. [9] The article, largely a polemic against the welfare state, carried the sub-heading: "We may laugh at ludicrous court cases in America, but the compensation culture began in Britain and is costing us dear [ sic ]". [10]

Media myth

The term is especially used in tabloid journalism and by advocates of tort reform to describe a perceived legal climate with regard to torts in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Lord Dyson, the third most senior judge in England and Wales, has dismissed the existence of a compensation culture in the UK as a false perception and a "media-created myth." [11] James Hand, writing in the Journal of Law and Society, observed that sensationalist stories about compensation awards "evidently make for good copy; national newspaper articles concerning the compensation culture have increased exponentially since the mid 1990s," while statistics conversely demonstrated "a broad decline" in the number of claims during the same period. [9]

Research published in 2006 examined the data held by the Compensation Recovery Unit, a government agency which enabled the state to recover from tort damages any social security benefits paid as a result of an accident or disease. This found "no evidence that the tort system has been flooded with an increasing number of personal injury claims in recent years" and concluded that "the number of claims [had] been relatively stable since at least 1997–1998," the first year for which statistics were available. [12] George Monbiot, a British writer and political activist, said: "Compensation culture has usurped political correctness, welfare cheats, single mothers and New Age travellers as the right's new bogeyman-in-chief. According to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the Conservative Party and just about every newspaper columnist in Britain, it threatens very soon to bankrupt the country." [13]

A Better Regulation Commission (BRC) report published in 2004 concluded that there was no compensation culture in the UK, [3] in part due to the fact that a lower portion of GDP was spent on tort claims than other similarly-placed countries including Canada, Australia and the United States. [14] The commission also found that the myth of the compensation culture was largely perpetuated by the media. [3] Janet Paraskeva, then The Law Society's chief executive, commented: "Ironically, it seems that those who most decry the possibility of a compensation culture are probably responsible for perpetuating the belief that there is one – resulting in more and more of the bizarre decisions by schools and local authorities that journalists are so quick to mock." [15] One analyst put it more bluntly: "Loose talk of a 'compensation culture' no doubt helps to sell the very sorts of newspapers that purport to despise it most." [16]

Levin's 1993 article related the details of several personal injury claims which had succeeded in the United States, and warnings of 'American-style litigiousness' arriving in the UK were common in many articles in the domestic media during the late 1990s. This coincided with vigorous lobbying in the United States by special interest groups and business organisations in support of product liability reform (often referred to as tort reform) to place restrictions on laws allowing consumers to sue companies for damages caused by faulty products. [17] [18] [19]

False perceptions and fear of litigation

Kevin Williams, writing in the Journal of Personal Injury Law, said: "The fact that there may be no objective proof that we live in an increasingly 'blame and sue' society is beside the point when an 'urban myth' to the contrary is said to have taken hold. Thus, whatever the actual likelihood of being the target of litigation, many increasingly believe themselves to be at heightened risk of being unfairly sued." [20] The 2004 BRC report came to the same conclusion, stating that the myth of a compensation culture in the UK was "a commonly held perception" which created an exaggerated fear of litigation and led to organisations becoming excessively risk-averse and "over cautious in their behaviour." [3] However, research commissioned by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in 2008 to assess "the extent to which disproportionate health and safety management occurs" found that "most organisations do not report the examples of excessive [health and safety management] quoted in the media" but still perceived "a problem with risk aversion" in the UK in general. [21] This, according to Sally Lloyd-Bostock, a professor of Law and Psychology, demonstrated that even the "perceptions of the effects of perceptions" were not based on evidence but instead on what Marc Galanter, professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, dubbed "anecdotes, atrocity stories and unverified assertions" perpetuated by the media. [22] [23]

Common Sense, Common Safety , a 2010 report by Lord Young of Graffham to the Prime Minister reviewing "health and safety laws and the growth of the compensation culture" also found "there is no end to the constant stream of misinformation in the media" and that the "overriding opinion" of the organisations questioned (including the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress, Families Against Corporate Killers, the Police Federation of England and Wales and the International Institute of Risk and Safety Management) was that "the health and safety agenda had been hijacked by the tabloid press, whose reports often contributed to misinterpretation and misunderstandings by regularly exaggerating and ridiculing instances which in reality have little or nothing at all to do with health and safety." The "broad consensus" of these groups was that "they did not believe there was a growing compensation culture in the UK" but that there was a "public perception of one that stifles opportunities and leads business to take an overcautious attitude when attempting to interpret health and safety regulations in the workplace." [24]

See also

Related Research Articles

Product liability is the area of law in which manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, retailers, and others who make products available to the public are held responsible for the injuries those products cause. Although the word "product" has broad connotations, product liability as an area of law is traditionally limited to products in the form of tangible personal property.

