Proceeding contribution from Earl of Erroll (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 20 December 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Compensation Bill [HL].
Compensation Bill [HL]
The amendment does not say that an admission of guilt after saying sorry will be ignored. The example of running into the back of someone’s car is a bad one, because one may well then blurt on that one was listening to the Test match, or something idiotic like that. That is an admission of guilt. I am thinking more about someone, let us say, twisting his ankle on a step in a park somewhere and the owner of the park says, ““Oh, gosh, I am sorry””. This step is there, and there will be a huge issue about whether the owner of the park is liable for the step or for a pothole which has grown over a while. There are lots of instances where a little word of sorry may well sort out the matter where there is not really a huge liability issue. There is a huge difference between the two things.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 676 c283GC
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Complaints Compensation Abuse Courts Damages Advertising Evidence Drugs Drunkenness NHS Personal injury Local government finance Public bodies Marketing Negligence Schools Regulation Voluntary work Risk assessment Claims management services
- Legislation
- Compensation Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-22 02:22:09 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_288766
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_288766
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_288766