Introduction to Health and Safety at Work 416
sunstroke. Again the course provider will relate these
hazards to the country in question.
Finally fault and no-fault compensation schemes
have been included in the International General
Certifi cate syllabus.
18.8.1 Fault and no-fault compensation In the United Kingdom, compensation for an injury fol-
lowing an accident is achieved by means of a successful
legal action in a civil court (as discussed in Chapter 1).
In such cases, injured employees sue their employer for
negligence and the employer is found liable or at fault.
This approach to compensation is adversarial, costly
and can deter injured individuals of limited means from
pursuing their claim. In a recent medical negligence
claim in Ireland, costs were awarded against a couple,
who were acting on behalf of their disabled son, and
they were faced with a bill for £ 3 m.
The spiralling cost of insurance premiums to
cover the increasing level and number of compensa-
tion awards, despite the Woolfe reforms (see Chapter
15), has led to another debate on the introduction of a
no-fault compensation system. It has been estimated
that in medical negligence cases, it takes on average six
years to settle a claim and only 10% of claimants ever
see any compensation.
No-fault compensation systems are available in
many parts of the world in particular New Zealand and
several States in the USA. In these systems, amounts of
compensation are agreed centrally at a national or State
level according to the type and severity of the injury.
The compensation is often in the form of a structured
continuous award rather than a lump sum and may be
awarded in the form of a service, such as nursing care,
rather than cash.
The no-fault concept was fi rst examined in the
1930s in the USA to achieve the award of compensa-
tion quickly in motor car accident claims without the
need for litigation. It was introduced fi rst in the State of
Massachusetts in 1971 and is now mandatory in nine
other States although several other States have either
repealed or modifi ed no-fault schemes.
In 1978, the Pearson Commission in the United
Kingdom rejected a no-fault system for dealing with
clinical negligence even though it acknowledged that the
existing tort system was costly, cumbersome and prone
to delay. Its principal reasons for rejection were given
as the diffi culties in reviewing the existing tort liability
system and in determining the causes of injuries.
In New Zealand, there was a general dissatisfac-
tion with the workers compensation scheme which
was similar to the adversarial fault-based system
used in Australia and the United Kingdom. In 1974, a
no-fault accident compensation system was introduced
and administered by the Accident Compensation
Corporation (ACC). This followed the publication of the
Woodhouse Report in 1966 which advocated a 24 hour
accident cover for everybody in New Zealand.
The Woodhouse Report suggested the following fi ve
principles for any national compensation system:
➤
community
responsibility
➤
comprehensive entitlement irrespective of income
➤
or job status
➤
complete rehabilitation for the injured party
➤
real compensation for the injured party
➤
administrative effi
ciency of the compensation
scheme
The proposed scheme was to be fi nanced by channel-
ling all accident insurance premiums to one national
organization (the ACC).
The advantages of a no-fault compensation scheme
include:
1. Accident claims are settled much quicker than in
fault schemes
2. Accident reporting rates will improve
3. Accidents become much easier to investigate
because blame is no longer an issue
4. Normal disciplinary procedures within an organiza-
tion or through a professional body are unaffected
and can be used if the accident resulted from negli-
gence on the part of an individual
5. More funds are available from insurance premiums
for the injured party and less used in the judicial and
administrative process.
The possible disadvantages of a no-fault compensation
system are:
1.
There is often an increase in the number of claims,
some of which may not be justifi ed
2.
There is a lack of direct accountability of managers
and employers for accidents
3.
Mental injury and trauma are often excluded from
no-fault schemes because of the diffi culty in meas-
uring these conditions
4.
There is a diffi culty in defi ning the causes of many
injuries and industrial diseases
5.
The monetary value of compensation awards tend
to be considerably lower than those in fault schemes
(although this can be seen as an advantage).
No-fault compensation schemes exist in many coun-
tries including Canada and the Scandinavian countries.
However a recent attempt to introduce such a scheme
in New South Wales, Australia was defeated in the legis-
lative assembly.
