Woman claims from accident at Dublin Zoo

keyboard_cat

keyboard_cat wrote: »

jeez you really get shafted if you just straight up loose both your hands or arms. loosing 2 thumbs is only 36k less then loosing both your arms.

That's general damages.

It is likely an award would be in excess as specials, such as affect on employment, have to be taken into account.

maudgonner

I hope the courts in Italy are as generous.

This Northern Irish jockey deserves a few quid - after suffering a fall in a race in Italy the officials called an ambulance. When it arrived it stopped on his right leg. It didn't just run over his leg - it actually parked on it. Bystanders had to push it off him. He had a broken leg and dislocated ankle to add to the broken & dislocated nose and cuts he got from the fall.

The best part? His dad trains ambulance drivers. Just not Italian ambulance drivers, clearly. :pac:

Hope he's back up and racing soon. Jump jockeys are a tough breed.

AudreyHepburn

Deleted User wrote: »

No no, they accepted full liability. Not some liability.

All of it. 100%./ There was no suggestion of contributory negligence.

I think you may be unsure of the word liability, your issue is with quantum.

I have worked in the Insurance industry for the past 5 years, I am well acquainted with liability and quantum.

Just because the Zoo admitted liability doesn't necessarily mean they actually were to blame....more likely they did to avoid a long drawn out and expensive legal battle.

Why can't accidents just be accidents anymore? The lady slipped on a wet patch of ground, it happens every day, it's not some major crime that's been committed.

ScumLord

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I have worked in the Insurance industry for the past 5 years, I am well acquainted with liability and quantum.

Just because the Zoo admitted liability doesn't necessarily mean they actually were to blame....more likely they did to avoid a long drawn out and expensive legal battle.

Why can't accidents just be accidents anymore? The lady slipped on a wet patch of ground, it happens every day, it's not some major crime that's been committed.

So if you went to an establishment and slipped on a surface that's not suitable for people to be walking on and seriously injured yourself, you'd be ok with it? You wouldn't feel like the establishment let you down by allowing conditions that would possibly lead to a serious injury. You'd be just happy to pay all those bills yourself? If you couldn't work you'd just chalk it up to accidents happen? You'd be happy knowing that the establishment has prepared for this day by paying insurance, that money just sitting there in an account while you suffer at home unable to go about your daily business.

I think once people are faced with a medical bill they have little choice but to take the insurance.

DEFTLEFTHAND

maudgonner wrote: »

I hope the courts in Italy are as generous.

This Northern Irish jockey deserves a few quid - after suffering a fall in a race in Italy the officials called an ambulance. When it arrived it stopped on his right leg. It didn't just run over his leg - it actually parked on it. Bystanders had to push it off him. He had a broken leg and dislocated ankle to add to the broken & dislocated nose and cuts he got from the fall.

The best part? His dad trains ambulance drivers. Just not Italian ambulance drivers, clearly. :pac:

Hope he's back up and racing soon. Jump jockeys are a tough breed.

He was even laughing about it himself afterwards. Tough chap, like you said I hope he is back riding soon.

maudgonner

ScumLord wrote: »

So if you went to an establishment and slipped on a surface that's not suitable for people to be walking on and seriously injured yourself, you'd be ok with it? You wouldn't feel like the establishment let you down by allowing conditions that would possibly lead to a serious injury. You'd be just happy to pay all those bills yourself? If you couldn't work you'd just chalk it up to accidents happen? You'd be happy knowing that the establishment has prepared for this day by paying insurance, that money just sitting there in an account while you suffer at home unable to go about your daily business.

I think once people are faced with a medical bill they have little choice but to take the insurance.

See that's the kind of comment that worries people. 'Sure the money is there anyway. They pay insurance. It's not hurting anyone'.

ScumLord

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

He was even laughing about it himself afterwards. Tough chap, like you said I hope he is back riding soon.

Of course, he's covered by insurance as all sporting events are and he won't pay a penny for his treatment. So he doesn't need to sue anybody.

