Can you sue a criminal for damages

Shelflife

Just wondering about this, in the case of the man who knocked down the burgular, could he in turn sue the burgular for damages?

Ie stress and peace of mind for him and his family as a result of the break in?

Maybe he could get some of the insurance claim back.

coylemj

Yes you can but in practice getting payment would be a lost cause. It's really only worth suing someone if there's an insurance company ready to pick up the tab or the defendant (the person being sued) has fixed assets so under threat of sending in the sheriff they will usually pay up.

In the case you mention I doubt if the individual has a bank account or owns a house & from the look of him I'd say he's blown every cent of the insurance money already.

Shelflife

Yeah prob be a lost cause alright, pity he didnt sue at the same time and stop the fecker from enjoying the payout.

krd

I know of a case that happened in Wexford years ago. Three guys broke into a factory. They couldn't find anything worth stealing, so they decided to do some damage. (they felt cheated, I suppose). They knocked over barrels of acid (obviously not knowing what it was). They were all splashed and received burns.

They sued. And they received an award. But the factory owner counter sued for criminal damage, and received the same amount as had been awarded to the burglars.

It's actually very annoying that someone in the course of criminal activity receives an injury, and is then entitled to sue for damages.

daltonmd

Shelflife wrote: »

Just wondering about this, in the case of the man who knocked down the burgular, could he in turn sue the burgular for damages?

Ie stress and peace of mind for him and his family as a result of the break in?

Maybe he could get some of the insurance claim back.

Covered here. Although it's very basic I have to say.

http://www.crimevictimshelpline.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11&Itemid=2

"What compensation is available to a victim of crime?
If you suffer injuries as a result of crime you may be entitled to compensation for medical and out of pocket expenses, including loss of earnings, which are incurred directly as a result of the crime. The crime must have been reported to the Gardaí. You should contact the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal and ask for an application form.
If the case goes to court and if someone is found guilty of the offence it may be part of the judge’s direction that compensation is paid to you by the offender. If the person does not have any means to pay compensation, it is unlikely that such an order would be made by the judge.
Your insurance company should compensate you for losses of insured property, or damage to insured property, but you may have to pay an increased insurance charge as a result of your claim."

Procrastastudy

krd wrote: »

It's actually very annoying that someone in the course of criminal activity receives an injury, and is then entitled to sue for damages.

How did they (even in theory) get an award? There would not have been Liability under the OLA. Surely in negligence simpliciter the judge would have withheld an award on public policy grounds?

Very likely I'm missing something so if you have time I'd be obliged for any enlightenment

EDIT: TO clarify I'm talking about the Wexford break in as there was no intentional harm there.

krd

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

How did they (even in theory) get an award? There would not have been Liability under the OLA. Surely in negligence simpliciter the judge would have withheld an award on public policy grounds?

Very likely I'm missing something so if you have time I'd be obliged for any enlightenment

EDIT: TO clarify I'm talking about the Wexford break in as there was no intentional harm there.

I'm not sure of the mechanics of what precisely happened. It was in the 90s. I heard the story from a few different people. I kind of felt it had the ring of an urban myth. But I asked people who claimed to have known the factory owner - and they repeated the story. It's a worry that people who store dangerous chemical (they're not dangerous unless someone knocks them over) have of someone breaking in and then injuring themselves and then suing. I could be wrong, but my understanding of the law, is a member of the public, enters a premises and injures themselves, the premise owner can be liable for their injury. And members of the public includes burglars.


There was a case in England a few years ago - A burglar broke into a factory. He couldn't find anything to steal, so he set the factory on fire, and then attempted to escape. He got jammed in the window he was trying to escape through and was burned to death. His family were paid compensation through the factory owner's insurance.

Predalien

Surely in scenarios where a burglar suffers injury on the premises they are stealing from then the basic neighbour principle wouldn't be satisfied? I can't see how anyone owes a duty of care to burglars, (except where the burglar is interrupted and the force used against them goes beyond what is reasonable in the circumstances).

Procrastastudy

There is a duty to care to trespassers under the Occupiers Liability Act. It doesn't apply to where a criminal act is taking place unless in the interests of justice. That may clarify some circumstances but doesn't seem to fit breaking into factories...

Edit Hmm 90's maybe there was some funky situation Post McNamara but before OLA... Healy on Torts time again

Predalien

Predalien wrote: »

Surely in scenarios where a burglar suffers injury on the premises they are stealing from then the basic neighbour principle wouldn't be satisfied? I can't see how anyone owes a duty of care to burglars, (except where the burglar is interrupted and the force used against them goes beyond what is reasonable in the circumstances).

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio perhaps?

http://www.claruspress.ie/tort%20journal%20issue%201/art4_dangerous%20drivers_vol1_iss1.pdf

krd

Duty of care to trespassers, is very difficult if you have dangerous chemicals or machinery on the premise. Normally, you would be exercising your duty of care to the public by not allowing them on the premise.

What are you suppose to do. Provide every trespasser with a hazard chem suit, gloves, a gas mask, a three week course on how to recognise and handle hazardous chemicals.

mcmoustache

Perhaps criminals should be compelled to take out third party liability insurance, much like drivers. I'm only half-joking here.

Would it be feasible for a judge to compel a criminal to take out some form of third-party liability insurance if they have a history of offences and little demonstrable desire to change? Could a judge hold the person in contempt on refusal?

I know that there would be issues with getting providers on board, figuring out the premiums and getting the criminal to pay and all that but from a legal point of view, would this be possible? I think it would be a good idea to transfer money from convicted criminals into a pot which would be used to pay awards to victims.

mcmoustache

mcmoustache wrote: »

Would it be feasible for a judge to compel a criminal to take out some form of third-party liability insurance if they have a history of offences and little demonstrable desire to change? Could a judge hold the person in contempt on refusal?

All insurance excludes recovery for criminal acts.

Delancey

A case I recall from some years ago was a Garda who was sued by his estranged wife for a serious eye injury she suffered when he assaulted her while he was driving.
She received substantial damages though I am unaware if this was covered by his motor insurance.

Just Jack

Delancey wrote: »

A case I recall from some years ago was a Garda who was sued by his estranged wife for a serious eye injury she suffered when he assaulted her while he was driving.
She received substantial damages though I am unaware if this was covered by his motor insurance.

a Garda Why not write a man who was sued by his estranged wife.?

Procrastastudy

krd wrote: »

Duty of care to trespassers, is very difficult if you have dangerous chemicals or machinery on the premise. Normally, you would be exercising your duty of care to the public by not allowing them on the premise.

What are you suppose to do. Provide every trespasser with a hazard chem suit, gloves, a gas mask, a three week course on how to recognise and handle hazardous chemicals.

The only duty you owe is to not act with "reckless disregard". Even that is eliminated/reduced in the case of criminal acts.