Compensation Culture to a new level

Arcade_Tryer

It's pointless blaming the people making these claims. They are merely exploiting the system along with the legal and insurance industries. Why should the ordinary person not get a share of the spoils? Why should the ordinary person hold themselves to a higher moral and ethical standard than the legal and insurance industries, who are taking a much larger share of the proceeds?

Glenster

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

It's pointless blaming the people making these claims. They are merely exploiting the system along with the legal and insurance industries. Why should the ordinary person not get a share of the spoils? Why should the ordinary person hold themselves to a higher moral and ethical standard than the legal and insurance industries, who are taking a much larger share of the proceeds?

I suppose when you see someone being attacked you join in do you?

Arcade_Tryer

Glenster wrote: »

I suppose when you see someone being attacked you join in do you?

No. But another person might.

Do you blame the person who joins in and does a small bit of damage more than the main attackers who orchestrate and carry out the attack?

Glenster

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

No. But another person might.

Do you blame the person who joins in and does a small bit of damage more than the main attackers who orchestrate and carry out the attack?

Not more. But two wrongs dont make a right.

Arcade_Tryer

Glenster wrote: »

Not more.

Tell that to the newspapers and people in general.

But two wrongs dont make a right.

True.

Samuel T. Cogley

sonic85 wrote: »

Not trying to be smart here but how many normal working class joes have the time or resources to do what you suggest? Or are you basically suggesting that nothing can be done and to bend over and keep taking this sh!t?

What's complex about somebody banging their knee on a table leg and getting 20k for it?

Like most other people my insurance has gone to hell in the last couple of years and I dont know how much more I can take. Where's the cut off point going to be?

Why should a persons genuine concerns be ignored?

What you're saying is, despite not understanding something, you don't like it so therefore it should be stopped. I'm sorry but you have to be able to see the issue there.

This isn't 20K for banging a knee. This is a legal case and a discussion on damages. It's nuanced but it's actually not difficult to understand, head over to Legal Discussions and pose a question people will go through negligence with you.

The issue I assume you have is not with the payout but the knock on affect to insurance. That is extremely complicated and if one is not willing to put the time in to understand the issue they've no business trying to influence it. Suffice it to say the problem is, as ever, not entirely with the legal system. It plays a part certainly, but the insurance companies are engaging in smoke a mirrors in relation to loading other costs they have.

All that said activism is laudable and I applaud people who get involved in trying to make the country a better place. If time is an issue I would suggest focusing in on something like transparency of legal fees, or how premiums are calculated. The two issues are simple, both parties are taking the piss and should be made to be more transparent in what they're doing.

I assume a senior counsel would have been brought on board when this went to the High Court? I'd very much like to know what they pay was there and what he did for the money. The entry level for barristers has huge competition, I'm not so sure the same can be said further up the food chain.

Wheeliebin30

Rod Munch wrote: »

I've worked in insurance for a number of years and have posted extensively about it across a few forums and did an AMA about it.

I have been called an insurance industry apologist by a number of people.

I have been called a liar by a number of people when I have posted about the claims culture in Ireland and how that is the primary driver of increased insurance premiums.

It is with a certain level of smugness that stuff like this vindicates what I have been saying for the last couple of years.

The whole thing is rotten, from the thieves that make the fraudulent claims (thats what they are) to the parasitic solicitors that represent them (not all of them are leeches but when what they get paid is directly effected by what their client are awarded then there is little reason to think that many of them have any morals) to the incompetent judges making the awards, its little wonder that premiums have rocketed.

I do however feel that things are somewhat turning a corner.

There have been a few high profile claims thrown out recently, the young fella that cycled into the jeep and a couple of others where the judge ruled against the claimant because there was no way that the low impact of the collision could have caused the injuries they were saying they had. Its a start but there is still a huge way to go.

To give you a real world example. A case came across my desk recently where our policy holder bumped into the back of a third party. They were stopped in traffic so clearly there couldn't be much of an impact and the total repair costs for both cars was around €450 for a bit of buffing. The third party immediately began claiming neck pain, sent in his solicitors letter etc. Its as plain as the nose on my face that there are no injuries and its a complete try on.

