Burglar sues shop owner after he injured his testicles while robbing the premises.

TallGlass

This is mental, so what next will we have the following?

Robber comes into rob shop with gun pointing at owner.

Owner, 'Yes yes, have the money, actually Mr Robber, can you just pause there for a moment?'

Robber 'What?'

Owner, 'Hold on a moment please, I need to grab a mop and clean up the spillage on the ground in case you fall on the way out a sue me'. Actually, 'can I hold the door for you on the way out, just incase you trip or it hits you'

Robber 'What?'

Owner 'Actually I will come outside to and let the Garda not to physically confront you just incase your injured'

Sue Pa Key Pa

Every multinational business expects it's individual subsidiaries to be able to stand on it's own 2 feet and pay it's way.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Pat Mustard wrote: »

You mention reserves. If insurance companies are increasing premia to increase their reserves for motor insurance claims, then they should say that instead of this repeated nonsense about increased cost of claims, which can be shown not to be reason.

Having to increase what was normally put aside as a reserve for any given claim is an increase in the cost of claims

Pat Mustard

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Having to increase what was normally put aside as a reserve for any given claim is an increase in the cost of claims

Can you show that "what is normally put aside" accounts for these huge increases?

Pat Mustard

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Can you show that "what is normally put aside" accounts for these huge increases?

"In summary, the balance of costs and revenues has been off kilter for several years and is in line with the insurance industry view that premiums and investment income have decreased while claims costs have increased, in particular incurred claims costs, leading to sustained losses. Regulatory returns submitted to the Central Bank, for companies subject to prudential regulation in Ireland or operating through branches on a freedom of establishment basis for Irish motor risk, show combined underwriting losses of close to €700 million for the years 2013 to 2015, inclusive. "

In other words motor insurance was loss making in Ireland 2013-2015 and premiums have increased as companies realise they need to to cover the cost of current and future claims.

This is from the report you keep linking to.

Pat Mustard

Deleted User wrote: »

Your statement was that the report says there is "no basis for the suggestion that cost of claims is responsible for the recent increases in car insurance."

I just want one quote from the report that backs that up, not a link to two irrelevant quotes in a previous post.

Those quotes are extremely relevant. You choose to ignore that. No point in you and I discussing this any further.

ziggyman17

the law is a joke, if you break in to someone else property then you should lose all rights to self of enlightenment regarding accidents and whatever, the biggest accident I see here is the burglar being born in the first place,

Pat Mustard

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Those quotes are extremely relevant. You choose to ignore that. No point in you and I discussing this any further.

Ok, this is your first quote:

"It has been stated by some stakeholders that legal costs are a significant factor in the rising cost of motor insurance claims. However, there is no statistical basis for the measurement of legal costs either in the economy in general or in relation to the legal costs associated with motor insurance. The courts do not record legal costs."

summary, it isn't possible to measure legal costs in relation to the insurance industry as they are not recorded. Legal costs, not costs of claims.


Second quote:

Some stakeholders advise that they have had to increase reserves to take account of future cost of claims arising from a number of changes in the legislative environment. This includes the change in jurisdictional limits. As outlined in this Chapter, available evidence does not support this assertion in relation to the new limits.

summary: there is no evidence that insurers have necessarily had to increase reserves.

Neither of these quotes is anything to do with claims, as anyone who can read will be able to see.

i am sure you don't want to continue talking to me, because you are lying and spoofing and I am calling you out on it.

_Brian

brevity wrote: »

One of these days someone is going to go vigilante - the justice system seems to be all over the place.

They have a vigilante group over in west Cavan, has reduced crime. Gets support of the community.

https://www.todayfm.com/There-is-a-risk-but-we-have-to-protect-our-local-community-

Some members have access to legally held firearms.

On the issue of the insurance industry and premiums and the legal sector and costs, these disputes have raised their head before. I guess anyone looking on might get this feeling...

RoboRat

"We are satisfied from our instructions that you are responsible for this accident, therefore liable to compensate our client for this personal image loss and damage. We hearby call upon you to admit liability to our client in an open letter within 10 days from the date thereof."

I'm no legal eagle but could this just be a case of using an alternative means to get his client off any charges. If the owner admits liability, they are essentially agreeing that they are responsible and therefore the solicitor could argue their client wasn't necessarily trespassing as the owner has admitted responsibility... it could at least be used to muddy the waters somewhat/.