ScumLord

maudgonner wrote: »

See that's the kind of comment that worries people. 'Sure the money is there anyway. They pay insurance. It's not hurting anyone'.

But it's there for a reason. To pay medical bills, I definitely think if you have medical bills that occur from an accident that occurred on a property with insurance you should of course take advantage of that insurance. Even if nothing wrong with you the examination that says your fine should be covered by the insurance.

I don't really accept insurance companies poor mouth routine either. They have their fingers in every event, from a small town event to the biggest events, and for the most part people don't make claims.. They're making plenty of money and I don't think there's enough competition to keep them honest.

Galwayguy35

So will water have to be swept off every manhole cover in the country now going by the result of this case I wonder.

It's a sore dose what happened to her but over 100 k for it is really milking it, but sure what harm it's only the hard pressed taxpayer that has to foot (no pun intended) the bill.

maudgonner

ScumLord wrote: »

Of course, he's covered by insurance as all sporting events are and he won't pay a penny for his treatment. So he doesn't need to sue anybody.

And does that insurance cover loss of future earnings? Does it cover the psychological trauma he may have suffered? Does it cover him for any long-term deficits he may suffer?

Somehow I doubt he'll be compensated for more than the bare minimum.

rufus_firefly

How much did that kid who got bitten open by the tapir get?

maudgonner

ScumLord wrote: »

But it's there for a reason. To pay medical bills, I definitely think if you have medical bills that occur from an accident that occurred on a property with insurance you should of course take advantage of that insurance. Even if nothing wrong with you the examination that says your fine should be covered by the insurance.

OK, I may have misunderstood your post. I absolutely agree that medical bills should be covered, and I think reasonable loss of earnings compensation is fair.

But the levels of compensation awarded in cases like these go so far beyond that, that's what I have issues with.

ScumLord

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So will water have to be swept off every manhole cover in the country now going by the result of this case I wonder.

If you have a look around major cities the manholes are either textured to make them safe or they put a thick paint on them to give them traction. It's not like this is the first time this has been an issue.

maudgonner wrote: »

And does that insurance cover loss of future earnings? Does it cover the psychological trauma he may have suffered? Does it cover him for any long-term deficits he may suffer?

Somehow I doubt he'll be compensated for more than the bare minimum.

He'd have to check his insurance policy. Depending on who pays it (event organisers, sporting body, or Jockeys union (if such a thing exists)) it may give some sort of payment for early retirement, it may have ongoing payouts for long term injuries. I don't know.

ScumLord

maudgonner wrote: »

OK, I may have misunderstood your post. I absolutely agree that medical bills should be covered, and I think reasonable loss of earnings compensation is fair.

But the levels of compensation awarded in cases like these go so far beyond that, that's what I have issues with.

I don't know is it though. If she's got years of treatment ahead of her, along with surgeries and consultations she could eat through that money pretty quickly. I've heard stories that once the hospitals know the insurance company is paying they put in as many charges as they can. Medical treatment is expensive. Many operations can cost upwards of €100,000. Not saying she'll need that level of care, but just as an example of how crazy hospital treatments can be.

Francie Barrett

The woman in question looks a fairly large woman, who isn't to say she had a pre-existing ankle condition caused by her obesity?

maudgonner

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't know is it though. If she's got years of treatment ahead of her, along with surgeries and consultations she could eat through that money pretty quickly. I've heard stories that once the hospitals know the insurance company is paying they put in as many charges as they can. Medical treatment is expensive. Many operations can cost upwards of €100,000. Not saying she'll need that level of care, but just as an example of how crazy hospital treatments can be.

Going on the article linked in the OP there's no indication of that from the judgement though. It mentions pain & suffering to date and into the future, but makes no mention of ongoing medical expenses or need for care. It's not indicated at all - of course that doesn't mean it won't be needed, but it doesn't seem to have factored into the payment.

And the bit in bold is part of the problem - if we have a compensation culture everybody thinks they should be getting their share. Stop the compensation culture and you'd stop a lot of that nonsense.

