Is an apology an admission of liability?

On the 7th march 2006 the House of Lords defeated Ministers on proposals to confront the ‘compensation culture’. There is a growing concern that people in fear of the intensifying ‘compensation culture’ are stopping many activities.

The House of Lords were defeated when peers voted 157 to 144 against the Government during the report stage of the Bill. The new amended bill introduces an opportunity for an apology without such equating to an admission of liability.

It is commonly known that people that have suffered negligence say that an apology at an early stage may have prevented litigation, however insurers’ advise their insured that an apology would effectively equate to an admission of liability.

Amendment

Part 1, subsection 2 of the amended Compensation Bill states:

‘an apology, an offer of treatment or other redress, shall not of itself amount to an admission of negligence or breach of statutory duty.

So how much of a distinction can be drawn between an apology and an admission of liability? As an insurer you are aware that people are advised to maintain as little contact with the claiming party as possible, even by way of a simple explanation of the accident, and not to apologise or offer any redress, so there is no risk of an admission of guilt. The amendments to the Compensation Bill allow a clear differentiation to be drawn between saying ‘I’m sorry’ and admitting liability or negligence.

The Government have urged that this approach may help to calm the atmosphere in compensation claims and may help to settle matters rather then costly and timely court hearings.
 

Change in law or change in attitude?

There is considerable concern that this new amendment and theoretical change in attitude may contradict current Compensation law. Is the perception that a mere apology for being the unwitting and unblameful cause of someone being hurt always going to be seen as an admission of guilt? Can a distinction be drawn between merely changing perceptions and not law?

Conservative Spokesperson Lord Hunt of Wirral stated that he wanted a change in attitude and perception that people cannot say ‘sorry’ and not a change in the law. 

Baroness Ashton in the House of Lords commented that ‘the principle behind saying, "I'm sorry", even if it means, "I'm sorry I didn't see you because you just did something stupid", is as relevant as saying, "I'm sorry I didn't see you because I just did something stupid". I agree with that’. She went to to say that despite this she could not accept the proposed amendment as accepting it would inevitably alter the law.

The question still remains unanswered, what is an appropriate apology that does not cross a boundary into being an admission of liability and who is to define this apology and boundary? In essence the common law will evolve and answer these over time.

Conclusion

The amendments to the Compensation Bill were passed in the House of Lords on 27th March 2006. As an insurer you should check the advice given to you insured. Offering redress and apologies no longer amount to an admission of liability therefore may save you expense and further improve the system for valid claims.