The claims dept know the claimant is lying however whiplash claims are notoriously difficult to defend against so they offered a settlement of €7500 - €10,000 plus costs to make him go away. His solicitor rejected the offer outright and told the claims department that the minimum they will consider is €20,000 plus costs. Our claims department rightly told him to piss off so now its being investigated.

People often lament insurers settling "on the steps" rather than defending the claim but there is good reasons for it. To date, we have spent over €5000 between assessors fees, medical assessor fees and investigator fees. Thats without going to court. So you see its often the cheapest option to give the try on a few quid to go away rather than try and defend in full and potentially end up in the high court paying multiples of what they could spend by settling quickly.

I read through the case file and without giving details I am confident that when this goes to court the case will be thrown out but when its in the hands of a judge you never can tell.

Funnily people were giving jambon man grief for claiming yesterday. Tbh he was right, now the award of €20k was ridiculous however he was slandered and he deserved reparation for that, not near what he got but he would be entitled to something.

What needs to happen sooner rather than later is for caps to be introduced.

The very top of the list should be a cap on legal fees.

The injuries board was set up specifically, specifically to try and cut out the legal system from insurance claims due to the length of time cases were taking to be heard and the costs associated yet around 90% of injuries board cases are involving people represented by solicitors.

I guarantee that if the legal fees available for whiplash / soft tissue fees were capped at €500 per case we would see a massive drop in both the number of cases and the number of cases that make it to courts.

Solicitors fees are in the region of 20% to 30% of the settlement amount so for the €20k claim in the OP their representative likely got €5000 to €6000 for it, talk about money for old rope!

Unproveable injuries such as the one in the OP should be capped at a max of €5000.

There should be penalties, actual enforceable penalties for those that are found to be making false claims.

Minimum fines of €1000 to €5000 should be given to those that deliberately try and defraud an insurer.

I'd love to see a system whereby people that report fraudsters get rewarded. Say 20% off their premium if the claim being made is found to fraudulent.

Aside from the last thing these are relatively simple measures to implement and I have no doubt that they would save millions each year.

Ultimately though the claims environment rests with the public, there is little accountability anymore and we live in a world where recklessness, stupidity and out right lying reaps massive rewards.

Ive said it before and I'll say it again, the potential of receiving a nice fat compo cheque turns otherwise stand up people into absolute bastards.

But an extensive report came out last week stating claims are NOT the reason insurance premiums have increased.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/sites/default/files/170110%20Report%20on%20the%20Cost%20of%20Motor%20Insurance%202017.pdf

Thread on topic.
http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057703483


Legal costs not the reason for insurance hikes.

Barr

They should have saved this story for April Fools.


Negligence - not telling someone there is a leg on a table ??? .... please


This sounds more than reasonable from the defense.


" Witnesses on behalf of the hotel told the court the table was one of a type used all over the world and had been found to be perfectly suitable in the global catering trade.

A forensic engineer said that if he had been asked pre-accident to risk assess the set up in the dining room he would not have directed the hotel to warn people about the presence of the table leg under the tablecloth"

rob316

Nevermind the 20k damages but what are they actual costs associated to bring a case like this to the high court? Over 20k?

Noddyholder

Rod Munch wrote: »

I've worked in insurance for a number of years and have posted extensively about it across a few forums and did an AMA about it.

I have been called an insurance industry apologist by a number of people.

I have been called a liar by a number of people when I have posted about the claims culture in Ireland and how that is the primary driver of increased insurance premiums.

It is with a certain level of smugness that stuff like this vindicates what I have been saying for the last couple of years.

The whole thing is rotten, from the thieves that make the fraudulent claims (thats what they are) to the parasitic solicitors that represent them (not all of them are leeches but when what they get paid is directly effected by what their client are awarded then there is little reason to think that many of them have any morals) to the incompetent judges making the awards, its little wonder that premiums have rocketed.

I do however feel that things are somewhat turning a corner.

There have been a few high profile claims thrown out recently, the young fella that cycled into the jeep and a couple of others where the judge ruled against the claimant because there was no way that the low impact of the collision could have caused the injuries they were saying they had. Its a start but there is still a huge way to go.

To give you a real world example. A case came across my desk recently where our policy holder bumped into the back of a third party. They were stopped in traffic so clearly there couldn't be much of an impact and the total repair costs for both cars was around €450 for a bit of buffing. The third party immediately began claiming neck pain, sent in his solicitors letter etc. Its as plain as the nose on my face that there are no injuries and its a complete try on.