Liam McPoyle

[Deleted User] wrote: »

On the issue of the insurance industry and premiums and the legal sector and costs, these disputes have raised their head before.

They raised their head previously with the introduction of the Injuries Board.

This was set up SPECIFICALLY in an attempt to stream line the claims process and remove the legal fraternity from it to expedite claims and reduce over all costs.

The fact that the legal fraternity was identified as a problem in the claims process and that efforts were made to remove them says it all, but no, they are the white knights fighting the cartel according to some.

I understand that in some cases the injured party needs legal assistance, particularly for more complex claims but the fact of the matter is that something like 90% of claims that go through the IB are represented by solicitors so it's essentially a broken system.

suicide_circus

^^^^the legal eagles will say it's working just fine

Liam McPoyle

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Many businesses cannot operate without these insurances so it's not optional for them.


Can you back this up, please. Newspaper reports indicate that home insurance has risen.
https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/inflation-up-as-car-health-and-home-insurance-costs-increase-34785783.html


This does not account for the recent huge increases in the cost of insurance premia. The insurance companies said that it the recent increases are due to the cost of claims. This was true for many years previously but now it is not true any more. It can be shown that the cost of claims does not account for these huge increases. It's in the report of the Cost of Insurance Working Group.

You mention reserves. If insurance companies are increasing premia to increase their reserves for motor insurance claims, then they should say that instead of this repeated nonsense about increased cost of claims, which can be shown not to be reason.

There is no legal requirement for EL or PL insurance in this country.

A 10% rise in home insurance premiums is relatively small and would be in line with the increase in property values, construction costs etc, it's known as index linking.

You keep going on about that report.

Have a look at the 2015 central bank report.

Overall in the year insurers made an underwriting loss of around €200m on personal lines business ie car and home insurance.

An underwriting loss means that a company is paying out more in claims than they are taking in in premium.

As insurance is pooled risk paying out more than you take in is not sustainable and as such, premiums had to rise to balance the books.

Reserves are directly connected to premiums.

IIRC, under the Solvency II requirement, insurers hold a minimum of 200% capital reserves.

Basically means if they have €50m in outstanding claims they have to have a minimum of €150m in the bank to cover the costs.

Business Cat

Business Cat wrote: »

This was set up SPECIFICALLY in an attempt to stream line the claims process and remove the legal fraternity from it to expedite claims and reduce over all costs.

I certainly do not recall that it was ever set up to exclude lawyers. Remove the Courts, absolutely, expedite claims by removing the need to have Courts process everything, improve their efficiency and reduce costs. In fact there was little opposition to it from Solicitors anyway, who can argue against efficiency and minimising money frittered away needlessly.

Pat Mustard

Business Cat wrote: »

There is no legal requirement for EL or PL insurance in this country.

Yes but for example, certain licensed premises won't get "late licences" without PL insurance and many builders won't be considered for construction projects without it.

Business Cat wrote: »

A 10% rise in home insurance premiums is relatively small and would be in line with the increase in property values, construction costs etc, it's known as index linking.

Okay, I'd accept that.

Business Cat wrote: »

Reserves are directly connected to premiums.

IIRC, under the Solvency II requirement, insurers hold a minimum of 200% capital reserves.

Basically means if they have €50m in outstanding claims they have to have a minimum of €150m in the bank to cover the costs.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/eu-raid-only-latest-chapter-in-insurance-controversies-1.3145884

In January, figures from the Central Statistics Office showed the cost of motor insurance had risen by 51 per cent since early 2011. One reader wrote to The Irish Times, some months back about how he had returned to the Republic after two years abroad to find his insurance had jumped from €373 to €3,673.

Much of the trouble can be traced back to before the financial crisis. When SeQuinn, once Ireland’s richest man, entered the insurance market in the mid-1990s, his tactic was to dramatically undercut established players in the industry.

All of this led to a race to the bottom among competitors, and, when the financial crisis struck, industry players were ill-equipped and under-resourced to deal with the fallout. They are still trying to recover those losses.

Quinn, for his part, ended up overstaffed, making losses, and lacking in solvency by the end of 2009. When the day of reckoning came, it was left to consumers to pick up the tab as the Government introduced a 2 per cent levy on all non-life and health insurance policies to help fund a €720 million shortfall at Quinn Insurance.