A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Workers' compensation</span> Form of insurance

Workers' compensation or workers' comp is a form of insurance providing wage replacement and medical benefits to employees injured in the course of employment in exchange for mandatory relinquishment of the employee's right to sue his or her employer for the tort of negligence. The trade-off between assured, limited coverage and lack of recourse outside the worker compensation system is known as "the compensation bargain.” One of the problems that the compensation bargain solved is the problem of employers becoming insolvent as a result of high damage awards. The system of collective liability was created to prevent that and thus to ensure security of compensation to the workers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Health and Safety Executive</span> United Kingdom government agency

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is a British public body responsible for the encouragement, regulation and enforcement of workplace health, safety and welfare. It has additionally adopted a research role into occupational risks in the United Kingdom. It is a non-departmental public body with its headquarters in Bootle, England. In Northern Ireland, these duties lie with the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland. The HSE was created by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and has since absorbed earlier regulatory bodies such as the Factory Inspectorate and the Railway Inspectorate though the Railway Inspectorate was transferred to the Office of Rail and Road in April 2006. The HSE is sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions. As part of its work, HSE investigates industrial accidents, small and large, including major incidents such as the explosion and fire at Buncefield in 2005. Though it formerly reported to the Health and Safety Commission, on 1 April 2008, the two bodies merged.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Risk compensation</span> Behavioral theory

Risk compensation is a theory which suggests that people typically adjust their behavior in response to perceived levels of risk, becoming more careful where they sense greater risk and less careful if they feel more protected. Although usually small in comparison to the fundamental benefits of safety interventions, it may result in a lower net benefit than expected or even higher risks.

Medical malpractice is professional negligence by act or omission by a health care provider in which the treatment provided falls below the accepted standard of practice in the medical community and causes injury or death to the patient, with most cases involving medical error. Claims of medical malpractice, when pursued in US courts, are processed as civil torts. Sometimes an act of medical malpractice will also constitute a criminal act, as in the case of the death of Michael Jackson.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Young, Baron Young of Graffham</span> British politician (1932–2022)

David Ivor Young, Baron Young of Graffham, was a British Conservative politician, cabinet minister and businessman.

The mineral asbestos is subject to a wide range of laws and regulations that relate to its production and use, including mining, manufacturing, use and disposal. Injuries attributed to asbestos have resulted in both workers' compensation claims and injury litigation. Health problems attributed to asbestos include asbestosis, mesothelioma, lung cancer, and diffuse pleural thickening.

A contingent fee is any fee for services provided where the fee is payable only if there is a favourable result. Although such a fee may be used in many fields, it is particularly well associated with legal practice.

In its broadest sense, no-fault insurance is any type of insurance contract under which the insured party is indemnified by their own insurance company for losses, regardless of the source of the cause of loss. In this sense, it is similar to first-party coverage. The term "no-fault" is most commonly used in the United States, Australia, and Canada when referring to state or provincial automobile insurance laws where a policyholder and their passengers are reimbursed by the policyholder's own insurance company without proof of fault, and are restricted in their right to seek recovery through the civil-justice system for losses caused by other parties. No-fault insurance has the goal of lowering premium costs by avoiding expensive litigation over the causes of the collision, while providing quick payments for injuries or loss of property.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English tort law</span> Branch of English law concerning civil wrongs

English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil law, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Personal injury</span> Legal term for an injury to a person

