HAVE you ever accidentally slipped on a wet floor, tripped on a kerb or slid down a ladder? Then, with respect, you’ve been a clumsy so-and-so.

Yet, there’s a whole industry poised to swing into action to blame someone else for your own inattention and, what’s more, win you money. TV ads fronted by C-rated ‘personalities’, often way past their sell-by date, will promise you thousands in compensation. ‘We’re awaiting your call!’

Like so many of the litigious evils that plague modern civil living, the trend began in the United States. I remember first hearing the term ‘ambulance chaser’ at the time in my youth when I really thought such a person was a member of the emergency services, acting like the fire chief in American movies who would scream to incidents in his patrol car behind gleaming appliances.

It was from America, I recall, we began hearing stories of the ludicrous ends to which compensation was being demanded: a matron suing a fast food outlet when she spilled coffee over herself, because it was hot!
Caught on CCTV, a minor traffic accident in Boston involving a bus which, when the doors opened, was immediately colonised by ‘passengers’ clutching ribs, legs and necks, and claiming whip-lash injuries and the like.
This creative business opportunity has spread like a rash. Camden Council, in London, keeps a fund available for serial pavement trippers, which inevitably has greater call upon it when times are hard, or the call of a Kilburn pub is greater than the ‘readies’ in the pocket.

‘I’ll sue you’, has become so universal a response to any perceived slight that it has found its way into many a comedy routine. But it isn’t funny to be on the receiving end of such pernicious claims.

The practice plumbed new depths recently in the case of a mother suing her own daughter over the latter’s unflattering recollections of childhood related in an unremarkable autobiography.

There’s a deeply sinister side, too. Mischievous claims against individuals or institutions are on the increase. They provide a lucrative avenue for a branch of the legal profession whose interest lies as much in the length of the proceedings, the cost per hour/day, than the ultimate result or even the justice of the settlement.

The problem is that, rather than become involved in long, drawn-out and costly litigation, many respondents pay out, so the grab culture flourishes. And it goes right to the top. The Metropolitan Police, for example, has for several years been hobbled by non-achievers alleging discrimination in all quarters, particularly race – a taboo which is almost guaranteed to open purses, spurred on by avaricious or politically-inspired lawyers of dubious repute, shamelessly unconcerned for the damage caused by their malicious litigation.

The most recent case involving a high-ranking serial claimant was, yet again, settled out of court, though with a payment considerably reduced from the lottery figures he was demanding. Given the perverse nature of our PC culture, the fear of attracting opprobrium by standing up to such exploitation only removes the catch from whatever door the plaintiffs choose to push against.

Not surprisingly, high-profile, high-paying settlements give the press a field-day to indulge in easy crowd-pleasing judgmental rhetoric. But their quest for bait is not a difficult one. Barely a week ago, an employment tribunal awarded £200,000 to a female soldier in the British Army for hurt feelings in settlement of a case of ‘sexual pestering’ by a fellow NCO.

This recompense way exceeded compensation paid to soldiers in the front line whose lives have been shattered by severe injury sustained in conflict under orders. The maximum MoD pay-out for injuries, by the way, is £285,000.

The expectation of much gain for little pain is, indeed, the lever that ratchets up your insurance premiums. It is absolutely right that we can call on a safety net for victims of accident or genuine misfortune, but who can deny hearing accounts of wildly inflated claims for recompense? ‘That’s OK, it’s an insurance job’, has never been such a double whammy.

Now there’s a deep perversity in all this. If I were accidentally to cause you to suffer injury of body or perception, you could sue me in the expectation that the court might award compensation for whatever damage you felt you’d incurred.

But if I were a common ‘hard-pad’ and had deliberately set out to rob you of your possessions or cause you harm, the chances of your recouping any redress while I resided in the comfort of Her Majesty’s pleasure would be extremely remote. I would represent a poor return for any compensation or, indeed, legal fees.

The accusation-for-gain circus is but one aspect of the general ‘blame culture’ we’ve created to deflect responsibility away from our own actions.

Blaming ‘the system’ is another convenient diversionary tactic. Yet responsibility is the crux, whether it be for personal actions or those taken on behalf of others. We live in an imperfect world where mistakes are made and accidents do happen. Certainly, it would be hard to expect anyone to come to your aid if, at a later time, you might take them to task if things turned out not as you had wished.

Indeed, it was reported recently that paramedics had been instructed not to run to the aid of victims to ensure that they didn’t arrive out of breath and risk being subsequently blamed or sued for not carrying out their job properly.

So, the next time you shoot yourself in the foot, maybe it would be worth pausing before suing the gun manufacturer. He’s probably gone out of business anyway.