Compensation : proposals for compensating victims of road accidents [consultation paper]

75 Pages·1991·3.6 MB·English

by  Lord Chancellor's Department

COMPENSATION FOR ROAD ACCIDENTS
A CONSULTATION PAPER
LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
REFERENCE ONLY
THISmt<KUAtmiII
fmmmrmtk*ustasrr
PrintedimagedigitisedbytheUniversityofSouthamptonLibraryDigitisationUnit
Comments on this Consultation Paper should be sent by 31st July
1991 to:
J Pavey Esq
Lord Chancellor's Department
26-28 Old Queen Street
LONDON SW1H 9HP
(Telephone [phone]
)
Further copies of this Paper (price £2.50 including postage) may
be obtained from the same address.
Whilst any request to treat all, or part, of a response in
confidence will, of course, be respected, if no such request is
made the Lord Chancellor's Department will assume that the
response is not intended to be confidential.
(ii)
PrintedimagedigitisedbytheUniversityofSouthamptonLibraryDigitisationUnit
) 86
COMPENSATION FOR ROAD ACCIDENTS
A CONSULTATION PAPER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraphs Page
PART INTRODUCTION 1.1-1.12 1
A. CIVIL JUSTICE REVIEW 1.4 2
B. WORKING PARTY 1.5-1. 3
C. COMPENSATION AND ROAD SAFETY 1.7-1. 4
D. SCOTLAND 1.9 4
E. NORTHERN IRELAND 1.10 5
F. OUTLINE OF PAPER 1.11-1.12 5
PART THE PRESENT POSITION
A. FACTS ON ROAD ACCIDENT
CASUALTIES 2.1-2.3 7
B. LIABILITY IN TORT 2.4-2.11 7
1. Defences 2.8-2.11 8
(i Contributory
negligence 2.9-2.10 9
(ii) Assumption of Risk 2.11 9
C. SCOTLAND-LIABILITY IN DELICT 2.12-2.15 10
D. CIVIL LITIGATION ARISING
FROM ROAD ACCIDENTS 2.16-2.19 11
E. PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC 2.20-2.27 12
1. Compulsory insurance 2.20-2.24 12
2. Victims of uninsured
or untraced motorists 2.25-2.27 13
(1•1I1I V)
PrintedimagedigitisedbytheUniversityofSouthamptonLibraryDigitisationUnit
78
PART III THE CASE FOR CHANGE 3.1-3.25 16
A THE PEARSON COMMISSION 3.2-3. 16
*
B. CRITICISMS OF THE PRESENT
SYSTEM 3.8-3.21 18
1. Tcooompefneswavtiecdtims are 3.9-3.10 18
2. The entitlement to
compensation depends
too much upon chance 3.11-3.14 19
3. Delay 3.15-3.19 20
4. Cost 3.20-3.21 21
C. RESPONDING TO THE CRITICISMS
- AN INSURANCE BASED NO-FAULT
SCHEME 3.22-3.25 22
PART IV THE OPTIONS FOR A POSSIBLE SCHEME 4.1-4.121 25
A. OUTLINE OF THE SCHEME 4.1-4. 25
1. No-fault compensation 4.1 25
2. Road Traffic 4.2 25
3. Limitations
(i) Personal injuries 4.3 26
(ii) Financial limit 4.4 26
4. Fair 4.5 26
5. Non-contentious 4.6 26
6. Expeditious 4.7 27
7. Administration and
funding 4.8 27
B. SCOPE OF THE SCHEME 4.9-4.42 27
1. Motor vehicle 4.9-4.11 27
2. Place of the accident 4.12-4.18 28
3 The circumstances giving
* rise to a claim 4.19-4.27 29
(iv)
PrintedimagedigitisedbytheUniversityofSouthamptonLibraryDigitisationUnit
(i) Use 4.23-4.24 31
ii Presence 4.25 31
( )
ill Involvement 4.26 32
( )
iv Conclusion 4.27 32
( )
4. Personal injury only 4.28-4.31 32
5. Who may claim and
against whom? 4.32-4.42 34
(i) Coverage 4.36-4.37 35
(ii) Cost 4.38-4.39 35
(iii) Fraud 4.40 36
(iv) Disputes 4.41 36
(v) Conclusion 4.42 37
THE BASIS OF COMPENSATION 4.43-4.76 37
1. Heads of damages 4.43-4.49 37
Conclusion 4.49 39
2. Should there be a
tariff? 4.50-4.53 40
Conclusion 4.54 41
3. The financial limits 4.55-4.60 41
(i) The lower limit 4.55-4.57 41
(ii) The upper limit 4.58-4.59 42
(iii) Review mechanism 4.60 43
4. Relationship with civil
law claims 4.61-4.70 44
(i) Alwiamridtss woifthtihne the
scheme 4.62 44
ii Awards above the
( ) upper limit of the
scheme 4.63-4.70 44
(a) Claims under
the scheme
possible,
irrespective
of the serious
ness of the
in ury 4.65-4.67 45
j
(b) Claimants must
elect 4.68-4.70 46
5. Fatal Accidents 4.71-4.72 46
(V)
PrintedimagedigitisedbytheUniversityofSouthamptonLibraryDigitisationUnit
) ::
6. RBeecnoevfietrsy of State 4.73-4.75 47
7. Interest 4.76 48
EXCLUSIONS 4.77-4.90 48
1. Criminal misconduct 4.79-4.85 49
(i) Road traffic
offenders 4.80 49
(ii) Drink-driving
offenders 4.81-4.82 49
iii Scheduled offenders 4.83 49
(
(iv) Driving while
uninsured 4.84 50
(v) No exclusions 4.85 50
2. Contributory negligence 44..8961--4.88 51
3. Self-inflicted injuries 44..8991--4.90 51
E. ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCING
OF THE SCHEME 4.105 52
1. Administration 4.99 52
(i) Option 1
Administration by a
central body 4.93 52
ii Option 2
( ) Administration by
individual insurance
companies 4.94 53
(iii) The options
examined 4.95-4.98 53
(iv) Conclusion 4.99 55
2. Financing 4.100-4.103 55
3. Exempted classes of
vehicles 4.104-4.105 56
RESOLVING DISPUTES 4.106-4.118 57
1. The courts 4.107-4.114 57
2. A tribunal 4.115 59
3. Arbitration 4.116-4.117 60
4. Conclusion 4.118 61
(vi)
PrintedimagedigitisedbytheUniversityofSouthamptonLibraryDigitisationUnit
)
G. OTHER ISSUES
1. Mcrtor Insurers’ Bureau 4.119 61
