Its value lies not it its undoubted academic content, but moreso in the way that it allows the personal injury lawyer, obsessed with case law, legislation and day to day practicalities, to "take a step back" to look at the broader picture of compensation (from whatever source) for the victims of accident or disease.

Professor Cane's common theme throughout the book is the unfairness of the tort system. Why do such a small percentage of the injured (6.5% according to the Pearson Commission in 1978) get compensation as they can find someone liable in negligence when so many others must rely on relatively low levels of social security benefits?

The proposal is the adoption of a more egalitarian system of "no-fault" compensation, such as exists in New Zealand. This would compensate more people (at a lower level) and would be far cheaper to administer.

As Professor Cane notes, there are vested interests in our current system who would oppose such a move (at times it reads more like a Stephen King novel to lawyers!) and drawbacks to a "no-fault" scheme.

My criticism is lack of analysis of these drawbacks. In particular Professor Cane only briefly mentions the very serious problem of fraud in the UK's social security system.

The other problem is reliance upon old data, in particular from the Pearson Commission, which is now nearly 30 years old. Is the 6.5% recovery rate still realistic in today's more "sophisticated" consumer climate of widespread media accident-claim advertising etc.?

This is, nonetheless, a highly recommended book that provides plenty of "food for thought" in considering the ways that victims of accident and disease receive compensation.

John Kilmister, Solicitor and member of The Law Society's Personal Injury Panel.