Negligence is a fault based system. The claimant has to prove that the defendant is at fault and they fell below the standard of care.
it's necessary to obtain evidence, negotiate settlement and prepare cases for court.
There can be a "no win, no fee" arrangement if a solicitor thinks that there is a 75%+ chance of winning.
The cost of a solicitor can be high and can easily cost tens of thousands of pounds, these costs can put off claimants leaving people without access to justice.
Legal aid is also basically non-existent in civil law
There can also be a delay where insurance companies are involved. Insurance companies also tend to be suspicious so they can thoroughly investigate each claim which can take years.
These years of investigation can be stressful for claimants and make them discontinue the claim.
Judicial law making is mainly created by precedent and it's undemocratic and typically lacking technical experience.
There are also instances of law being changed over night with no wider consultation.
R v Bolam: "a doctor's omission to warn a patient of inherent risk of proposed treatment constituted a breach of duty of care that was normally to be determined by the application of test".
The third part of the Caparo v Dickman test protects public authorities but its questioned about if this provides justice for claimants.
Inconsistent cases have created a lack of clarity, certainty, and predictability.
White v Jones
A state run benefit scheme for all accident victims without the need to prove fault or blame.
No need for insurance companies to be involved
No need for lawyers
Less confrontational
Compensation would be paid to all who were injured.
An easier reform would make greater use of the ADR.
The Compensation Act 2006 introduced steps to try and encourage ADR but by 2012 the Ministry of Justice were unable to say whether there had been any impact.
A recent proposal being considered by the Government is to raise the lower limit for PI cases to £5,000 with the aim of reducing whiplash claims.