英语论文网

part of the act shows there has been some action being taken to tackle the compensational cultures measures have been put forward laying restrictions for the claims management companies consequently this equals to less support to the public to put a claim in for compensation.

Within my conclusion regarding the Compensation Act 2006I can clearly dispute that the act has done little to address the issues of the compensation culture as there are various amounts of claims arisen from different situations. In some particular parts of the act it is seen that the act has attempted to limit claims from certain situations where apologies are made for mistakes which prevent a claim to go forward as negligence.

In order to make a claim for compensation it is necessary to have established the existence of negligence in tort to claim upon. Negligence within tort points out that there has to be a duty of care owed from one party to the other which has been breached. In Amir’s case to work out if the accident victims or the families can sue in tort for personal injury or fatal accident compensation we have to look at if there was a duty of care owed to others and if Amir was negligent. In the famous case of [9] (Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) where the modern law of negligence is reflected upon, it was stated by [10] Lord Atkins who established the neighbour rule which is used in the modern day of law of negligence within his statement it was said that an individual must take adequate care to avoid acts or omissions where it is foreseeable that the outcome is likely to injure your neighbour in the terms of neighbour within law is a person who is or are closely and directly affected).

To be able to claim compensation certain factors have to be distinguished where a test has be passed for the claim to b successful, first of all the duty of care has to exist from the claimant to the defendant which is shown in the case of [11] WoodroofeHedley v Cuthbertson, where there has been a breach of care by the defendant which is shown in the case of [12] Bolton v Stone and thirdly the breach had equalled to damage to the claimant which has been shown in the case of [13] Nettleship v Weston. Also to support all the factors the case of [14] Ann’s v Merton London Borough Council 1978 reinforces the procedure.

By directing the neighbour rule upon Amir we can say that Amir should have taken and had satisfactory care in his mind for his neighbour who were the road users in general and the accident victims as all of them were owed a duty of care and we can say that Amir’s actions were not adequate as he did not take care and well being of others which resulted in an accident where people were severely injured and some had died including. Therefore it can be said that Amir is responsible as reasonable care wasn’t taken which affected the neighbour also Amir looking at the Nettleship v Weston case where it was held that every driver has a duty of care and should not fall below the standards of a reasonable driver this statement can be reflected upon Amir within the case of [15] Mansfield v Weetabix the driver was ill but carried on driving and crashed this case demonstrates poor driving which can be linked into Amir’s scenario.

Amir was working on his computer all night therefore had insufficient rest but still made the choice to drive and he risked his own safety and the safety of others to establish