The debate over whether there should be 'no-fault' damages awards for injuries caused in road accidents has been raging for decades. The law, however, currently requires proof of negligence and – as a Court of Appeal ruling showed – that means judges face some very tough decisions, particularly in cases involving children.
The case concerned a teenager who was aged 11 and on his way to school when he was struck by a car as he crossed a road near his home. He suffered life-changing injuries. A central issue in his personal injury claim was whether he had walked or run into the road. Following a five-day hearing, a judge rejected allegations of negligence against the driver and dismissed the boy's claim.
Ruling on his challenge to that outcome, the Court noted that, as long ago as 1978, after a full five years of deliberation, the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury recommended the creation of a no-fault compensation scheme for injuries sustained in road traffic accidents.
However, Parliament had never acted on that recommendation and, more than 40 years on, it remains the position that, where a child is injured by a car whose driver is not proved on the balance of probabilities to have been negligent, the driver's insurers are not liable to pay any compensation.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court praised the judge's careful and conscientious approach to the case. It was not persuaded that certain of his findings of fact were contrary to the evidence or plainly wrong. Overall, there was no ground on which the Court could properly reach a different conclusion.