• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Compensation culture


Ruff says Flaherty

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
1,494


sic transit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
25,549
€70,000 for spilling a drink on himself? Ludicrous

Nigerians I believe.
Nothing to do with who they were. On balance Aer Lingus would have lost as the kid got scalded. They obviously concluded it was best all round to settle this even at that large sum.
 

Ruff says Flaherty

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
1,494
Nothing to do with who they were. On balance Aer Lingus would have lost as the kid got scalded. They obviously concluded it was best all round to settle this even at that large sum.
But he spilt it on himself while his father was there. I just don't see how Aer lingus were in any way to blame
 

sic transit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
25,549
But he spilt it on himself while his father was there. I just don't see how Aer lingus were in any way to blame
No liability admitted but they sold it to him so poor duty of care given how hot it was or just poor design of the receptacle. They would have lost. PR is better this way than facing a child with a scald mark from one of their flights, in court. Sure it's high but there was an incident with injury and it's their insurance, their choice.
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
11,640
But he spilt it on himself while his father was there. I just don't see how Aer lingus were in any way to blame
They weren't. The father was between the child and the person handing over the cup. No rational person could find fault with the airline. We can blame these crazy judges for creating this belief that once something bad happens to someone, they are entitled to tens of thousands in compensation. These cases are supposed to be based on the law of negligence, not as some quasi social-welfare net for people who want to blame someone else for their own mistakes.

We all pay for this sh!t, through higher airfares, insurance costs etc etc.
 

Polybius

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2015
Messages
4,512
The Irish judiciary are a class of foolish parasites who do enormous damage to this country. Most are political cronies who have been promoted way beyond their competencies.
 

Ardillaun

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
11,395
I know the Indo is baiting me here but I can’t resist clicking:

No solicitor has ever been investigated for knowingly helping a client bring a fraudulent case, despite insurers probing hundreds of potentially bogus claims.

Insurance costs are soaring, and high levels of fraud have been blamed - with claimants even flying into Ireland to bring injury claims due to high payouts here.
Business groups stung by high costs have demanded that "ambulance-chasing" lawyers are thoroughly investigated and brought to book.

But the Irish Independent has confirmed that not one solicitor has been investigated for bringing a case they knew to be fraudulent by the Law Society, the body which represents solicitors in Ireland.

Similarly, nobody has ever been prosecuted for insurance fraud or perjury in such cases meaning that people who lie in court are escaping unpunished.
The nonsensical bilge from the Law Society spokesperson on this outrageous situation is designed to do me serious injury:

Ken Murphy, director general of the Law Society, said if a solicitor was found to have acted for a client when they knew a personal injuries claim was fraudulent, that would likely be "career-ending for that solicitor".

However, he said no such case has ever been referred by a judge to the Law Society for investigation.

"If a judge, in a civil action for damages, believes there is evidence that a solicitor in the case has knowingly colluded in the bringing of a fraudulent claim, the judge can refer the matter to the Law Society for investigation," Mr Murphy said. "The society will immediately investigate the matter and, if the evidence warranted, bring the matter before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

"However, no such reference by a judge to the Law Society, that a solicitor in a case has knowingly colluded in the bringing of a fraudulent claim, has ever been made."

No solicitor probed for colluding with to bring fraudulent claims - Independent.ie
I shall consult my legal team forthwith.
 

Roberto Jordan

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
2,076
No liability admitted but they sold it to him so poor duty of care given how hot it was or just poor design of the receptacle. They would have lost. PR is better this way than facing a child with a scald mark from one of their flights, in court. Sure it's high but there was an incident with injury and it's their insurance, their choice.
Not necessarily. I remember having to watch the "hot coffee" documentary for a class on corporate liability - in that case the facts at first make it seem like a spurious case with over large settlement but goes on to show how evidence showed there was a systemic issue in the serving temperature of Mickey D's coffee.
In the presence of simialr issue here a simialr liability could be justified. But in the absence of it , it woudl be more like the tabloid presentation.

As you note EI probably just want to avoid court and inevitable loss given that Irish courts seem to believe nothing should happen to anyone ever in their course of their lives and the "bubble boys" level of interaction with the world is teh baseline against which any incident should be measured.
 

Roberto Jordan

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
2,076
I know the Indo is baiting me here but I can’t resist clicking:



The nonsensical bilge from the Law Society spokesperson on this outrageous situation is designed to do me serious injury:



I shall consult my legal team forthwith.
While having to listen the law society is a pain the reality is that even if they were being candid it would be "yeah we know he's a scumbag, but can we prove it in a court of law?"
I like teh "career ending" bit.....surely theres lots of ambulance chasers for whom this behavior is actually "career making".....I'm sure there are Seinfeld-esque conversations in certain litigous circles about who the best "whiplash guy" is or where to go for the best return on slips trips and falls....
 

sic transit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
25,549
Not necessarily. I remember having to watch the "hot coffee" documentary for a class on corporate liability - in that case the facts at first make it seem like a spurious case with over large settlement but goes on to show how evidence showed there was a systemic issue in the serving temperature of Mickey D's coffee.
In the presence of similar issue here a similar liability could be justified. But in the absence of it , it would be more like the tabloid presentation.

