Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMorgan, Jonathan
dc.date.accessioned2018-12-19T00:30:14Z
dc.date.available2018-12-19T00:30:14Z
dc.date.issued2018-11-01
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/287148
dc.description.abstractLord Sumption has frequently delivered speeches that provoke public debate. His 2017 lecture to the Personal Injuries Bar Association will surely do so too. Its very title, a ‘ Project ’ of ‘ Abolishing Personal Injuries Law ’ , is incendiary. The provocation is welcome, and indeed overdue. As Lord Sumption observes, the high-water mark of reform came with New Zealand ’ s Accident Compensation Act in 1972. Although radical change was contemporaneously discussed, no other Commonwealth jurisdiction abolished negligence in favour of an accident insurance scheme. 1 The Pearson Royal Commission (1978) failed even to consider such a universal scheme. 2 Tort reformers such as PS Atiyah did not disguise their disappointment. 3 Professor Atiyah (and his editor, Peter Cane) have continued to urge reform through successive editions of Accidents, Compensation and the Law . 4 But the last new initiative from that quarter was Atiyah ’ s The Damages Lottery (1997). Since then, nothing has changed and the debate has virtually disappeared from view (in England at least). Lord Sumption has done tort lawyers, and law reform, a service by lending his authority to its revival.
dc.titleAbolishing Personal Injuries Law? A reply to Lord Sumption
dc.typeArticle
prism.publicationDate2018
prism.publicationNameProfessional Negligence
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.34457
dcterms.dateAccepted2018-11-01
rioxxterms.versionAM
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2018-11-01
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
rioxxterms.freetoread.startdate2019-11-01


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record