The claims dept know the claimant is lying however whiplash claims are notoriously difficult to defend against so they offered a settlement of €7500 - €10,000 plus costs to make him go away. His solicitor rejected the offer outright and told the claims department that the minimum they will consider is €20,000 plus costs. Our claims department rightly told him to piss off so now its being investigated.

People often lament insurers settling "on the steps" rather than defending the claim but there is good reasons for it. To date, we have spent over €5000 between assessors fees, medical assessor fees and investigator fees. Thats without going to court. So you see its often the cheapest option to give the try on a few quid to go away rather than try and defend in full and potentially end up in the high court paying multiples of what they could spend by settling quickly.

I read through the case file and without giving details I am confident that when this goes to court the case will be thrown out but when its in the hands of a judge you never can tell.

Funnily people were giving jambon man grief for claiming yesterday. Tbh he was right, now the award of €20k was ridiculous however he was slandered and he deserved reparation for that, not near what he got but he would be entitled to something.

What needs to happen sooner rather than later is for caps to be introduced.

The very top of the list should be a cap on legal fees.

The injuries board was set up specifically, specifically to try and cut out the legal system from insurance claims due to the length of time cases were taking to be heard and the costs associated yet around 90% of injuries board cases are involving people represented by solicitors.

I guarantee that if the legal fees available for whiplash / soft tissue fees were capped at €500 per case we would see a massive drop in both the number of cases and the number of cases that make it to courts.

Solicitors fees are in the region of 20% to 30% of the settlement amount so for the €20k claim in the OP their representative likely got €5000 to €6000 for it, talk about money for old rope!

Unproveable injuries such as the one in the OP should be capped at a max of €5000.

There should be penalties, actual enforceable penalties for those that are found to be making false claims.

Minimum fines of €1000 to €5000 should be given to those that deliberately try and defraud an insurer.

I'd love to see a system whereby people that report fraudsters get rewarded. Say 20% off their premium if the claim being made is found to fraudulent.

Aside from the last thing these are relatively simple measures to implement and I have no doubt that they would save millions each year.

Ultimately though the claims environment rests with the public, there is little accountability anymore and we live in a world where recklessness, stupidity and out right lying reaps massive rewards.

Ive said it before and I'll say it again, the potential of receiving a nice fat compo cheque turns otherwise stand up people into absolute bastards.

Really , The Law Society has welcomed the publication of the Report on the cost of Motor Insurance, which was issued on 10 January. The Working Group on the Cost of Motor Insurance stated that it “did not find that legal costs were a major contributory factor in the recent increase in premiums”.

And , ...hopefully this claims database will provide that sort of information. It will then give us an idea as to where the money is going and why premiums have gone up so much, because I think what’s perfectly clear from the report is that the legal costs and compensation costs are not the cause of premium rate increases. The report is very clear on that.



Don't know how you can be smug at all, imo Yis run a cartel in this country & there is no way you can justify the cost of motor insurance in this country, Its just another racket that folks here put up with.
http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057703483

the.red.baron

When will people just cop on an realise that the whole legal system is just setup to maximize the amount of work there is for the legal system and to price the little guy out of getting justice.

Appeal appeal appeal, it's all billable hours, off to the high court, kaaaaachiiiing


If a judge gives out a rubbish ruling in a lower court then can you afford to not appeal it?

Samuel T. Cogley

the.red.baron wrote: »

When will people just cop on an realise that the whole legal system is just setup to maximize the amount of work there is for the legal system and to price the little guy out of getting justice.

Appeal appeal appeal, it's all billable hours, off to the high court, kaaaaachiiiing


If a judge gives out a rubbish ruling in a lower court then can you afford to not appeal it?

This is one of the reasons the jurisdictional limits where increased. It's also why you see judges saying costs will be added if appeals are presented. They're trying to keep these cases in the DC and CC. Yet and as if to prove my point, insurance companies use this as a justification to INCREASE premiums. You couldn't make this **** up, it's hilarious.

Triangle

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

This isn't 20K for banging a knee. This is a legal case and a discussion on damages. It's nuanced but it's actually not difficult to understand, head over to Legal Discussions and pose a question people will go through negligence with you.