Francie Barrett

Francie Barrett wrote: »

The woman in question looks a fairly large woman, who isn't to say she had a pre-existing ankle condition caused by her obesity?

The Injuries Board form specifically asks about pre-existing conditions, and the Solicitors for insurance companies will invariably seeks discovery of medical records for a few years before the accident. Their doctors will also check matters like the X-rays, the older medical records etc. and examine what disclosure turns up. And of course cases can be and are thrown out on the basis of exagerration - a claimant who failed to disclose something like that could be in serious trouble if they lost and lost costs.

Jodotman

If I put my mind to it I could probably make a living from it. Remember the Weetabix box one and the icy steps at the hospital.

Pay out compensation for idiots who can't look where there going or don't have the intelligence to see what's going on around them.

ScumLord

maudgonner wrote: »

Going on the article linked in the OP there's no indication of that from the judgement though.

It wouldn't though, it's just an accepted part of the equation. Most evidense is anecdotal because I don't think anyone is going to look into it. The hospitals need the money and if any politician tried to do anything they'd end up footing the bill for the difference and alienating potential voters.

I don't know what the breakdown of the settlement is. I don't know if it's a lump sum, whether they just hand her a check or whether the insurance company pays for medical bills as they mount up.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

No its not.

The reason insurance has shot up is because 7 years ago the companies were told there would be new criteria this year, they continued to try and undercut each other, and this year they now have to meet the requirements about reserves. They were playing a game of chicken almost, trying to increase market share as D Day loomed.

There are plenty of reasons why insurance has gone up. That's one of them.

There has been an increase in the frequency of claims; increase in the scale of claims; increases in the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, with possible consequences for legal costs; and an important Court of Appeal ruling that seems to have enlarged certain payouts.

Add that to the ongoing problem with legal costs in Ireland, and you have a perfect storm for higher insurance premia.

It isn't as simple as competitive practices in the insurance industry, although that is one reason.

gandalf

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I have worked in the Insurance industry for the past 5 years, I am well acquainted with liability and quantum.

Just because the Zoo admitted liability doesn't necessarily mean they actually were to blame....more likely they did to avoid a long drawn out and expensive legal battle.

Why can't accidents just be accidents anymore? The lady slipped on a wet patch of ground, it happens every day, it's not some major crime that's been committed.

Because this was an avoidable accident. I know the person involved and this has affected them quite dramatically.

Dublin Zoo admitted liability nearly five years ago when the case was started and not when it hit the courts recently.

Within a year of the accident they then changed the type of manhole cover used with one that has far better grip.

From my perspective that suggests that they were more than aware of the shortcomings of these types of manhole covers on a sloped path but decided the risk was worth it.

hullaballoo

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There are plenty of reasons why insurance has gone up. That's one of them.

There has been an increase in the frequency of claims; increase in the scale of claims; increases in the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, with possible consequences for legal costs; and an important Court of Appeal ruling that seems to have enlarged certain payouts.

Add that to the ongoing problem with legal costs in Ireland, and you have a perfect storm for higher insurance premia.

It isn't as simple as competitive practices in the insurance industry, although that is one reason.

This is demonstrably untrue. Legal costs have fallen 30-50% since 2008, the number of claims brought for personal injuries is more or less static, as are the totals for amounts awarded.

It's lies from insurance companies trying to cover their asses I'm afraid.

The change in jurisdictional limits will have the effect of decreasing awards in comparable cases under €60,000.

maudgonner

gandalf wrote: »

Because this was an avoidable accident. I know the person involved and this has affected them quite dramatically.

Dublin Zoo admitted liability nearly five years ago when the case was started and not when it hit the courts recently.

Within a year of the accident they then changed the type of manhole cover used with one that has far better grip.

From my perspective that suggests that they were more than aware of the shortcomings of these types of manhole covers on a sloped path but decided the risk was worth it.

