Search icone
Search and publish your papers
Our Guarantee
We guarantee quality.
Find out more!

Draft bill to the House of Parliament

Or download with : a doc exchange

About the author

General public
European law

About the document

Published date
documents in English
term papers
5 pages
General public
0 times
Validated by
0 Comment
Rate this document
  1. Introduction
  2. Sports injuries claims
  3. The parameters of liability
  4. Vowles v Evans
  5. Watson v British Boxing Board of Control
  6. Condon v Basi
  7. Caldwell v Maguire and Fitzgerald
  8. Justification, summary and key elements of the bill
    1. Smith v Eric S Bush
  9. Compulsory insurance (sports) bill
    1. Purpose
    2. General insurance obligations and definitions
    3. Categories of individuals to be covered
    4. Insurance obligations
    5. Penalty for failure to insure
    6. Limit of amount of compulsory insurance
    7. Final provisions

The characterisation of a compulsory insurance no fault scheme is rooted in the principle of distributive justice, compensating victims without having to establish causation and fault. Conversely, the current liability for negligence claims for sports injuries involves fault considerations based on legal theoretical concepts determined through judicial precedent, which are inherently limited within the confines of the established legal principles of duty of care, proximity and negligence. This in itself creates a tension as wider concepts of ?fault? are not currently covered under the law of negligence. To this end, the range of sports injury claims amenable to recovery has widened significantly, creating a risk of floodgate claims.

[...] Accordingly, the parameters of liability have remained uncertain with regard to who the appropriate tortfeaser is, along with the extent of liability for both professional and amateur players bringing claims in negligence. For example, in the leading case of Smoldon v Whitworth (1997] PIQR 133) it was determined that a referee of the Rugby Union match was liable for injuries suffered by a rugby player by another player as a result of a collapsed scrum. In this particular case, the referee had failed to enforce the rules of the International Rugby Board as applied to a rugby game, in which there were more than 20 collapsed scrums. [...]

[...] Justification, Summary and Key elements of the bill However, the growth of insurance as customary practice has introduced the notion of loss distribution, where the question is not who is to blame, but who can most easily bear the loss caused by a particular accident. For example, in the case of Smith v Eric S Bush 2 WLR 790) Lord Griffith asserted that: ?There was once a time when it was considered imprudent to even mention the possible existence of insurance cover in a lawsuit. [...]

[...] For example, in the case of Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001]2 WLR 1256, it was held that the Board owed Watson a duty of care to provide appropriate resuscitation equipment and a person or persons qualified to use such equipment at the ringside. The Court made it clear that it was the duty of the Board and of those advising it on medical matters to be proactive in accounting for foreseeable risks and to seek competent advice as to how a recognised danger could be combated. [...]

Similar documents you may be interested in reading.

The British law regime

 Law & contracts   |  Administrative   |  Term papers   |  12/18/2010   |   .doc   |   13 pages

Recent documents in European law category

The situation of the European Union legal system with regard to international agreements

 Law & contracts   |  European   |  Presentation   |  10/15/2015   |   .pdf   |   3 pages

European Union Law - Commentary: Article 4 of the EU Treaty (Member States'...

 Law & contracts   |  European   |  Term papers   |  07/12/2011   |   .doc   |   4 pages