 Felly, we've now talked about the case of nettleship and Western and you've already watched the first video to introduce the idea of tall Lord. Let's come back to some of those same key questions with a little bit of extra detail about the case and some of the ideas in it. So, to begin with, we started out by asking what was the role of fault in making someone compensate another for harm, and were there any other rules that we could have been using? We showed that actually fault might not be the same thing as moral blame-worthiness, which is what it sounds like to the average person, A roedden ni'n ddwy flynyddoch? Roedden ni ddim yn cerddoedd gyda Nettlyshiff yn Estyn? Rydych chi'n creduOSH ei ddim yn astud ar y gofyd gweithio'n ddweud? Roedden ni'n eich gallu ddewid? Felly, rydych yn y ddefnyddio'r cwestiwns, felly fel y ddarparu ychydig am flwyddyn, felly rydych yn gallu ddim enw na ni'n defnyddio y dyfodol, yng ngrych, yr hyffordd a'r stail yng ngheil. Allwch yn iawn y ddechrau cyhoeddiaeth ddechrau'r cael ei ddim yn ychydig, and say what a reasonable person would have done if you keep making the individual complicated like a reasonable person who was the same age, who was the same experience, who was the same eyesight, who was the same, it could get very complicated. Now proving fault is already the most difficult and time consuming area of the average taught case. For most taught cases, the law is relatively simple of course there are exceptions, but proving causation tends typically to be i'r hwnnw bei ni'n ddylch am ddifaronu'r ddeimlaen amdano sydd y law yn rhywbeth, mae hwnnw bobl amdano'r ddifaronu yn ychydig yn lle hanfodol. Felly mae'r ddylch ar pethau allan arlathol hyn, mae'n rhan i'n deall i'r defnyddio'r ddiadau a'r llwyddon iawn, oherwydd o'r defnyddio'r ges. Ond mae'n ddiolch i'r beth dechrau, energ, ddylch, mae'n ddylch sy'n ddiadau bod ymloedd wahanol oherwydd ei ddadu? If we think it is right in a matter of general law, should it be the case everywhere? Should a different reason apply in some situations rather than others? You might think that road traffic situations are ones where it should be easier to use a different reason to create liability other than fault. We know every day, every year, across the country, a certain number of accidents are going to happen. We can all try and take more care, we can design our roads better, we can have better street lights. ond we can't seem to remove that existence of accidents. We know it's going to happen. Similarly, we know in a large warehouse or a large factory, accidents will happen. They just will. So should we focus on the fault or should we focus on the risks involved? Should we blame someone when something happens, even though essentially we can predict it in advance? So it's for reasons like that, that compulsory insurance existed. We knew accidents were going to happen, so we made sure that there would be compensation if they do. For those who take out insurance anyway, but even the government made a deal with a conglomeration of motor insurers which made up the Motor Insurers Bureau, the MIB, and they cover uninsured or untraced drivers to make sure that everybody who's driving, even if they don't have their own policy of insurance, which is against the law I might add, and they might suffer some criminal penalties if they're found, but nonetheless every victim would be compensated. So at the end of the day, what's the solution that the law should adopt? Well, it's up to you to decide what you think the law should be doing, but let's consider the other reasons we might compensate. We've noticed that in this particular instance we seem to be using a standard close to risk, or at least that was in the view of Lord Denning, whereas Lord Justice McGaw said that it's not quite the same thing as fault, but it is nonetheless closely related to the idea of fault. It might not be moral fault, but it would be something else. Perhaps we could instead have a system of no fault liability. Now, this was what was proposed in fact in England in the Pearson Commission a number of years ago, and it's never been acted upon, but we've had a Royal Commission propose this. Now, that kind of system would mean that you wouldn't claim fault. You wouldn't allege that the other person was at fault. You would just, if you were a pedestrian who is injured by a driver, ask for their contact details, their insurer, and claim against the insurer, and you wouldn't argue that the driver was at fault. This kind of system operates in many countries, particularly in Europe. It's very, very similar, and it's very, very popular across many countries. So France is a famous example, so is Germany. This system costs a lot less to run, and more money inside the system goes on compensating those who suffer harm rather than paying for proving different bits and pieces and litigating. Now, this kind of system is perfectly simple enough, though it does tend to get complicated not when you are a pedestrian or a passenger being injured by a driver, but when two drivers injure each other or damage each other's property. In which case sometimes we might let fault back in to help to calculate how much each insurer should pay. But that doesn't inherently mean that the system itself is not good. Having a system of no fault liability, sometimes called strict liability for road traffic, is very common, and actually England is one of the exceptions. But some countries take it very far. So in New Zealand, for instance, and to some extent in Sweden, you take out first party insurance. Now, that's not third party, which is what you might be used to for a car. You, the first party, take out a contract with the insurer, the second party, in case you damage anyone else or their property, the third party. First party insurance means you take out insurance in case you're injured or your property is damaged. This means that instead of suing for any torts, not just in road traffic situations, you would sue no one. You would just claim on the insurance system. I mean, in some situations, maybe it's different if there was an intentional crime or intentional tort. Maybe there would be some difference. And maybe the state body will sue the individual potentially to recover some money from them for the harm they've caused to you. But as a general statement, you as the victim don't worry about those things. Now, this system has some pluses and it has some minuses. What do you think about it? Do you think it loses some of the value of tort law? Or do you think the higher priority should be making sure as many people as possible get compensation? And let's face it, most people don't have the facility to sue when they suffer harm. They don't have the money, they don't have the time, and they don't have the energy. And this system avoids that, making sure that more people get compensation because they're essentially just making a claim on their insurance. Now, finally, you may recall that Mrs Weston was convicted of a criminal offence. Do you think that's relevant to the tort claim? Lord Denning mentioned briefly how the criminal conviction could be evidence in a later civil claim. This is under the Civil Evidence Act 1968 Section 11. It's not conclusive, it's just evidence. There may be reasons for why the criminal conviction doesn't necessarily tell you what you need to know and it may not be right for a criminal, sorry, for a civil trial. Now, why do you think that would be? Surely if the criminal court has said you're liable for something, you must be liable in civil law for the same kind of events. I won't get into this in too much detail because this is a bit of a passion of mine, but what I will say to you is this. Can you imagine that for a low level criminal wrong, like a road traffic offence, maybe you don't contest it very carefully because you think it's just a few points in your licence in 100 or 150 pound fine? Whereas if for the same events you get a claim in civil law for 1,000 pounds, 10,000 pounds for damage done to another vehicle at the same time, you might start taking more notice. Indeed, your insurer who's going to pay this might force you to take notice to just take control and bring a lot more evidence and contest the claim much more carefully. And in which case it wouldn't necessarily be right that the conviction determined the civil claim because I think for understandable reasons the civil claim has more force for you and more evidence was being brought.