Civil Liability Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Rory Stewart and Jack Brereton

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th September 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Rory Stewart]

Thank you very much, Mr Stringer. Those two arguments were based on the question of frequency of travel and probability of an accident. Again, the key point in any form of injury claim is the nature of the injury and the liability of the third party that caused it, not the reason someone is in a car. It would be difficult to argue that somebody who travels in the course of their employment is necessarily travelling more frequently than somebody who is not. Somebody in a rural area might, for example, be commuting 5 miles to work in the morning and 5 miles back in the evening. A farmer in my constituency could be travelling between one field and another. There is no necessary reason to feel that they would be travelling more frequently than, for example, a parent taking their child to school in exactly the same area.

Arguments based on frequency or probability of impact should not be relevant. A more fundamental reason is that, in the end, the law is about the injury and the obligation that the third party who caused the injury owes to the injured person, regardless of how frequently that individual is in a car or why they are in a car in the first place. To be blunt, they could simply have gone to the car to get something from it, and could not be driving anywhere, and be struck and suffer whiplash. They would be entitled to exactly the same compensation as an individual driving that car.

[Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the numbers applicable to amendment 9 would be negligible because most of the claims would be against a third party, not the employer?

[Rory Stewart]

Yes, I agree, but the key point is the injury, not why someone is in the car. This is a distinction without a difference.