9780198925231-Ch1

20

CHAPTER 1 Introduction

The problem is, as we noted earlier, that the imposition of tortious liability does not simply deter potentially negligent conduct but risks stopping the activity from happening in the first place ‘just in case’. 77 The deterrent effect of tort law is also weakened by the presence of insurance. The incentive to be careful is somewhat less strong when the result will merely be a rise in insurance premiums rather than having to bear a hefty compensation payout one self. The financial impact on careless drivers of losing their ‘no claims bonus’ coupled with higher premiums for those who fall into certain ‘risky’ categories does not always appear to have a significant deterrent effect. Though there may be more of such effect where insurance companies, as perhaps in relation to employers’ or occupiers’ liability, themselves put pres sure on defendants to comply with safety regulations and meet other standards before agree ing to provide insurance. 1.3.4 Vindication Finally, tort actions can be brought to prove what the claimant thought happened to be cor rect, to find out ‘what really happened’. What happened in the operating theatre? On the slopes of Mont Blanc? 78 Or during a police raid in which a loved one died? 79 At Canning Town tube station? 80 Or on the streets of Omagh? 81 This is often coupled with a wish to gain publicity about what has happened—to ‘stop it from ever happening again’. This is frequently the line taken by relatives of those killed and injured by another’s negligence, including Gerry Hedley’s wife, Lydia. 82 Consider also the claims of the friends and family of those killed in the Hillsborough Stadium disaster ( Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] ) 83 or that of Dwayne Brooks against the Metropolitan Police following the murder of his friend, Stephen Lawrence ( Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2005]). 84

The Omagh bombing

78. Another reason Hedley’s widow sued in Woodroffe-Hedley was because she wanted to know what had happened on the mountain (the French police had refused to give her the accident report). 79. Ashley v Chief Constable of West Sussex Police [2008]. 80. Ovu v London Underground Ltd [2021] . 81. Breslin v McKenna [2009]. 82. See Younge n37 . 83. Discussed in section 5.6 . 84. Brooks is discussed in Chapter 6 . The facts of both Brooks and Alcock sparked government inquiries: The Right Reverend James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool The Report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel (12 September 2012); Sir William Macpherson of Cluny Report on the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry (Cm 4262-I 1999). In April 2016, in what has been described as the victims’ families’ ‘day of vindication’, a new inquest found that the 96 people who died in the Hillsborough Stadium disaster had been unlawfully killed (David Conn ‘Hillsborough inquests jury rules 96 victims were unlawfully killed’ The Guardian 26 April 2016). 77. See e.g. Jonathan Clement ‘Compensation fears force schools to cancel trips’ Law Society Gazette 29 January 2009. Twenty-nine people—including a woman who was pregnant with twins—were killed and over 300 people were injured by a 500lb bomb in Omagh, a town in County Tyrone, Northern Ireland in August 1998. Although the bomb was ‘claimed’ by the Real IRA, no one has been convicted in a criminal court in relation to the bombing, which has been described as ‘the single worst → PROPERTY OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS