Unhappy? Oh, just go and sue someone

10:08am Saturday 15th March 2008

Comments (0)   Have your say »

EVERYONE and their granny knows that where there's blame, there's a claim - thanks to our surreal suing culture.

Alexander Martin-Sklan this week launched and lost a £300,000 action against his local M&S after he slipped on a grape in the store's car park. This appalling incident resulted, Mr Martin-Sklan alleged, in a torn leg tendon, loss of confidence and depression.

Obviously, I don't want to make light of the poor man's injuries, but that was one heck of a grape. That kind of trauma I'd expect from, say, a watermelon at the very least; but a teensy grape?

Needless to say he represented himself, probably because even the dodgiest of claims companies would have laughed him off the telephone. At least he didn't win. Stranger things have happened.

Such as the woman in the United States who bought one of those monster vans, put on the cruise control or auto pilot and went off to make herself a cup of tea while on the freeway. She was gob smacked when it crashed and successfully sued the company that sold her it for a ridiculous sum.

Just how, exactly, was it the company's fault that the woman had less common sense than your average chav who robs the shop next door without wearing a mask? I find it difficult to fathom how the judge reached the decision in favour of the claimant - clearly it wasn't American TV's Judge Judy presiding.

The line between genuine negligence and good old stupidity hasn't so much been blurred as trampled on completely until it's un-recognisable - a bit like the tragic grape in the aforementioned story.

Nothing irritates me more than people who are unable to own up to their own stupidity because they made a fool of themselves in Sainsbury's car park or suffered a mishap after they blatantly ignored warnings because they knew better.

After much discussion in the pub, my friends and I concluded there should be a Common Sense Law introduced, which covers all consequences which are a direct result of utter and total lack of common sense by the persons involved.

It's a fairly simple concept and we think it would catch on and be used often - there are a lot of daft folk in the world, after all. I have no idea why it's never been implemented before - although I have my suspicions that the powers-that-be were worried about just how often such a law would be used.

Almost anything can be turned around to warrant some kind of claim: an uneven pavement, a patch of ice, a pair of four-inch killer heels, a pack of cigarettes and, as previously mentioned, various foodstuffs.

We love laying the blame at the feet of somebody else, usually a corporate body - and the bigger the better.

Part of the problem is the continuing cycle of change to health and safety rules. Take warning signs, for example. Once, if an area was slippery, signs had to be put up to let people know and you would think folk would be grateful for the warning. Instead, if any injuries occurred, it was a green light to sue.

So it was decided to remove the signs and let people discover the hazard for themselves. But that didn't work either. So the signs came back.

Of course, there are genuine cases of injury as a direct result of negligence, but the custom of suing anyone and everyone to get a bit of compensation overshadows the sincere claimants (you know, those who cite back injuries and don't go playing golf every weekend).

So we return to the Common Sense Law. The more I think about it, the more it seems like a good scheme. Yes, there's the question of what counts as lack of common sense and who makes the decision, but those finer details can be thrashed out at a later date.

I think I'll start a campaign, maybe even a petition, take it all the way to Parliament.

Oh hang on really it should go to those who have a shred of common sense, which may rule out the very people who can help make it law. Unfortunately, there may be a fatal flaw in the plan after all.