Pearson Commission
The Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury, better known as the Pearson commission was a
Terms of reference
The commission's terms of reference were:[1]
To consider to what extent, in what circumstances and by what means compensation should be payable in respect of death or personal injury (including ante-natal injury) suffered by any person in the course of employment; through the use of a motor vehicle or other form of transport; through the manufacture, supply or use of goods or services; on premises belonging to or occupied by another or otherwise through the act or omission of another where compensation under the present law is recoverable only on proof of fault or under the rules of strict liability, having regard to the cost and other implications of the arrangements for the recovery of compensation, whether by way of compulsory insurance or otherwise.
Members
The commission's members were:[1]
- Lord Pearson (chairman)
- Lord Allen of Abbeydale
- Lord Cameron
- Walter Anderson, former general secretary, National and Local Government Officers Association
- Norman Marsh Law Commission
- Prof. occupational health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
- Ronald Skerman, chief Prudential Assurance Company
- Margaret Brooke, former vice-chairman (sic) National Federation of Women's Institutes
- Prof. Oxford University
- Robert MacCrindle QC
- Denis Marshall, solicitor, member of the council of the Law Society of England and Wales
- Prof. Alan Prest, professor of economics, London School of Economics
- A. Sansom, managing director, Iron Trades Employers Federation
- Prof. Olive Stevenson, head of department of social policy and social work, Keele University
- James Stewart WS
- Alan Ure, director, Trollope & Colls
Recommendations
Recovery of damages in tort - no profound changes were recommended but deduction from damages for social security benefits received was recommended and this was subsequently implemented. There was a further recommendation for the introduction of structured settlements but this was not implemented until 1 April 2005 and without the inflation-proofing that the commission had recommended.[2][3]
Work injuries - a no-fault insurance scheme administered by the
Road injuries - a no-fault insurance scheme administered by the DHSS, financed by a
)Air transport, Sea and inland waterways - the commission noted that this was largely constrained by
Rail transport - a no-fault scheme was rejected in favour of proposed strict liability for accidents arising from movement of rolling stock.
Products liability - a no-fault scheme was rejected and the strict liability scheme drafted by the
Services in general - retention of existing remedies for the tort of negligence.
Medical injuries - a no-fault scheme was not recommended but the commission held that the New Zealand and
Children - The commission proposed a general benefit for severely disabled children, no matter how their disability was caused, to be financed from general taxation.
Vaccine damage - The commission proposed that this would be compensated by the general benefit for severely disabled children. Where vaccination took place on the recommendation of the government, strict liability was proposed.
Ante-natal injury - The commission proposed that this would be compensated by the general benefit for severely disabled children and by strict liability such as it applied to
Occupiers' liability - no change to law on
Criminal injuries - activities of Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority endorsed and to be reviewed in the light of proposals for civil liability.
Animals - no change save for aligning
Exceptional risks - strict liability on "controllers of things or operations that by their unusually hazardous nature require supervision because of their potential for causing death or personal injury."
Reception
The Labour government expressed some caution over the recommendations, especially those as to no-fault compensation.[6] The Conservative Party and insurance industry were hostile.[7][8] The Conservative Party came to power in the 1979 United Kingdom general election and by 1983, the no-fault proposals, though not explicitly rejected, were falling into neglect.[9]
References
- ^ a b c Berlins (1978)
- ^ Damages Act 1996, s.2
- ISBN 978-1-905391-28-8.
- ^ O‘Donoghue, J.; et al. (2004). "Consumer Price Inflation since 1750". Economic Trends. 604: 38–46, March.
- ISBN 0-421-85980-6.
- ^ Berlins, M. (17 March 1978). "Government caution on injuries plan". The Times. p. 1, col.E.
- ^ "Civil liability and compensation proposals could be costly". The Times. 17 March 1978. p. 16, col.C.
- ^ Allen, R. (18 March 1978). "Insurance Counting the cost of Pearson". The Times. p. 1p, col.A.
- ^ "The Pearson Commission: Recommendations, 29 November 1983". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). 29 November 1983. Retrieved 18 April 2008.
Bibliography
- [Various authors] (1978) Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury, Stationery Office, Cmnd. 7054
- Allen, D. K. et al. (eds) (1979). Accident Compensation after Pearson. London: Sweet & Maxwell. )
- Berlins, M. (17 March 1978). "Pearson Report: Plan for 'no fault' compensation for road accident victims financed by petrol tax". The Times. p. 4, col.D.