[Stuart]

You can argue that insurance should be mandatory (and I think it probably should), but where does it end? Years ago, I was in a lift at Gatwick, the doors opened, and because I was struggling a bit to get my nan's heavy luggage out of the lift, the person behind me pushed the wheelchair he was pushing into the back of my legs. I was wearing shorts, and the footrests of the chair ran up the back of my calves, quite badly scratching them.

In that case, the "carer" who pushed the chair got some quite harsh words from me and I got out, but should the disabled person (who was probably innocent in all of this) in the chair have had insurance? After all, I could have been quite badly injured, and in this day and age, I could have sued. Actually, I suspect in that case, insurance wouldn't have covered him as the company would have claimed it was a deliberate act whether it was or not.

I think the problem here is No Win No Fee. This is a fine idea in theory, but the way it's being used, too many people are being sued for the most trivial of things. There was a programme on Channel 4 a while back (which was repeated a couple of nights ago) covering the actions a local council is taking to defend themselves against this. They had one case of a woman who sued because her son tripped and stubbed his toe on slightly raised paving slab! My mum would have made sure I was physically OK (no broken toes for instance) then told me not to worry about it and go about my business, she wouldn't have sued.