I have to disagree with your viewpoint Samuel. Life isn't black and white and legal definitions do not always take the complexity of life into context.
A lot of 'living' is based upon the idea of wisdom and intelligence - Legal arguments do not take this into consideration in all of their decisions.
The Facts do NOT always speak for themselves!

When sitting at a table, it's base common sense to understand that something holds the table top up. It's also base common sense to understand that stepping off a curb means you need to take a step down. Twisting your ankle while stepping off a perfectly good curb does not mean you deserve a payment!
If the table was not defective (and there was no mention of it in the report and it was mentioned it was a design used all over the world) then there should be no cause for a payout - she was just clumsy it seems.

Legal arguments need to take a wider view of decisions made, not a narrow viewpoint.

HeidiHeidi

Triangle wrote: »

I have to disagree with your viewpoint Samuel. Life isn't black and white and legal definitions do not always take the complexity of life into context.
A lot of 'living' is based upon the idea of wisdom and intelligence - Legal arguments do not take this into consideration in all of their decisions.
The Facts do NOT always speak for themselves!

When sitting at a table, it's base common sense to understand that something holds the table top up. It's also base common sense to understand that stepping off a curb means you need to take a step down. Twisting your ankle while stepping off a perfectly good curb does not mean you deserve a payment!
If the table was not defective (and there was no mention of it in the report and it was mentioned it was a design used all over the world) then there should be no cause for a payout - she was just clumsy it seems.

Legal arguments need to take a wider view of decisions made, not a narrow viewpoint.

Further to this, I have to wonder when the strict legal angle of a case like this became so divorced from common sense?

I can see - but not understand - why she may have been entitled to the award because of the way the law has been written and has evolved over the years - but as a layman looking on at the bare facts (and I also appreciate that we're only going on what the press has reported, which in itself is a whole other day's work!) I find it incredible that there is no element of "is this reasonable" applied to these judgements.

Samuel T. Cogley

Triangle wrote: »

I have to disagree with your viewpoint Samuel. Life isn't black and white and legal definitions do not always take the complexity of life into context.
A lot of 'living' is based upon the idea of wisdom and intelligence - Legal arguments do not take this into consideration in all of their decisions.
The Facts do NOT always speak for themselves!

When sitting at a table, it's base common sense to understand that something holds the table top up. It's also base common sense to understand that stepping off a curb means you need to take a step down. Twisting your ankle while stepping off a perfectly good curb does not mean you deserve a payment!
If the table was not defective (and there was no mention of it in the report and it was mentioned it was a design used all over the world) then there should be no cause for a payout - she was just clumsy it seems.

Legal arguments need to take a wider view of decisions made, not a narrow viewpoint.

I have no idea what point you're making here.

Negligence requires a rosbust process of proving each element. Once that happens the quantum is set by the proven injury. People commenting on the legal system in this thread haven't spent even 5 minutes trying to find out how it works. The see 20K and banged knee and fail to take anything else into consideration.

There are reams and reams of research on the Egg shell skull rule and it's pro and cons this stuff isn't just accepted at face value.

Samuel T. Cogley

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Further to this, I have to wonder when the strict legal angle of a case like this became so divorced from common sense?

I can see - but not understand - why she may have been entitled to the award because of the way the law has been written and has evolved over the years - but as a layman looking on at the bare facts (and I also appreciate that we're only going on what the press has reported, which in itself is a whole other day's work!) I find it incredible that there is no element of "is this reasonable" applied to these judgements.

There is, one of the elements of negligence is the public policy considerations.

Until the full facts of the case are presented no one knows what really happened. The law is not divorced from common sense, common sense requires all the facts.

BPKS

The awards made by some judges probably reflects these judges sentiments that solicitors, who lost their shirts through poor investments in property and shares during the boom, need to be helped back on their feet. Award €20k/€30k/€40k/€50k for a bit of whiplash, a bruised leg, a one inch scar on the thumb, falling between beds while jumping on the beds in a hotel and so on and so on and the judges know their mate will get 25% of the award.

The judges know the solicitors/barristers, the solicitors/barristers know the judges. The often socialise together. Their children and grandchildren go the school together and play rugby together. They meet each other at the theatre. They are members of the same golf clubs

I'll scratch your back old chum, see you in the 19th hole.

