No such thing as 'compensation culture'
During the past five years papers have been awash with articles highlighting dubious personal injury claims brought against individuals, companies and local authorities.
Reports bemoan how schools have banned conker matches or the litany of fraudulent claims following staged road traffic accidents. But many are based on urban myths, or cases that were started with little hope of ever succeeding.
Understandably, the subsequent dismissal or withdrawal of these claims rarely makes headlines.
Now, a recent Court of Appeal decision has demonstrates the tough challenge of recovering damages for personal injury.
In September 2005, Samuel Harris, an 11-year-old school boy, suffered very serious head injuries and brain damage after an accidental collision on a bouncy castle when an older child did a somersault and struck his forehead.
The extent of his injuries mean he requires permanent, full-time care.
Samuel’s mother issued proceedings in the High Court alleging that bouncy castle supervisors Timothy and Katherine Perry, had been negligent. Damages were sought for pain and suffering, along with potential loss of earnings and Samuel’s care costs.
Nearly three years later in May 2008, the High Court judged in favour of Samuel finding that the bouncy castle supervisors had failed to maintain continuous supervision of the bouncy castle, failed to prevent children doing flips or somersaults and failed to ensure that only children of a similar size and weight played on the bouncy castle at the same time.
But the decision was quickly overturned by the Court of Appeal in July this year, when it ruled that there had been no need to constantly supervise the bouncy castle, prevent youngsters doing somersaults and flips, or prevent children of different sizes using the bouncy castle at the same time.
The court also decided that Mr and Mrs Perry were not at fault and it was a tragic accident.
As a result, Samuel will get no compensation - unless the House of Lords goes on to overturn the decision.
The case clearly demonstrates that so-called 'compensation culture' is simply not rampant across Britain and the courts take a sensible approach in determining when to make awards. It comes amid the introduction of the Compensation Act, which states that courts must not make decisions likely to discourage activities like school trips or outdoor pursuits.
It has also emerged that personal injury claims now appear to have reached a plateau with many NHS Trusts saying they have noted a fall in claims within the past 12 months.
But there's still a clear perception that a 'compensation culture' does exist thanks to the hysterical misreporting of cases in some quarters.
The strict application of the law in Samuel's case and many others highlight how compensation culture does not exist - as far as the courts are concerned.
If you require any further information on this or any other aspect of personal injury, please contact Jonathan White of the Personal Injury Team on jonathan.white@harveyingram.com or 0116 257 6145.
Click here to visit our Personal Injury website.