December 28, 2006

Should this man get compensation?

Here’s one for your ethics class. Are there circumstances under which someone should receive compensation for having killed someone?

I started reading this article thinking the claimant was a cynical, money-grabbing monster. That’s probably a result of the tabloid-style writing. By the end of the piece I felt pretty sorry for the guy. I can only suggest you read the whole thing yourself.

While riding his motorbike (at 50mph in a 70mph zone) he struck down a 12-year-old boy who was playing ‘chicken’ on a dual-carriageway. The child died three days later in hospital.

The claimant says he suffered six broken ribs, a punctured lung, a bruised heart, a shoulder injury and psychological trauma. I don’t think anyone would argue the accident was his fault. But should he be compensated?

His lawyers say the child was “negligent” and committed a “violent act” against the biker. They’re strong words, but remember to separate the legalese from the common uses of the words.

If successful, the money would come from the government-funded Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which gives out £200m of public money each year.

So what do you reckon? I think he’s got a case for the money. Forget about blame – the guy’s been injured as a result of an accident that wasn’t his fault. But does the death of the child make a difference…?

- 5 comments by 1 or more people Not publicly viewable

  1. blamerbell

    Chris, why has your blog gone funny?

    I sense a money-making plot.

    28 Dec 2006, 22:07

  2. Praguetory

    The death of the child makes no difference.

    28 Dec 2006, 22:14

  3. I agree with Praguetory, death of a child makes absolutely no difference.

    28 Dec 2006, 22:37

  4. The Disgruntled Citizen

    He should get the money, no question about it. the child wouldn’t be dead if he wasn’t acting so foolishly, and the biker wouldn’t be so messed up if the child hadn’t hit his bike.

    28 Dec 2006, 22:40

  5. I believe he has a case, it’s just unfortunate that he has to effectively ‘sue’ the dead lad. Is that the case?
    I don’t think that he shouldn’t be allowed simply because the child died. The boy was alive when he commited the act that led to both sets of injuries.

    28 Dec 2006, 23:13

Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

Twitter Go to 'Twitter / chrisdoidge'

Tetbury Online

Most recent comments

  • To quote from PM Cameron's speech at Munich Security Conference on the failure of State Multicultura… by on this entry
  • Not sure whether their installation can do that (though I assume it will), but I personally have a D… by Pierre on this entry
  • Yup. The figure at the end I guess isn't so much a sign of falling standards, as failing policy. by on this entry
  • Didn't the compulsory GCSE in a language get ditched a few years back? by on this entry
  • Yeah, that was a Brown–like kiss of death. by on this entry

Search this blog

Blog archive



December 2006

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Nov |  Today  | Jan
            1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder