The calls from the CWU come after Angela Smith MP advised that the law should be updated so that workers can claim for compensation if they are attacked and injured by dogs on private land. An amendment of the Act could also allow the owner to be prosecuted if a claim is made.

Workers that regularly travel to and enter people’s homes, such as nurses, police officers, utilities workers and postal staff, are at a high risk of suffering personal injury as a result of dog attacks. However, at present the law does not cover incidents that take place on private property.

Billy Hayes, the general secretary of the CWU, claims that around 6,000 postal staff are injured in dog attacks every year, but up to 70 per cent of these incidents happen on private land, where the law currently does not apply.

“Angela Smith’s Bill comes not a moment too soon,” he said. “The Dangerous Dogs laws in the UK currently leave thousands of postal workers at risk from debilitating dog attacks with no legal right to pursue damages or to have action taken against dangerous dogs and their owners.”

“If a person wishes to own an animal, particularly a dog, then they have a duty to ensure that it doesn’t cause personal injury and damage,” he added.

Legal Prudence and the American Jury identified the spread of plaintiff-unfriendly legal practices as one of the major problems facing the civil justice system. It said that major corporations, along with other pro-business proponents of tort reform legislation, have systematically engaged in a deliberate and persistent campaign against plaintiffs, their personal injury lawyers, and consumer protection laws.

NAPIL.com, which carried out the survey, said that in an effort to limit consumer protection, tort reform advocates have argued that American corporations are beset by immoral, unscrupulous trial lawyers who file unmeritorious lawsuits, including those for personal injury and rely on unethical tactics for the purposes of obtaining large, unjustified verdicts.

It has resulted in a severe bias among potential jurors who routinely blame plaintiffs for increased insurance costs, and either rule against plaintiffs or award insufficient damages for personal injury, said NAPIL.com.

The ultimate risk is that such rhetoric could lead to arcane legislation such as the MICRA laws, which burden only plaintiffs who have suffered the most horrific personal injuries, restricting their non-economic damages to no more than $250,000.