Surely it suggests the opposite? That after the accident occurred they looked at the manhole covers and decided they would replace them - to prevent future accidents, and to ward off future compensation claims?

hullaballoo

hullaballoo wrote: »

the number of claims brought for personal injuries is more or less static, as are the totals for amounts awarded.

It's lies from insurance companies trying to cover their asses I'm afraid.

So the Central Bank is in on this conspiracy too, are they?

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2016042000035?opendocument#KK00200

Both the insurance industry and the Central Bank state that the frequency of claims has increased over the past year, associated with improving economic conditions. They also state that the number of large claims has also increased. I am informed that a number of changes taking place within the claims environment in Ireland are making the claims environment volatile, which in turn is increasing the claims costs for insurance.

Legal costs have fallen 30-50% since 2008

I suspect you are sourcing that figure from legal costs incurred by the State, when some of that has been anecdotally attributed to changing practices, for example, a practice in some delegated agencies of re-running a procedure instead of challenging its fairness in an expensive JR hearing... a good example would be in the asylum arena.

Less anecdotally, however...

http://www.competitiveness.ie/Publications/2016/Cost-of-Doing-Business-2016.pdf

The Council remains concerned about the price of business services in Ireland. In relation to legal costs, throughout the recession, and relative to professions such as accountancy, prices for legal services did not adjust downwards to the degree that might have been expected given economic circumstances. While prices dipped for a brief period in 2013, in Q4 2015 legal service prices were 5.8 per cent higher than 2010 levels.

In any event, I'm not necessarily interested in the swings and roundabouts, here. I'm saying it's been "an ongoing problem", and it is.

selastich2

maudgonner wrote: »

Surely it suggests the opposite? That after the accident occurred they looked at the manhole covers and decided they would replace them - to prevent future accidents, and to ward off future compensation claims?

Not to mention the 1000's/day that managed to cross it safely

gandalf

maudgonner wrote: »

Surely it suggests the opposite? That after the accident occurred they looked at the manhole covers and decided they would replace them - to prevent future accidents, and to ward off future compensation claims?

In hindsight I'll keep this to myself.

mad muffin

Shes 43?! :eek:

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There are plenty of reasons why insurance has gone up. That's one of them.

There has been an increase in the frequency of claims; increase in the scale of claims; increases in the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, with possible consequences for legal costs; and an important Court of Appeal ruling that seems to have enlarged certain payouts.

Add that to the ongoing problem with legal costs in Ireland, and you have a perfect storm for higher insurance premia.

It isn't as simple as competitive practices in the insurance industry, although that is one reason.

I have heard reps from the insurance industry refer to the increase in the jurisdiction of the courts...which would of course have the opposite influence than that claimed as it takes higher claims into lower Courts with reduced costs. Plus the costs issue is in a real mess, the backlog before the taxing masters means insurance companies have far more leverage and give the "take the offer, or wait a very long time" attitude.

Samaris

Making a target of the woman who slipped and fell and severely hurt herself is ridiculous if your issues are with the amount of compensation. She didn't just say "Right, that'll be 105k please." It was decided by other people based on previous cases and various estimates. Even if you think the cost is ridiculous, that isn't her fault, she happens to be in the middle of it.

I'm sure all the people complaining would hand it straight back and say "I couldn't possibly take this from the taxpayers, I'll pay for all my own medical treatment," but it's a rather ridiculous standard to hold everyone else to.

Hurling pretty vicious insults at her doesn't exactly do anything to help the issue.

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A business has a responsibility to their customers and staff to ensure safe conditions. They did not. Someone suffered a painful accident (dislocating ankle? yeesh!) because of this. The business admitted negligence and paid the price of this.

I can't really see the issue, myself.

The quantum of money involved in these cases in Ireland is off the wall, once that is addressed and sensible limits are imposed there won't be grounds for people to complain about the outcome of such cases. Realistically the defendants were at fault in this particular case but €115,000 isn't a reasonable or fair amount for anyone to receive for the injuries this woman suffered.