Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Andy Peters
Health and Safety or Claim Culture?
Discuss :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By andrew morris
Technically its the claim culture I reckon - Health and Safety criminal law is based on old common law - what society thinks is morally right. There has always been some way of getting compensation for negligence (Negligence, tort, etc have been around since people started living in communities), but until recently people didn't earn enough to take on their richer employers. This was recognised as more and more kids died in the mills and various bits of standard setting regs came in. 100+ years later HaSWA turns up.
I reckon. but I have posted some pretty duff info on here recently!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Richard Webber
I think that the "claim culture" has played a part in focusing the minds of organisations on the possible consequences of accidents - but I think that the insurance industry plays a far greater role.
Insurance companies are, naturally, risk intolerant and will insist that standards are continually raised in an attempt to reduce claims against them.
Maybe the claim culture has developed in line with the avarice of the insurance companies, but this process appears to be good for working people - don't you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Liesel
MISUSE of the no-win no-fee system.
On one hand the NWNF concept gives justice to those without financial resource who have genuine claims but otherwise would not get any recompense- so may actually drive standards up. Especially when the enforcers are so under-resourced- sometimes it is only the threat of civil action that is the driver to obey the law when the chances of being caught by the state enforcer (whether that be police or HSE) are low- I mean, just look at the growth of the use of ASBOs.
However, the dark side is that there are those out there who see this as yet another opportunity to make a fast buck- and that's not just the claimants but the lawyers too.
Problem was, not many orgs were prepared for this either- I worked in a Highways dept not long after it came in and the tight budgets and lack of a risk-based management/funding model left the Authority wide open to those without scruples. It was easier just to pay up than fight cases too. OK, the gap was eventually plugged, but it took a bit of time to understand that there are people out there who would take unfair advantage!
Like all of our systems, abuse by the few can spoil it for the many.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Are you asking the philosophical, metaphysical or biological question?
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
You have to remember that claiming compensation has always been enshrined in Common Law, it just wasn't in reach of the 'working man' as it cost money to persue a claim, these NWNF people are filling a gap in the market and if employers are doing everything which is foreseeable and reasonable to protect their employees and others then they should not worry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil Grace
Richard made some contentious comments... "...avarice of insurers..." and spoke of their interest in "... reducing claims against them..."
Claims are not made against insurance companies but against the employer. The role of (compulsory) Employers' Liability insurance is to ensure that funds are there to compensate injured employees. If employers manage risk then accidents should reduce and the chance of claims should fall.
And turning to the avarice question - as claims reduce premiums fall... OK, so insurers must make a profit for shareholders but to use the term avarice is a bit harsh...!!!
And before we get more comments there is always a difficult balance between whether to settle or pay. If the employer is unable to substantiate their view that they have done everything they should have then we (insurer and employer - 'cos it's a joint thing) will go down in court, run the risk of a higher award and we'll have to pay all costs. Economic settlements - if that is what you want to call them - do make good sense... compensation will be less and costs will be shared, each side paying their own.
And what about argument that it encourages more claims? Well that's only a problem if the employer expects more of the same - no two accidents are ever the same in my opinion..!
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Also if the 'excess' is more than the claim would be worth then the employer would just pay anyway, as this is cheaper but normally on a 'non liability' clause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.