Eoin247

riffmongous wrote: »

Could we not get like a megathread for all these compo posts? I really couldn't care less anymore

Maybe some day you'll feel differently if you put all your money into a restaurant and get sued for 20k because somebody didn't realize that tables don't float in mid-air?

Samuel T. Cogley

Eoin247 wrote: »

Maybe some day you'll feel differently if you put all your money into a restaurant and get sued for 20k because somebody didn't realize that tables don't float in mid-air?

Might be worth conducting a risk assessment and mitigating the risk then. I dunno I'm no expert but perhaps by moving the fcuking chairs a bit?

Tea-a-Maria

BPKS wrote: »

The awards made by some judges probably reflects these judges sentiments that solicitors, who lost their shirts through poor investments in property and shares during the boom, need to be helped back on their feet. Award €20k/€30k/€40k/€50k for a bit of whiplash, a bruised leg, a one inch scar on the thumb, falling between beds while jumping on the beds in a hotel and so on and so on and the judges know their mate will get 25% of the award.

The judges know the solicitors/barristers, the solicitors/barristers know the judges. The often socialise together. Their children and grandchildren go the school together and play rugby together. They meet each other at the theatre. They are members of the same golf clubs

I'll scratch your back old chum, see you in the 19th hole.

Nice rant there. Just one small problem: The charging of fees as a percentage of the overall award is prohibited by the Solicitors Acts (excepting for debt recovery). Any action to recover the fees would be unenforceable.

Barr

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Might be worth conducting a risk assessment and mitigating the risk then. I dunno I'm no expert but perhaps by moving the fcuking chairs a bit?

A risk assessment look to see if a table has legs ? I would love to hear how that call would go to their Insurer :pac:

Sue Pa Key Pa

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

It's pointless blaming the people making these claims. They are merely exploiting the system along with the legal and insurance industries. Why should the ordinary person not get a share of the spoils?

And you don't see the like between that and 'ordinary people' having to pay for it through increased premiums???

Pinch Flat

That's what I'd be issuing to my customers if I was running a restaurant.

All joking aside, it's only a matter of time before you have to sign a claimer for using a restaurant or bar. A lot of kids play zones, climbing areas with higher risk activities already do this. My local play zone has a kids crazy golf course outside - hurling helmets are obligatory.

Roger Hassenforder

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

It's pointless blaming the people making these claims. They are merely exploiting the system along with the legal and insurance industries. Why should the ordinary person not get a share of the spoils? Why should the ordinary person hold themselves to a higher moral and ethical standard than the legal and insurance industries, who are taking a much larger share of the proceeds?

Part of the problem might be viewing it as "spoils" and a sense one should get their nose into the trough along with the other swine

HeidiHeidi

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Might be worth conducting a risk assessment and mitigating the risk then. I dunno I'm no expert but perhaps by moving the fcuking chairs a bit?

How about the sitter-down does a bit of a risk assessment and check if there's a table-leg in front of them (every table usually has 4) before they pull their chair in?

Is there anything left these days that isn't somehow someone else's fault

Samuel T. Cogley

Barr wrote: »

A risk assessment look to see if a table has legs ? I would love to hear how that call would go to their Insurer :pac:

The obviousness of it is a factor for the plaintiff's side in this situation. If one is aware of table legs, which you'd assume a someone in the trade would be, you ensure you minimise the risk, not get the waiter to specicially direct the person to sit there.

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

How about the sitter-down does a bit of a risk assessment and check if there's a table-leg in front of them (every table usually has 4) before they pull their chair in?

Is there anything left these days that isn't somehow someone else's fault

If they had invited her to do that then the case would probably have failed. Simply saying careful of the table leg would have sufficed. Using shorter table cloths, making sure the chairs were positioned in such away as to avoid this. All things that should have been done, the failure to do resulted in an injiry to someone.

HeidiHeidi

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

The obviousness of it is a factor for the plaintiff's side in this situation. If one is aware of table legs, which you'd assume a someone in the trade would be, you ensure you minimise the risk, not get the waiter to specicially direct the person to sit there.



If they had invited her to do that then the case would probably have failed. Simply saying careful of the table leg would have sufficed. Using shorter table cloths, making sure the chairs were positioned in such away as to avoid this. All things that should have been done, the failure to do resulted in an injiry to someone.

