Stormthirst

There is a growing, pervasive and distinctly unpleasant culture in Britain of people suing over ridiculous things (and some less ridiculous things). Given the proximity of Canada to the US (birthplace of the litagous society) I was wondering if the Canadians had done the right thing - and put some common sense into the legal system and made it more difficult to bring litagation?

This is a serious question for several reasons:
1) I'm a radiographer (medical radiation technician to the Canucks) - and I'll be working in the health sector when Lady Locket and I emigrate*, and there is an increasing burden on the NHS from patients who litagate often unnecessarily. I've not been sued, but I can see it as being a risk in my profession.
2) One of the reasons I dislike British culture at the moment is the "No win, No fee" push to litagate against anyone and their dog!

I realise this is a broad perspective, and different parts of Canada will have a different view of things.


* Heh - we've not even been out there on a reccie yet - going out to NS in September. Don't know for certain if we *will* be emigrating - but I'm beginning to get into the mindset.

dbd33

Canadians are, I think, appreciably more litigious than Americans, that's why insurance is so expensive in Canada.

If you were to be self-employed in a medical field then professional liability insurance would likely be your largest cost but as an employee this shouldn't be a concern.

Almost Canadian

Their attitude is very similar to those in the UK. For what it is worth, the "No win, no fee" thing in England is not as mecenary as you may think, especially in the area of medical negligence. Most lawyers would not be prepared to take most cases on on such a basis, so they lose a large amount of money investigating the claims to the point where they are able to make an informed decision as to whether such an agreement is appropriate. If the case proves to be a dud, it's normally the lawyer that has paid the disbursements to that point and not the client.

In England the loser normally has to pay approximately 80% of the winner's actual legal costs, in Canada that drops to approximately 20%. Having to pay the other side's legal costs in the event of a loss is a great way to weed out the actions with poor prospects of success. Canada is way behind England in this respect, which is why more actions with poor prospects of success are commenced here.

Labour did away with legal aid for most matters in England, and were happy to allow changes to the "no win, no fee" rules to appease those that complained that the removal of legal aid would be a bar to access to justice. Blame them, not the laywers.

The NHS chooses to self insure (meaning that compensation and costs are paid from its operating budget). No one forced them to do so.

Negligence claims mean that those that are negligent pay damages to those that were "injured" as a result. This seems fair to me. Why should members of the NHS be exempt from such a law? We are not talking about "mistakes" here but negligence. If a competent member of the medical profession would have made the same "mistake" there is no negligence. I am sure you wouldn't accept incompetence from a plumber, lawyer, electrian, mechanic, etc. Why should you accept it from a doctor/nurse?

Stormthirst

This is simply because it's cheaper to self-insure - the costs are just too astronomical!

md5037

Almost Canadian,

I have to say your post summed up everything that is wrong with culture today. There is no one, and i am guessing here, who joined the public service to cause any harm.

But make even the slightest mistake and the vultures start circling and it must have been negligence.

As someone who has seen it at first hand, and without giving the complete detail the guy whos ankle was broke was not carried in text book manner so i had to be negligent. I didnt matter that i had just dragged him from the bedroom that he had set alight.

So you tell me when was i negligent. If i had left him no law suit and all the lawyers wouldnt have made a penny.

people in public service deserve a little protection from chancers who see "where there is a blame,claim" and i include in that the lawyers as well.

But the question are you more likely to get sued in Canada prob not the chance is the same everywhere. You never know who walks through the door or in my case whos door i walk through.

dbd33

I'm not seeing why it matters to a healthcare profession employed by a health authority that Canadians are litigious; you're not going to be sued personally.

Stormthirst

My question was more of a general one, than one specifically aimed at the Health profession. As a radiographer, I often hear* people saying "I tripped over something, so I'm going to sue!" even though I can see they've not broken a single bone.

*which I realise doesn't necessarily translate to actual cases being brought. I'm sure some people are nursing bruised egos as well as bruised ankles!

chanceUK

As a veterinary surgeon who has worked in the UK and canada, I think it is about the same.
I am not aware of anyone who has been personally sued in either country though.

scrubbedexpat091

I find insurance payouts tend to be far higher then what I saw while living in the US. And higher payouts to claims = higher premiums.

My sister in law for instance received a 5,000 settlement from ICBC for being involved in a car accident, even though she had no injuries, and no costs out of pocket and was a passenger, yet ICBC still offered and paid out the claim.

scrubbedexpat091

Your employer will have you covered in the event of a lawsuit anyhow, no need to worry about it,

Stormthirst

I'm not sure - but I don't think it's possible to be self-employed radiographer in Canada. Because of the radiation implications it's not possible in the UK

flashman

I haven't heard off any Canadians suing McDonalds for being scalded with hot coffee or because their food makes people fat. This has happened in the US where I think there's more "Frivolous litigation"

dbd33

The coffee lawsuit seemed perfectly reasonable to me, the coffee was undrinkably hot, the woman was genuinely injured through the fault of the corporation, the damages were reasonable.

In Toronto it is not lawful to play ball with your children in the park, the consequence of the city being sued when a ball hit a bystander. That and suing the city for the lack of signs warning people not bicycle off the cliff in Sunnybrook Park, strike me as being as being frivilous law suits with consequences for the public at large. I think there's a small difference in that Canadians like to sue government departments while Americans go after companies; I see that as being part of the Canadian love of things bureaucratic and governmental.

Almost Canadian

You need to re-read my post. One will not be liable for mistakes either in England or Canada if those mistakes were the type of mistakes that a reasonable person (be it a driver, lawyer, doctor, plumber, etc) would be expected to make. Negligence requires something more. In the example you gave, if other members of your profession would have taken the same steps that you did, you were not negligent. If they wouldn't and you, for example, acted in a rash or dangerous manner (however "right" you felt it was) and, as a result, you "injured" someone, then you were negligent.

Don't forget, evidence will always be required as to what a competent member would have done and the "vultures" will require someone with credibility from that profession to give evidence to that effect, i.e., doctors giving evidence against other doctors, engineers giving evidence against other engineers, etc. The lawyers cannot make such evidence up.

I am actually offended that you think that public servants deserve "protection". Why should they? If they mess up and someone suffers, why shouldn't they be held accountable? For example, no one would suggest that the police shouldn't attempt to catch those that have stolen cars, but when doing so, they must ensure that they drive appropriately. When driving fast (and extremely skillfully) they are not allowed the defence that "I was trying to catch a thief" to justify their actions if they speed through a red light and collide with a pedestrian lawfully crossing. They must drive according to the conditions. Or would you allow them to drive how they want?

md5037

I dont fancy getting into a slanging match about who should be protected and seperate incidents but i will make 2 points firstly did my actions on that day saved that mans life but because i didnt follow exactly what the manual says i was deemed to be at fault. Never mind the bottle of vodka and the B&H he had consumed.

Your point about a doctor for a doctor, engineer for an engineer. Money talks in this game and experts will say who ever is paying. Example 2 men fall 14 floors after fire in flat. FFs cant enter the flat because it is a drug den and all doors are barricaded. The 2 mens family sue and win after a "Fire expert" ex chief officer says FFs should have absailed down from the 23 floor were there were anchor points. Main probs being lack of time to set it up and also the fact that lines carried by FFs only go 5/6 floors. So when the money talks an "expert" will say anything.

Your example of a police car is correct they should drive to a higher standard and often do, in very trying conditions. Accidents will happen but who is being negligent the police or the person they are chasing, i would say the person being chased is the person who should be sued.