By December 2015, Quinn Insurance had cost the State’s Insurance Compensation Fund some €1.23 billion in terms of meeting claims from drivers with the insurer.

Despite allegations of price-fixing and gouging, the industry has always claimed insurance fraud as well as more claims and rising compensation were to blame for higher premiums.

It seems that insurance industry had not adequately prepared and now it's sticking it to the consumer, by massive increases in premiums/premia to shore up reserves. Do you disagree?

Sue Pa Key Pa

Pat Mustard wrote: »

It seems that insurance industry had not adequately prepared and now it's sticking it to the consumer, by massive increases in premiums/premia to shore up reserves. Do you disagree?

As an individual point, I'd agree with that. Insurers were charging premiums far too low to meet the needs of the prevailing claims and the level of increases therefore appear dramatic to redress the situation. Insurers should not have been allowed offer those unsustainable premiums, but we are where we are. It's not "sticking it to the consumer", we are now all just paying the level of premium that our self entitled right to compensation (and fraud) demand to make the books balance

Pat Mustard

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

As an individual point, I'd agree with that. Insurers were charging premiums far too low to meet the needs of the prevailing claims and the level of increases therefore appear dramatic to redress the situation. Insurers should not have been allowed offer those unsustainable premiums, but we are where we are.

I can agree with this much anyway.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I can agree with this much anyway.

You should also try and agree that the Legal Profession is major contributor to our current predicament

Pat Mustard

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

You should also try and agree that the Legal Profession is major contributor to our current predicament

Feel free to back up whatever point you wish to make.

givyjoe

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Feel free to back up whatever point you wish to make.

Em, wouldn't this case (testicle guy) be a perfect example?!

Pat Mustard

givyjoe wrote: »

Em, wouldn't this case (testicle guy) be a perfect example?!

Go ahead, my friend. What is the extent of the fallout from this case?

endacl

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Go ahead, my friend. What is the extent of the fallout from this case?

Did one fall out?!?

*eyes water*

givyjoe

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Go ahead, my friend. What is the extent of the fallout from this case?

Are you kidding me? No solicitor is under any obligation to take on the case which this one did. Do solicitors really need to take on such cases to get by, similar to the 'ambulance' chasing' culture a American Lawyers became notorious for?

If they do, then perhaps we have too many. Your tone suggests someone awfully touchy with regard to the legal profession.

CrankyHaus

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Go ahead, my friend. What is the extent of the fallout from this case?

Well a victim of crime has to suffer the further stress, inconvenience and potential loss of being sued by the person who burgled his business.
The cost of dealing with the claim will have an upward effect an premiums.
A convicted burgler has an opportunity to gain from his crime, if he is successful in his claim.
His solicitor in turn stands to gain.

This is clearly unconscionable.
That's why I asked you earlier if you think it's right, both for it to happen and for the solicitor to take the case.
You're response was a little long but seemed to be 'yes' on both counts.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Feel free to back up whatever point you wish to make.

Every time I tell you I'm prohibited from citing examples, due to data protection, you dismiss that along the line of your most recent one

" Yeah, it's the old chestnut of take my word for it but I could not possibly release such information. I believe you though. You have an honest face."

Yet, in your role as Moderator in the Legal Discussion forum, you shut down any thread which seeks legal advice for specific situations because you are bound by the same constraints

Pat Mustard

CrankyHaus wrote: »

You're response was a little long but seemed to be 'yes' on both counts.

The way I see it, a case like this does not have a reasonable chance of achieving a settlement or court award, for the reasons previously outlined. Therefore, I think that it's pointless.

I'm aware of the shock value of a Joe Duffy style case but I can't see it going anywhere and I find it hard to imagine why anyone would bother.

Pat Mustard

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Every time I tell you I'm prohibited from citing examples, due to data protection, you dismiss that along the line of your most recent one

Maybe I'm wrong but I think that this is the first time that you mentioned that here. The industry could cooperate though, as opposed to you.

givyjoe

givyjoe wrote: »

Em, wouldn't this case (testicle guy) be a perfect example?!

As I said before, I think he has a uphill battle.