Personal injury is a legal term for an injury to the body, mind, or emotions, as opposed to an injury to property. In common law jurisdictions the term is most commonly used to refer to a type of tort lawsuit in which the person bringing the suit has suffered harm to their body or mind. Personal injury lawsuits are filed against the person or entity that caused the harm through negligence, gross negligence, reckless conduct, or intentional misconduct, and in some cases on the basis of strict liability. Different jurisdictions describe the damages in different ways, but damages typically include the injured person's medical bills, pain and suffering, and diminished quality of life.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Non-economic damages caps</span> Limitations in lawsuits

Non-economic damages caps are tort reforms to limit damages in lawsuits for subjective, non-pecuniary harms such as pain, suffering, inconvenience, emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, and loss of enjoyment of life. This is opposed to economic damages, which encompasses pecuniary harms such as medical bills, lost wages, lost future income, loss of use of property, costs of repair or replacement, the economic value of domestic services, and loss of employment or business opportunities. Non-economic damages should not be confused with punitive or exemplary damages, which are awarded purely to penalise defendants and do not aim to compensate either pecuniary or non-pecuniary losses.

A personal injury lawyer is a lawyer who provides legal services to those who claim to have been injured, physically or psychologically, as a result of the negligence of another person, company, government agency or any entity. Personal injury lawyers primarily practice in the area of law known as tort law. Examples of common personal injury claims include injuries from slip and fall accidents, traffic collisions, defective products, workplace injuries and professional malpractice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tort reform</span> Legal reforms aimed at reducing tort litigation

Tort reform consists of changes in the civil justice system in common law countries that aim to reduce the ability of plaintiffs to bring tort litigation or to reduce damages they can receive. Such changes are generally justified under the grounds that litigation is an inefficient means to compensate plaintiffs; that tort law permits frivolous or otherwise undesirable litigation to crowd the court system; or that the fear of litigation can serve to curtail innovation, raise the cost of consumer goods or insurance premiums for suppliers of services, and increase legal costs for businesses. Tort reform has primarily been prominent in common law jurisdictions, where criticism of judge-made rules regarding tort actions manifests in calls for statutory reform by the legislature.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Consumer Protection Act 1987</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Consumer Protection Act 1987 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which made important changes to the consumer law of the United Kingdom. Part 1 implemented European Community (EC) Directive 85/374/EEC, the product liability directive, by introducing a regime of strict liability for damage arising from defective products. Part 2 created government powers to regulate the safety of consumer products through Statutory Instruments. Part 3 defined a criminal offence of giving a misleading price indication.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tort law in India</span> Aspect of Indian law

Tort law in India is primarily governed by judicial precedent as in other common law jurisdictions, supplemented by statutes governing damages, civil procedure, and codifying common law torts. As in other common law jurisdictions, a tort is breach of a non-contractual duty which has caused damage to the plaintiff giving rise to a civil cause of action and for which remedy is available. If a remedy does not exist, a tort has not been committed since the rationale of tort law is to provide a remedy to the person who has been wronged.

Within the United States, the use of asbestos is limited by state and federal regulations and legislation. Improper use of asbestos and injury from exposure is addressed through administrative action, litigation, and criminal prosecution. Injury claims arising from asbestos exposure may be tried as mass torts.

<i>Common Sense, Common Safety</i> 2010 UK government report

Common Sense, Common Safety was an October 2010 report by David Young, Baron Young of Graffham. It was commissioned by the British government to address a perceived compensation culture. The report made a number of recommendations to reduce bureaucracy over risk assessment requirements and to improve accountability of decisions made on health and safety grounds by local authorities. Young also recommended reform in the legal processes for personal injury claims and for limits to be placed on claims management companies.

The civil liability of a recreational diver may include a duty of care to another diver during a dive. Breach of this duty that is a proximate cause of injury or loss to the other diver may lead to civil litigation for damages in compensation for the injury or loss suffered.

