Jeremy Clarkson sued

[ECCOnoob]

The payout does seem grossly disproportionate to the injury sustained. If you compare it to the Criminal Injury Compensation scheme, he'd have had to have lost both arms to get an equivalent payout.

 

Really have no idea why licence fees are being given away for this.

 

Because the claim will have several elements and the assault itself is just a tiny part of it. You are right in that the punch and associated injuries is trivial.

 

What is not trivial is the BBC's vicarious liability for failing to control their employee and allowing it to happen on their watch. For the failure to deal with the situation accordingly after it happened. For allowing (directly or indirectly) the media to run with the story and thus splashing both parties all over the papers.

 

There is potential time off work, affects on future employment, potential slander and abuse suffered, injury to feelings etc etc.

 

All those can add up.

 

An employer is always responsible for their employees conduct in an active working environment and can be pursued accordingly, even if the actions of the individual employee was totally and utterly out of their control.

 

At the end of the day, is not "licence monies". Like any other organisation they have insurance. They will have vast reserves set aside for legal disputes and the insurers will be paying out accordingly. I bet the BBC Legal and Governance Department get dozens of proceedings served upon them each week. This one is just one of the more interesting ones.

Edited February 25, 2016 by ECCOnoob

[woodmally]

Because the claim will have several elements and the assault itself is just a tiny part of it. You are right in that the punch and associated injuries is trivial.

 

What is not trivial is the BBC's vicarious liability for failing to control their employee and allowing it to happen on their watch. For the failure to deal with the situation accordingly after it happened. For allowing (directly or indirectly) the media to run with the story and thus splashing both parties all over the papers.

 

There is potential time off work, affects on future employment, potential slander and abuse suffered, injury to feelings etc etc.

 

All those can add up.

 

An employer is always responsible for their employees conduct in an active working environment and can be pursued accordingly, even if the actions of the individual employee was totally and utterly out of their control.

 

At the end of the day, is not "licence monies". Like any other organisation they have insurance. They will have vast reserves set aside for legal disputes and the insurers will be paying out accordingly. I bet the BBC Legal and Governance Department get dozens of proceedings served upon them each week. This one is just one of the more interesting ones.

 

But it is licence fee money. As I assume if they make a claim on this insurance the premiums go up. Premiums that we will end up paying for.