Compensation crazy

Compensation culture, the term that alludes to a society motivated by blaming and claiming, is a frequently used idiom in the debate about compensation claims for institutional, corporate or individually induced negligence.

Is the term accurate or just hyperbole? Introduced by sociologist Ellie Lee, Compensation Crazy: Do we blame and claim too much? seeks to unpack this emotive topic. In so doing, the contributors - a personal injury litigator, risk analyst, professor of civil litigation and a lawyer - assess and suggest explanations on compensation claiming today.

Do we blame and claim too much? Professor John Peysner thinks not. He says litigousness has increased due to the erosion of shared resources, such as the welfare state. A misrepresentation has crept in, due to claims management companies and crass adverts, which have created a knee-jerk cry of: "We blame and claim too much."

Risk analyst Tracey Brown looks at the social costs of a compensation culture. She suggests that a worrying trend is indeed emerging and while blaming and claiming may benefit the individual litigant, it damages the social fabric in significant ways.

In the US, there is no such thing as an accident under the tort system, but, Brown argues, this is not social at all. A claiming culture obstructs social justice.

Personal injury specialist Ian Walker disagrees. He believes that the compensation culture is hyperbole. "A propensity to sue is symptomatic of a population more conscious of our legal and moral rights," he says, commenting that holding governments and businesses to account is a healthy step in the right direction.

Any illusions that great windfalls - predominantly propagated by `claims farmers' - can be received for successful lawsuits are quickly dashed as Walker suggests the English courts are anything but generous.

Barrister Daniel Lloyd disputes Walker's argument. He says that there is indeed a blame and claim culture and points to the government as the main catalyst for change.

He says that judges are required to carry out too much interpretation on a case-by-case basis on such things as defining `reasonably forseeable'.

The government, he says, "is much better placed to give guidance on these questions than a lone judge sitting in court".

Whether or not we in the UK are compensation crazy, this book provides excellent material that challenges and stimulates debate.

It is unusual to find such differing opinions under the one cover, which may explain why the book feels slightly disjointed.

However, the clarion call is clear, we must be more conversant in understanding the "impact of compensation claiming on Britain - who it benefits, who it fails and whether the sum total of its consequences is desirable".