But is there NO responsibility on the person themselves to check these things - 'cos, y'know, every table has legs? Do we all have to be babied through life, having every single risk pointed out to us, or else we're due compo?

Is there no such thing as an accidental bump any more?

Sometimes I despair, I really do. :mad:

Samuel T. Cogley

Pinch Flat wrote: »

That's what I'd be issuing to my customers if I was running a restaurant.

All joking aside, it's only a matter of time before you have to sign a claimer for using a restaurant or bar. A lot of kids play zones, climbing areas with higher risk activities already do this. My local play zone has a kids crazy golf course outside - hurling helmets are obligatory.

You can't contract out of negligence.

Samuel T. Cogley

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

But is there NO responsibility on the person themselves to check these things - 'cos, y'know, every table has legs? Do we all have to be babied through life, having every single risk pointed out to us, or else we're due compo?

Is there no such thing as an accidental bump any more?

Sometimes I despair, I really do. :mad:

Contributory negligence was not only brought up it even made it into the article. It was decided it didn't apply and the reasons were stated.

There are genuine accidents where no one is legally at fault and they're pretty common, they're not reported on. This was negligence.

HeidiHeidi

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Contributory negligence was not only brought up it even made it into the article. It was decided it didn't apply and the reasons were stated.

There are genuine accidents where no one is legally at fault and they're pretty common, they're not reported on. This was negligence.

And as a layman (in legal terms) I would beg to disagree. I think that's completely and absolutely ridiculous. I know the law says different (clearly) before you feel the need to point that out to me.

This was my point earlier about how the law has become completely divorced from reality and common sense.

Samuel T. Cogley

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

And as a layman (in legal terms) I would beg to disagree. I think that's completely and absolutely ridiculous. I know the law says different (clearly) before you feel the need to point that out to me.

This was my point earlier about how the law has become completely divorced from reality and common sense.

It hasn't. People have become divorced from common sense and relaity becuase at best they read a single article. It's more specifically an issue in Ireland becuase of the sense of begrudary, the papers play into that.

90% of the people commenting in this thread aren't the slightest bit interested in looking to this in any detail. They see fat woman, banged knee, and €20K that's it. The law on this is entirely sensible and must have general application. It's not 'common sense' or 'reality' to say, you know what I think this sounds a bit silly, therefore I'm not allowing the award.

BPKS

Tea-a-Maria wrote: »

Nice rant there. Just one small problem: The charging of fees as a percentage of the overall award is prohibited by the Solicitors Acts (excepting for debt recovery). Any action to recover the fees would be unenforceable.

I know but your looking at an average of 1/4 of the award being legal fees. You agree?

Samuel T. Cogley

BPKS wrote: »

I know but your looking at an average of 1/4 of the award being legal fees. You agree?

My plumer charges for his time as well as his materials, the bastard!

please helpThank YOU

What is New here Nothing Compensation Culture to a New Level? This is going on ever day of the week in Civil Law Courts, Criminal Law Courts, Family Law Courts,.

Fian

These reports can be very misleading.

You could have a headline:

"€120,000 for lorry driver who got a splinter in his hand from a pallet."

Queue torches and pitchforks right - I mean that could not possibly be justified!!!!

Or could it?

Let's imagine the pallets were colour coded. Imagine that the Dye used was toxic, imagine the splinter introduced this toxin and that since the splinter couldn't be easily extracted it was just left in place, or part of it broke off. The Dye caused permanent discolouration of the right hand and worse yet the toxins in it caused nerve damage resulting in permanent numbness (or paralysis/restricted movement or whatever). Let's say he lost his job because he can no longer grip the steering wheel with his right hand.

Which would sell more papers - a headline (and article) designed to generate outrage by reporting €120k for a splinter or one that said "€120k award for permanent nerve damage and discolouration caused by toxic dye". So which one is the indo more likely to publish?

the €20k is based on the injuries sustained, not the cause of the accident. We are all assuming that a bang on the knee results in very minor injuries. Normally it does, maybe this time the injuries were more severe. Since we were not in court we are probably not best placed to know.

HeidiHeidi

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It hasn't. People have become divorced from common sense and relaity becuase at best they read a single article. It's more specifically an issue in Ireland becuase of the sense of begrudary, the papers play into that.