References

  1. ↑ Montague, Janice Elliott (12 December 2012). Torts (10th ed.). Abingdon: Routledge. p. 49. ISBN   978-0-415-52461-2.
  2. ↑ Parliament: House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee (10 March 2006). Compensation culture: Third report of session 2005-06. Vol. 2. London: The Stationery Office. p. Ev 188 ¶22. ISBN   978-0-215-02780-1.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Better Regulation Task Force (May 2004). Better Routes to Redress. London: Cabinet Office Publications & Publicity Team. ISBN   0711504571.
  4. ↑ Master of the Rolls (15 March 2013). "Compensation culture: Fact or fantasy?". Judiciary of England and Wales . London: Judicial Office Communications Team. Holdsworth Club Lecture.
  5. ↑ Walker, Ronald; Veale, Sarah (7 October 2003). "Compensation culture: myth or reality?". The Times Law Supplement . London. p. 8.
  6. ↑ Murphy, Joe (5 January 2012). "I'll end health and safety compensation culture says PM". London Evening Standard . London. Retrieved 29 July 2013.
  7. ↑ "'Compensation culture' myth examined by Leigh Day: Lord Young announces review of health and safety laws". Leigh Day . London. 5 October 2010. Archived from the original on 8 January 2013. Retrieved 29 July 2013.
  8. ↑ "We are not amused... Queen's Speech undermines UK worker safety and rights to fair compensation". Bonnar & Company. 13 May 2013. Retrieved 29 July 2013.
  9. 1 2 Hand, J. (2010). "The Compensation Culture: Cliché or Cause for Concern?". Journal of Law and Society. 37 (4): 569–591. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6478.2010.00522.x. S2CID   155032980.
  10. ↑ Levin, Bernard (17 December 1993). "Addicted to welfare". The Times . No. 64829. London. p. 20.
  11. ↑ Hyde, John (25 March 2013). "Compensation culture is 'media-created' myth - Dyson". The Law Society Gazette . London. Archived from the original on 1 June 2013. Retrieved 23 July 2013.
  12. ↑ Lewis, Richard; Morris, Annette; Oliphant, Ken (July 2006). "Tort personal injury claims statistics: Is there a compensation culture in the United Kingdom?". Torts Law Journal. 14: 158–175.
  13. ↑ Monbiot, George (16 November 2004). "The risks of a killing: Compensation culture is a myth - ask the thousands who will die this year from asbestos". The Guardian . London. p. 25.
  14. ↑ Zander, Michael (2007). Cases and materials on the English legal system. Law in context (10 ed.). London, New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 55. ISBN   978-0-521-67540-6.
  15. ↑ Paraskeva, Janet (18 November 2004). "Exploding the myth". The Law Society Gazette . London. Archived from the original on 23 July 2013. Retrieved 23 July 2013.
  16. ↑ Williams, Kevin (2005). "State of fear: Britain's "compensation culture" reviewed". The Journal of The Society of Legal Scholars . 25 (3): 499–515.
  17. ↑ Rankin, Robert A. (3 May 1996). "Product-liability Limit Draws A Veto; Dole Points To Clout Of Trial Lawyers". The Philadelphia Inquirer . Philadelphia. Archived from the original on December 21, 2015. Retrieved 24 July 2013.
  18. ↑ Brokaw, Jeanne (September–October 1996). "The hand that rocks the cradle". Mother Jones . San Francisco. Retrieved 24 July 2013.
  19. ↑ Hipschman, David (4 May 1995). "Product Liability Reform: Boondoggle or Boon?". The Christian Science Monitor . Boston. p. 19.
  20. ↑ Williams, K. (2006). "Politics, the media and refining the notion of fault: section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006". Journal of Personal Injury Law: 347–354.
  21. ↑ Wright, Michael; Beardwell, Catherine; Pennie, David; Smith, Rachel; Doyle, John Norton; Dimopoulos, Evangelos (June 2008). Evidence based evaluation of the scale of disproportionate decisions on risk assessment management. London: Health and Safety Executive.
  22. ↑ Lloyd-Bostock, Sally (August 2010). Hutter, Bridget M. (ed.). Anticipating Risks and Organising Risk Regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 94. ISBN   978-0-521-19309-2.
  23. ↑ Galanter, Marc (1996). "Real World Torts: an Antidote to Anecdote". Maryland Law Review . 55: 1093.
  24. ↑ Lord Young of Graffham (October 2010). Common Sense, Common Safety (PDF). London: Cabinet Office. Retrieved 26 July 2013.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.