2. Fraud 4.120 62
3. Monitoring 4.121 62
PART V SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS FOR
CONSULTATION 5.1 64
vii
(
PrintedimagedigitisedbytheUniversityofSouthamptonLibraryDigitisationUnit
; ;
COMPENSATION FOR ROAD ACCIDENTS
A CONSULTATION PAPER
PART I: INTRODUCTION
1.1 This paper explores "the feasibility of a no-fault
compensation scheme, restricted to less serious road
accidents and financed by private insurance. The objective
of such a scheme would be to provide a fair, simple,
expeditious, non-contentious system of compensation with a
useful but carefully limited scope at no additional cost to
public funds.
1.2 The key elements in the scheme now proposed are as follows:
the scheme would be limited to accidents involving
motor vehicles;
it would cover claims for personal injury compensation
but not vehicle or other property damage
( )
compensation payments would be subject to a maximum of
£2,500 for individual claims;
victims would not need to prove that another person was
at fault;
the range of road accident victims eligible for
compensation would be wider than under existing
arrangements
disputes over liability in the case of less serious
injuries should be greatly reduced;
it is for consideration whether certain classes of
victim who are authors of their own misfortune should
be excluded from benefiting under the scheme (for
example, drinking drivers);
1
PrintedimagedigitisedbytheUniversityofSouthamptonLibraryDigitisationUnit
..
the scheme would be funded and operated by the
insurance industry via motor vehicle premiums;
an increase in the level of premiums should be
expected
1.3 The feasibility study stems from a recommendation made in
the Report of the Review Body on Civil Justice (Cm 354,
1988). While the report related only to England and Wales,
this consultation paper covers the United Kingdom as a
whole. The purpose of this paper is to obtain the views of
the general public, as well as the insurance industry,
motoring organisations, lawyers and other interested persons
and bodies on the matters considered in the paper.
A. Civil Justice Review
1.4 The Civil Justice Review made the following comments and
recommendation in relation to no-fault compensation for road
accident victims:
455. Reform of the substantive law of negligence was
not within the scope of the Review, but it was clear
from responses to consultation that there existed a
body of opinion in favour of some form of no-fault
scheme, that is to say a scheme in which compensation
for injury is obtainable without proving fault and is
provided outside the tort system. Existing no-fault
schemes include various forms of state provision by way
of social security, including the industrial injuries
scheme, several types of disability benefit, and the
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. There are also
various private schemes relating to occupational sick
pay, employers’ accident and health insurance and early
retirement provisions under occupational pension
schemes
2
PrintedimagedigitisedbytheUniversityofSouthamptonLibraryDigitisationUnit
456. Although the Review Body has not closely examined
this proposal, it would seem that a number of
advantages might flow from the introduction of a no-
fault scheme funded by private insurance and restricted
to claims arising out of less serious road accidents.
Such a scheme might provide for arbitration as to the
levels of compensation, possibly accompanied by
published tariffs. It would reduce uncertainty for
claimants, avoid the delays and costs associated with
litigation and by removing disputes from the courts,
reduce pressure on the court system. On the other
hand, it would also increase motor insurance premiums.
Further consideration of the feasibility of introducing
such a scheme should be the subject of consultation
with insurers.
R.62 The Lord Chancellor should consider, in
consultationwith the insurance industry, the
feasibility of a no-fault scheme, restricted
to less serious road accidents and financed
by private insurance.
B Working Party
.
1.5 In July 1989, the Lord Chancellor announced the Government's
acceptance of this recommendation. A working party was
constituted later in the year for the purpose of conducting
the feasibility study on behalf of the Lord Chancellor. In
addition to the Lord Chancellor's Department, the other
Departments represented were the Department of Transport,
the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of
Health, the Department of the Environment, the Scottish
Office Home and Health Department, the Welsh Office and the
Northern Ireland Office.
1.6 This paper has been prepared by the working party. Earlier
drafts of the paper have been discussed with representatives
3
PrintedimagedigitisedbytheUniversityofSouthamptonLibraryDigitisationUnit