AmerLisa

I'd send some, but apparently I can't.....sigh....but if I ever feel a need to waste my points to send hate karma....I'll hook you up.

AmerLisa

Well said, my dear.

scrubbedexpat099

I no longer have my books, so here goes from memory:

A claim for damages is made under various Heads, such as

Pain and Suffering
Loss of Income
Continuing Medical Care

These are the biggies

Most of the big awards you see for Bodily Injury in the UK are those for serious injury, still alive to have pain and suffering and continuing medical care.

Black joke but if you run someone over and seriously injure them, it will be cheaper in settlement terms to back up and finish the job.

Now if you seriously injure a trainee brain surgeon with 30 years of lucrative fees ahead of him its going to cost a lot more than the local bin man.

The death of a child raises hardly any of these issues, if any at all. Could be nil apart from funeral expenses, hence the Statutory amount, a de minimis.

Any civil claim looks to put the injured party in the same position financially as best it can do. Generally UK law does not have punitive damages.

In this case assuming there is a case etc etc, what financial losses can the Family show.

Loss of Income and Funeral Expenses. So what was he sending back, how long would he have continued to do so etc etc.

If I go back to the UK and get run over by say a Fire Engine on its way to an incident, Bomb incident whatever. Is it right my Parents get GBP1m?

If my Brother gets killed in a train crash do I get GBP1m?

If my Dad dies following medical negligence do I get GBP1m?

If my Mum gets run over by a DUI do I get GBP1m?

Apart from the publicity, whats the difference?

Mercedes

I think it's sad full stop that innocent people have been killed and maimed by the suicide bomber and what many of those alive and those families of those innocent people will also get a pittance from the Government. The police were only doing their job in this situation and he died because he made the mistake on not stopping when asked when there was reports of bombers in the vicinity. If he is to be compensated, if it turns out he really was innocent, then his family should not get any more than the other victims. I personally think that would be fair, they shouldn't get any more.

fatbrit

The major difference is that in none of the above was anyone actually trying to kill you. Also, most of your examples are old folks -- we don't need than any more so that should be worth less.

The fire engine, train crash and DUI will presumably initially be covered by the insurance companies. I wonder if the UK police our covered against actually shooting the wrong person? I would hypothesize not!

The medical one is interesting coz settlements are certainly lower. I think there is a tacit understanding that provided incompetent docs are dealt with quickly, the public does not screw NHS funds too far. One price (acceptable IMO) of socialized medicine.

scrubbedexpat099

It does not make any difference, would you expect a bigger settlement if someone stole your car and wrote it off rather than accidentally hit it and wrote it off.

I think personally the DUI one is the most reprehensible anyway.

The basic premise is to try and financially compensate a claimant, your premise assumes some sort of penalty, that is reserved for the Criminal courts.

My background is Corporate Insurance, those bodies would self insure to levels much much higher than GBP1m. The DUI would in the US maybe not be covered at all, there is a fund in the UK, paid for by Joe Public through their Motor Insurance premiums. (MIB) assuming he or she had no cover.

I am not sure where you got the NHS understanding from, I have never come across that, well not in the last 30 years. Maybe in the 40's and 50's. I used to deal with Council Risk Management/ Insurance programmes, certainly saw no reluctance to claim there either.

Medical Negligence is a big, big cost issue in the UK. Not as big maybe as the US, but everything here is bigger.

scrubbedexpat099

3 years old and only applies to the MDU, but:

Huge rise in medical negligence claims

James Meikle, health correspondent
Monday June 3, 2002
The Guardian

Legal advisers to half of Britain's doctors have calculated that their compensation payouts to patients for medical negligence have risen more than 2,000-fold in 50 years.

The Medical Defence Union said last night that the annual bill went up from £34,472 in 1952 to nearly £78m in 2000, the last year for which figures were available.

In the year the Queen ascended the throne, the highest single sum the MDU paid out was £12,000 to a draughtsman for the loss of his left leg above the knee. In comparison, it paid nearly £4m last year to a child severely brain damaged after a delayed diagnosis of dehydration, and nearly £3m to a child with cerebral palsy in 1998.

Examples of the growth in Britain's compensation culture would have been more startling were it not for the introduction in 1990 of state-funded indemnity to cover doctors's work in NHS hospitals and community care. The MDU still covers GPs' and doctors' work in the private sector, and supports doctors facing disciplinary investigations.

Karen Dalby, the clinical risk manager at the MDU who conducted the analysis, said attitudes towards doctors had changed."Throughout the first half of the 20th century the number of claims received by the MDU could be counted in tens. Now it is many thousands and would be much higher if the MDU was still handling medical negligence claims in the NHS. In 1952, people just did not question that doctors were doing their best and it was exceptionally rare for a patient to complain, let alone sue."

Legal aid and the arrival of no-win, no-fee lawyers, and the way courts calculated costs of future care and awards for pain and suffering, had also added to the size of awards.

But many of the underlying themes behind claims remained unchanged. "Communication problems, delays in or missed diagnoses, and failure to warn of the risks of treatment feature in claims in 1952, just as they do today," said Dr Dalby.

darwinlad

More people die in road accident than in terrorist attacks. What about AIDs, cancer, Malaria, etc? Keep things in proportion. Some people say they won't go some place cos of the terrorism risk, but you're probably more likely to die in a train/plane/car crash in getting there!!

scrubbedexpat099

Absolutely

c50m British Population
say 70 year life expectancy
700,000 die a year
say 2,000 a day

So if every body gets a million death benefit, sort of adds up.

Mercedes

Be okay to be a funeral director as well.

NJ_Dave

Just stick with the burials and you'll be fine. There's no money in cremations

bored-silly

Unless you are a junior doctor.

Mercedes

Mercedes

I know a PI in New York who did an investigation on crematoriums, and I have decided that I shall have a bodyguard following my coffin...... Don't want to get buried, my ashes shall be put into a firework and let off with people in boats by dolphins or whales.......and I shant get a licence to do it either....they can have the awake in Jail.

bored-silly

If you are a junior doctor in the UK, you get to sign a form which basically confirms that there are no suspicious surroundings around a patient's death and agree that they can be cremated - ie, not have to be dug up at a later date.
The Dr gets paid for signing the form - it's called 'ash cash'