File: ErinMacroFinal.DOC Created on: 6/28/2004 6:54 PM Last Printed: 6/30/2004 7:26 PM
1310 BROOK. J. INT’L L. [Vol. 29:3
situation against the backdrop of Welsh rugby’s troubled road
to professionalization and the nation’s widespread economic
depression is crucial to understanding the Court’s decision to
compensate Vowles at the WRU’s expense.
15
That Vowles’s injuries were emotionally and physically dev-
astating does not distinguish him from any catastrophically in-
jured plaintiff. His loss of livelihood, however, was three-fold:
Vowles was a Commonwealth Games boxer who had gone pro-
fessional in addition to amateur rugby.
16
Like many amateur
rugby players, Vowles also had a day job to support himself.
17
His club, Llanharan, was semi-professional which meant that it
ranked just below Wales’s top leagues.
18
If Vowles received any
compensation from the WRU at all, it was insufficient to sup-
port himself.
19
The Vowles decision emerged amidst widespread criticism of
the UK’s “compensation culture.”
20
“Compensation culture” en-
Mrs. Palsgraf was far more seriously injured, both physically and emotionally,
than any first-year torts student would infer from reading the case. See id. at
2-9.
15. Rabin argues that “Behind each notable case are a host of concerns and
considerations that are hidden even from the discerning eye…much more can
be learned from digging beneath the surface to find out more about the par-
ties, the events giving rise to the claimed injury, and the corresponding con-
text of socio-economic circumstances in which the case arose. Id. at 1.
16. WRU Wins Right to Appeal Claim, T
HE WESTERN MAIL, Feb. 18, 2003.
17. E.g., Vowles was an upholsterer. See Turner, supra note 5.
18. Id.
19. During the trial, Justice Morland, who had played rugby in his youth,
asked whether Vowles received “boot money,” meaning a nominal sum to
cover his expenses. Vowles responded jokingly, “No, your Honour, I was not
that good.” Id.
20. During the summer of 2003, for example, the U.K. government un-
veiled a redress plan for victims of clinical negligence, known as medical mal-
practice in the U.S. See Jon Robins, The Government is Hoping to Dig Itself
Out of a Hole with its New 30K NHS Redress Scheme. But Will Victims of
Negligence Get Short Changed?, T
HE LAWYER, July 21, 2003, available at 2003
WL 61848856. The package of reforms offers payments of up to £30,000 for
victims of clinical negligence without litigation. Id. While proponents of the
reforms claim that foregoing litigation is not a prerequisite to recovering the
£30,000, a Nottingham personal injury lawyers said that “…you can bet your
bottom dollar the first thing that will happen is that all legal aid is with-
drawn, on the basis that you have to go through with the scheme.” Id. Many
personal injury lawyers and victims’ rights activists were outraged by the
reforms. See id. Peter Walsh, chief executive of Action for Victims of Medical
Accidents, pointed out that those injured in car accidents or at work have “no