The provision of some sort of financial compensation in cases where there has been a genuine loss through the the misdoings of others is an admirable concept. However, it is very difficult to align a set amount of financial compensation with any particular 'loss', as some people bear hardship more readily than others. The silly amounts of damages reported, particularly from the USA, has given rise to the claims culture whereby people are awarded sums in respect of ridiculous accidents which would have been avoided but for a good dose of common sense, or which are simply part of the risk that comes with being alive. It has not been helped by sympathetic courts which see to kowtow to human rights legislation and allow claims that are patently ridiculous - especially for things like 'hurt feelings'. Don't get me wrong - there is a place for the "breadwinner" argument, but I fear that there is no clear distinction between deserving and undeserving cases, and it serves the self-interest of the claims management industry to press on with as many claims as possible.