90% of the people commenting in this thread aren't the slightest bit interested in looking to this in any detail. They see fat woman, banged knee, and €20K that's it. The law on this is entirely sensible and must have general application. It's not 'common sense' or 'reality' to say, you know what I think this sounds a bit silly, therefore I'm not allowing the award.

I most certainly have an interest in finding out more about this case - but unfortunately all I have to go on at the moment is press reports - which I agree can be notoriously unreliable and biased.

And I didn't know she was fat. I see banged knee and 20K and yes, I do think that's ridiculous, actually.

Standing back and looking at it as something that can (and probably has) happened to any of us, I think it's laughable (except it's not funny really) that you can blame someone for it happening and get compensated.

That's not a legal interpretation - clearly the law does not agree. That's just as a punter looking at the bigger picture.

If there are other facts that make this somehow a reasonable award, maybe you could make us aware of them?

please helpThank YOU

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

What is New here Nothing Compensation Culture to a New Level? This is going on ever day of the week in Civil Law Courts, Criminal Law Courts, Family Law Courts,.

This Is Not a New Level a Compensation Culture this is the Norms .

ash23

Just to point out (and I don't agree with the claim amount paid) that there were tables pushed together. So not four legs on either end of the table but also legs in the middle where the tables were pushed together. This was covered by a table cloth and she was directed as to where to sit by the staff and not advised that there was something there that she should watch out for.

I'd imagine if she was sat at the end of the table and hit her knee she wouldn't have been able to claim. She was told to sit in a place where there was a hidden obstruction and not warned about it......therefore they're liable. It wasn't unreasonable of her to assume it was one long table and there were no legs along the length of the table.

Samuel T. Cogley

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

I most certainly have an interest in finding out more about this case - but unfortunately all I have to go on at the moment is press reports - which I agree can be notoriously unreliable and biased.

You can google negligence and look at the elements. Once the elements are satisfied it's negligence - the damages don't enter into it at this stage. Becuase this situation is so mundane it's a great one to apply the priciples too and a little imagination to see how with some very minor changes, it would have been different.

One has to bear in mind Barristers are professional advocates. The situation would have been picked to peices, and the rules of evidence require everything is proven. This requires doctors, engineers and other witnesses. I'm not saying you're sating this but people seem to be suggesting that all this was pulled out of the judges arse. It's not, they would have fought like cat and dog over it.

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

And I didn't know she was fat. I see banged knee and 20K and yes, I do think that's ridiculous, actually.

Did you examine her, do you have advanced medical degrees. I'm sorry to be so blunt there but you're trying to refute the findings of a doctor on the basis of not even spotting that she's clearly a 'buffet enthusiast' from the pictures.

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Standing back and looking at it as something that can (and probably has) happened to any of us, I think it's laughable (except it's not funny really) that you can blame someone for it happening and get compensated.

That's not a legal interpretation - clearly the law does not agree. That's just as a punter looking at the bigger picture.

If there are other facts that make this somehow a reasonable award, maybe you could make us aware of them?

This is tabloid logic. Fian makes the point very well above. As for the award, as I've pointed out the issues here. It's for you to show why is's unreasonable I'm afraid.

Pinch Flat

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You can't contract out of negligence.

Fair point. I've though about this. All the chair legs will also be bubble wrapped, as will as the sharp corners formed by walls and furniture. Knives and forks will be banned, as will hot food in case we scald someone. In fact, I'll be hiring people to feed the customers themselves. :rolleyes:

Samuel T. Cogley

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Fair point. I've though about this. All the chair legs will also be bubble wrapped, as will as the sharp corners formed by walls and furniture. Knives and forks will be banned, as will hot food in case we scald someone. In fact, I'll be hiring people to feed the customers themselves. :rolleyes:

Or you could just use shorter table cloths.

The reality is that it's a major downside of Ireland. I'm from a country where these lawsuits wouldn't exist.

My other half recently had an incident with another person where she was clearly in the wrong, but the other party wasn't injured, thankfully. Even so, she is expecting a lawsuit to come from the other person, and there have been several sleepless nights. It's just not right.

Omackeral

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

What is New here Nothing Compensation Culture to a New Level? This is going on ever day of the week in Civil Law Courts, Criminal Law Courts, Family Law Courts,.

