Compensation Bill [HL]

I can see this may have some value and it may be worth talking about. For instance, a typical example of pre Tomlinson where the court seemed to do something very strange would be Craddock v Juan (1) Dr J A Farrer and (2) The Scout Association. The date of the accident was 25 July 1995. The scout troop had organised a visit to a popular show cave at Gaping Ghyll. Some parents had gone along as well. One of the scouts asked permission to look at a cave across a stream. The scout leader refused permission. So the scout went off and asked his father. The father said, ““Why not?”” and went off with the son. He gave him a cigarette lighter. They went into the cave. The scout slipped, fell down a chimney and was killed. The other son continued as a member of the same scout group for another two years. Only after the son had left the scout group did the father sue the Scout Association. The judge found in favour of the claimant, saying that as he was born in a city he could not have been expected to recognise the dangers and that the scout leader should have prevented the father entering the cave with his son. In failing to do so he breached his duty of care. But how on earth will you do that? Are you meant to watch the father and son very carefully while also keeping an eye on the rest of the group? Are you supposed to rush across the stream and physically restrain him? That is a typical example of a very strange judgment. I cannot see why it happened. It may be that it should have been appealed, but where will the money come from? That is a typical case where you could say that there was a duty of care, but then say that because the father was so idiotic and there was no way that the chap could have restrained him, therefore it was 100 per cent contributory negligence. I merely offer it as a possible example to help the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.