As you note EI probably just want to avoid court and inevitable loss given that Irish courts seem to believe nothing should happen to anyone ever in their course of their lives and the "bubble boys" level of interaction with the world is the baseline against which any incident should be measured.
Yeah PR and more likely to have been paid IMO as an expense rather than through an insurance premium hit.
 

toughbutfair

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
9,767
We should have the power to fire judges who aren’t working as we employ them for. They settled as they feared another stupid judge would award even more. If you give me 70k I will allow you spill a hot drink on me.

500k for the girl illegally jumping on a lúas was the nadar in our compensation culture.
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
11,640
Girl awarded €35,000 after breaking ankle in back yard of home
There's been a few cases like this recently. One was a guy (coming home from the pub) slipping on his own wet porch. But because it was a council house, it was actually the council's porch and they were liable.

In this case it seems it's her mother's home, rented from Dublin City Council. How is Dublin City Council responsible here? Are they actually required to provide a billiard table standard back garden for all their tenants? I really doubt that....
 

Round tower

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
6,978
That the house was belonging to the LA so it had a inspection and a maintenance function, more imprtantly their haad being complaints to the LA about the condition of the backyard
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
11,640
That the house was belonging to the LA so it had a inspection and a maintenance function, more imprtantly their haad being complaints to the LA about the condition of the backyard
Well the LA should have replied - you're not actually entitled to a perfect playground, so if it's not up to standard then don't use it. And if you do use it, we aren't responsible. So, maybe if there is a pot hole, you can fill it with a bucket of sand..
 

Ardillaun

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
11,395
Oh dear, whiplash awards can’t be cut because there would be very considerable difficulties, not least for our learned friends who do so well out of them:

Government plans to cut personal injury awards have been shot down by judges amid fears they would be open to a raft of legal challenges.
Senior judges have warned a stop-gap measure proposed by Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan to bring down the size of awards for minor injuries might not stand up if tested in court.
Mr Flanagan had wanted judges to participate in a group with officials from the Department of Justice and the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) to revise guideline award levels for less serious injuries such as whiplash.
However, after consulting with other senior judges, Chief Justice Frank Clarke told the minister there were "very considerable legal difficulties" with the proposals. In a letter obtained by the Irish Independent, he said what was proposed "would almost certainly lead to a succession of challenges".

Look at that pic - sums up the problem. Ireland needs a raft of constitutional changes to be fit for purpose.
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
11,640
I'd actually agree with the chief justice on that. You can't change the system on the basis of a nod and a wink. There would have to be some proper legal instrument which underpins the change. If it can't be something simple, it will have to be actually recalibrating the BOQ and putting it on a statutory basis.

Extraordinary case this here:

32 million in compensation awarded and parents thought it should have been more. While I have no doubt that the child's problems are genuine and negligence may have occurred this is absolute madness. What happened to the system of periodic payments that was supposed to be brought in?
The full cost of care he said will be included in the settlement and also so that Benjamin can attend a specialist school 80 kilometres from his London home and transport there and back.
There must be a more efficient way of delivering the kind of care to a child like this, on an ongoing basis for the rest of their life. Why is the Irish tax payer required to fund treatment in London for instance, and buy him a house in one of the most expensive cities in the world? What if the family had moved to Monte Carlo, would we have had to buy a house there? There seems to be no sense of perspective or that tax revenue is not a bottomless source of funds.

For that kind of money, surely the health service here could establish a unit to cater for children like this and take care of a number of them, rather than replicating expensive solutions individually wherever the familes decide to go in the world.
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
6,591
Well the LA should have replied - you're not actually entitled to a perfect playground, so if it's not up to standard then don't use it. And if you do use it, we aren't responsible. So, maybe if there is a pot hole, you can fill it with a bucket of sand..
Bull. One of the reasons these awards are so high is lack of accountability. Here is a clear case of the council reneging on a role, complaints piling up, then the inevitable happens.
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
11,640
Bull. One of the reasons these awards are so high is lack of accountability. Here is a clear case of the council reneging on a role, complaints piling up, then the inevitable happens.
How do you know the hole in the ground wasn't made by the occupants of the house? Take a look at the photo of it. It seems to be an imprint of something rather than wear and tear. Even if you were to hold the LA to some extraordinarily high standard where they install a completely risk free surface, what's to stop someone from damaging it themselves and then a child falling

And why 35K? The child was immobilised for 5 weeks, but made a full recovery.
 

artfoley56

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
9,658
I'd actually agree with the chief justice on that. You can't change the system on the basis of a nod and a wink. There would have to be some proper legal instrument which underpins the change. If it can't be something simple, it will have to be actually recalibrating the BOQ and putting it on a statutory basis.

Extraordinary case this here:

32 million in compensation awarded and parents thought it should have been more. While I have no doubt that the child's problems are genuine and negligence may have occurred this is absolute madness. What happened to the system of periodic payments that was supposed to be brought in?

There must be a more efficient way of delivering the kind of care to a child like this, on an ongoing basis for the rest of their life. Why is the Irish tax payer required to fund treatment in London for instance, and buy him a house in one of the most expensive cities in the world? What if the family had moved to Monte Carlo, would we have had to buy a house there? There seems to be no sense of perspective or that tax revenue is not a bottomless source of funds.

For that kind of money, surely the health service here could establish a unit to cater for children like this and take care of a number of them, rather than replicating expensive solutions individually wherever the familes decide to go in the world.
Putting the BoQ won't suffice, you'd need to amend art 34 as well
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top