But if he is entitled to sue and he sues, so be it, much like the Wicklow Walker case. The Occupier's Liability Act was passed by the legislature, it's not for Solicitors to police its application.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Pat Mustard wrote:

The way I see it, a case like this does not have a reasonable chance of achieving a settlement or court award, for the reasons previously outlined. Therefore, I think that it's pointless.

Whether it succeeds or not is almost a side issue. Substantial costs will be incurred in defending this case, not to mention the fact that an open claim will have a detrimental effect on the business owner obtaining reasonable insurance. None of those costs can be recovered if the case is thrown out and get passed on to the consumer

Pat Mustard

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Whether it succeeds or not is almost a side issue. Substantial costs will be incurred in defending this case, not to mention the fact that an open claim will have a detrimental effect on the business owner obtaining reasonable insurance. None of those costs can be recovered if the case is thrown out and get passed on to the consumer

If it proceeds. Which is a big 'if'.

The injuries board fees are €600 to go through that process but there is no reason why it should, in a case like this.

And there is the issue of prosecutions for fraud in these cases. Insurance companies should pursue these matter with Gardai/DPP with regard to false affidavits of verification by plaintiffs. But I don't see this happening. Why is that?

Sue Pa Key Pa

Pat Mustard wrote: »

And there is the issue of prosecutions for fraud in these cases. Insurance companies should pursue these matter with Gardai/DPP with regard to false affidavits of verification by plaintiffs. But I don't see this happening. Why is that?

Now you've given me an idea. What if the law allowed Insurers the right to recover their costs JOINTLY from a penniless skanger proven to have attempted fraud along with the flush solicitor who happily aided and abetted him. Now that would be a worthwhile exercise, rather than throwing good money after bad.

ziggyman17

so let me get this right... You can break in to some's property with the intention of stealing from them... Hurt yourself in the process and then sue the property owner for damages........ The mind boggles.....So while politicians are trying to push through various alcohol laws serious stuff like this is pushed to the side.... I really wonder if the powers in charge are really looking out for the abiding citizen in this world... while the powers that be are too busy making up laws to suit their own needs proper laws and order is ignored... This ****er should be given another 10 years for wasting the courts time with this instead he will probably get a nice few quid...

Roger Hassenforder

Deleted User wrote: »

As I said before, I think he has a uphill battle.

But if he is entitled to sue and he sues, so be it, much like the Wicklow Walker case. The Occupier's Liability Act was passed by the legislature, it's not for Solicitors to police its application.

other than an allegation of an injury, there's no comparison to the Wicklow walker (Theresa Wall?) case in fairness.

notwithstanding his low probability of success if it got to trial, that he even has a chance is the issue, considering the adversarial nature of our system. Justice isnt all ways done, who ever puts on the best show often wins.
If you cant see an issue with a trespasser being "entitled to sue" for sustaining an injury while in the commission of a crime and being represented by a solicitor to try and obtain compensation, speaks of an issue within the legal profession, and its disconnect from the very principals of law.

PCeeeee

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

If you cant see an issue with a trespasser being "entitled to sue" for sustaining an injury while in the commission of a crime and being represented by a solicitor to try and obtain compensation, speaks of an issue within the legal profession, and its disconnect from the very principals of law.

Hear hear.

JJayoo

Captain Obvious wrote: »

The solicitor should be ashamed of themselves.

Solicitors in these situations should be named and shamed.

theoneeyedman

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Whether it succeeds or not is almost a side issue. Substantial costs will be incurred in defending this case, not to mention the fact that an open claim will have a detrimental effect on the business owner obtaining reasonable insurance. None of those costs can be recovered if the case is thrown out and get passed on to the consumer

There is a real gravy train in these cases, mainly from the 'professional classes'.
Solicitors, doctors for medical reports etc. Even the tax man is in on it, legal fees command a 23% vat rate. Every lad has his fingers in the pie, its in nobody of powers interests to stop it really, and Paddy ends up picking up the tab.

Pat Mustard

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Now you've given me an idea. What if the law allowed Insurers the right to recover their costs JOINTLY from a penniless skanger proven to have attempted fraud along with the flush solicitor who happily aided and abetted him. Now that would be a worthwhile exercise, rather than throwing good money after bad.

