Further supplementary evidence from the
Department for Transport (CMI 20b)
Thank you for your letter of 18 January and your
question on whether a no fault system for motor insurance would
be desirable in the UK.
This is a question of liability rather than insurance.
Under UK civil law, the principle of civil liability is predicated
on the establishment of fault and the need for any allegation
of fault to be proved on the basis of probability. IN order to
prove fault, one needs to prove that the defendant's actions caused
the accident and were either negligent or intentional.
A change from the current fault based system for
motor insurance would only undermine a well established legal
principle. Moreover, it may result in perverse consequences, for
example unfair results in cases where the motorist is driving
entirely responsibly and the accident is caused by the irresponsible
or negligent behaviour of the other road user. It would also remove
the incentive for road users to act responsibly which could have
an undesirable effect on road safety. More generally, it could
lead to an anomaly in law of negligence whereby claims involving
personal injury or damage to property would be treated differently
in law solely on the basis of how the injury or damage was sustained.
Some campaigners argue that there is a road safety
benefit from stricter liability. They say that stricter liability
has the psychological effect of making drivers more aware of vulnerable
road users (cyclists, pedestrians, and children). In support of
their argument they point out that countries which apply such
a system have better cycle and pedestrian safety. However, there
is no firm evidence of a causal link and there are other factors
which may explain these differences including environment, social
and behavioural factors. There is nothing to suggest that stricter
liability will motivate drivers to drive safely more than any
other factor for example the consequences of being fined, disqualified
or imprisoned for causing death or injury on the roads.
The article you attached on the Canadian system is
interesting. It does suggest freedom of choice in whether a tort
or no fault system is applied in a province. However, it is always
difficult to compare legal systems in different jurisdictions
and given the size of the UK it could be confusing to have the
same level of choice. It is also important to remember that a
no fault system may not necessarily lead to a reduction in insurance
costs. While an element of legal costs may be saved, compensation
awards may be higher.
February 2011
| 