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

This Is Not a New Level a Compensation Culture this is the Norms .

Did you just reply to your own post?!

HeidiHeidi

Omackeral wrote: »

Did you just reply to your own post?!

I've been trying to decide whether he just contradicted himself, or agreed with his own post

RoYoBo

ash23 wrote: »

Just to point out (and I don't agree with the claim amount paid) that there were tables pushed together. So not four legs on either end of the table but also legs in the middle where the tables were pushed together. This was covered by a table cloth and she was directed as to where to sit by the staff and not advised that there was something there that she should watch out for.

I'd imagine if she was sat at the end of the table and hit her knee she wouldn't have been able to claim. She was told to sit in a place where there was a hidden obstruction and not warned about it......therefore they're liable. It wasn't unreasonable of her to assume it was one long table and there were no legs along the length of the table.

This is exactly what I was thinking. If you're directed to your seat in the centre of what appears to be one long table, you might not expect there to be a solid object hidden under the tablecloth. If you you pull in your chair quickly and forcefully, you could give your knee a right wallop, enough to cause significant damage, I'm sure.

I've been in restaurants with a large group where I've been warned about the presence of a table leg (often actually 2 legs from both tables together) and taken appropriate care as a result. Having said all that, the award seems high, but who knows how much real damage she sustained? She must have had enough proof to win not once but twice on appeal.

BPKS

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

My plumer charges for his time as well as his materials, the bastard!

If the plumber called to your house, suggested that in order to make an insurance claim you should damage the inlet pipe going into the water tank in your attic and then called to your door a few hours later offering his services to fix the pipe after the damage had been done- he would still charge for his time as well and the materials. The b@stard.

See what I did there?

Samuel T. Cogley

BPKS wrote: »

If the plumber called to your house, suggested that in order to make an insurance claim you should damage the inlet pipe going into the water tank in your attic and then called to your door a few hours later offering his services to fix the pipe after the damage had been done- he would still charge for his time as well and the materials. The b@stard.

See what I did there?

Not really, I think what you're suggesting is solicitors are jumping out of the bushes and going "Pssst. Pssst. Wanna claim?". They're not.

Samuel T. Cogley

RoYoBo wrote: »

Having said all that, the award seems high, but who knows how much real damage she sustained? She must have had enough proof to win not once but twice on appeal.

The award is made up for an award for the actual injury 'pain and suffering if you will' the medical expenses and time off work etc. Now there is definate argument what perhaps the damages for the injury in of itself, are to quote the other famous Samuel, too damn high.

rob316

ash23 wrote: »

Just to point out (and I don't agree with the claim amount paid) that there were tables pushed together. So not four legs on either end of the table but also legs in the middle where the tables were pushed together. This was covered by a table cloth and she was directed as to where to sit by the staff and not advised that there was something there that she should watch out for.

I'd imagine if she was sat at the end of the table and hit her knee she wouldn't have been able to claim. She was told to sit in a place where there was a hidden obstruction and not warned about it......therefore they're liable. It wasn't unreasonable of her to assume it was one long table and there were no legs along the length of the table.

I know and I have to agree by the letter of the law and the way its laid out who was liable she is right but there has to be level of common sense with these claims. How hard and fast did her knee meet the leg of the table? what could she have been 2 feet away tops, I can't imagine it was that painful and if it was just for a few moments.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Fian wrote: »

Or could it?

Let's imagine the pallets were colour coded. Imagine that the Dye used was toxic, imagine the splinter introduced this toxin and that since the splinter couldn't be easily extracted it was just left in place, or part of it broke off. The Dye caused permanent discolouration of the right hand and worse yet the toxins in it caused nerve damage resulting in permanent numbness (or paralysis/restricted movement or whatever). Let's say he lost his job because he can no longer grip the steering wheel with his right hand.

.

Or could it be?

Let's just say that your example happened, but the employer had provided appropriate safety gloves, adequate training an provided written warning to the employee that failure to comply with these procedures will result in disciplinary action. However, the employee goes ahead and does his own thing anyway.

It is likely that a court will find him liable for contributory negligence and reduce his award by (perhaps) 50%. That still leaves a €60k claim against the employer. How is he supposed to avoid that unless he jockeys his employee doing every aspect of his duties