If you could prove that somebody aided and abetted in fraud, I don't see why a change in the law would be required to sue them.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Pat Mustard wrote:

If you could prove that somebody aided and abetted in fraud, I don't see why a change in the law would be required to sue them.

Abetted means to encourage or assist in something wrong. I didn't say conspire. If a fraudster is caught out, his sabre rattling solicitor who is pushing him forward should also pay the consequences

Captain Obvious

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

So you think all the major players such as AXA, Aviva, Liberty, RSA, Allianz, Zurich etc have come together to operate a cartel in a tiny, tiny market like Ireland, yet they are heroes to the public in every other European jurisdiction they trade in?

No I think they are pricing their product based on their competitors prices as opposed to the cost of the product.

Pat Mustard

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Abetted means to encourage or assist in something wrong. I didn't say conspire. If a fraudster is caught out, his sabre rattling solicitor who is pushing him forward should also pay the consequences

The phrase "aiding and abetting" is clear. Is there some additional point here?

Roger Hassenforder

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

other than an allegation of an injury, there's no comparison to the Wicklow walker (Theresa Wall?) case in fairness.

notwithstanding his low probability of success if it got to trial, that he even has a chance is the issue, considering the adversarial nature of our system. Justice isnt all ways done, who ever puts on the best show often wins.
If you cant see an issue with a trespasser being "entitled to sue" for sustaining an injury while in the commission of a crime and being represented by a solicitor to try and obtain compensation, speaks of an issue within the legal profession, and its disconnect from the very principals of law.

And I see access to legal representation as being pretty much a cornerstone of democracy, and when we seek to limit it by demanding that lawyers impose some bar on representing certain types, it attacks democracy. The paedophile, the drink driver who ploughs into a child, they are entitled to receive legal advice. And even those who seek compensation after committing a crime, if the Ward family sought compensation for wrongful death against Nally, I'd say let them take their case and let the cards fall where they might.

Incidentally affair the children in the Purthill and MacNamara cases were both trespassers...one in an abattoir that has his face rearranged, one in an ESB substation that lost his arms in an electrocution.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Abetted means to encourage or assist in something wrong. I didn't say conspire. If a fraudster is caught out, his sabre rattling solicitor who is pushing him forward should also pay the consequences

Only if the Solicitor is complicit and presses a claim knowing it to be fraudulent. Then of course they should face the most serious consequences.

Vic_08

Pat Mustard wrote: »

The way I see it, a case like this does not have a reasonable chance of achieving a settlement or court award, for the reasons previously outlined. Therefore, I think that it's pointless.

I'm aware of the shock value of a Joe Duffy style case but I can't see it going anywhere and I find it hard to imagine why anyone would bother.

And as I have said repeatedly the reason to push the case through is to force a settlement on the defendant on the basis that paying the settlement will be cheaper than winning the case where there is 0 chance of claiming back expenses off a scummer.

Only the crime victim defendant has any stake in the case, win or loose he will be out of pocket, win or loose his lawyer will be getting his fee paid. The plaintiff has no reason not to proceed, he won't be paying out if he looses and his lawyer is gambling that he can force a settlement and get his cut of the con.

Your several-page off-topic rantings on the insurance industry does not absolve the legal profession for their amoral abuse of the system in this way.

Roger Hassenforder

Deleted User wrote: »

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

other than an allegation of an injury, there's no comparison to the Wicklow walker (Theresa Wall?) case in fairness.

notwithstanding his low probability of success if it got to trial, that he even has a chance is the issue, considering the adversarial nature of our system. Justice isnt all ways done, who ever puts on the best show often wins.
If you cant see an issue with a trespasser being "entitled to sue" for sustaining an injury while in the commission of a crime and being represented by a solicitor to try and obtain compensation, speaks of an issue within the legal profession, and its disconnect from the very principals of law.

And I see access to legal representation as being pretty much a cornerstone of democracy, and when we seek to limit it by demanding that lawyers impose some bar on representing certain types, it attacks democracy. The paedophile, the drink driver who ploughs into a child, they are entitled to receive legal advice. And even those who seek compensation after committing a crime, if the Ward family sought compensation for wrongful death against Nally, I'd say let them take their case and let the cards fall where they might.

Incidentally affair the children in the Purthill and MacNamara cases were both trespassers...one in an abattoir that has his face rearranged, one in an ESB substation that lost his arms in an electrocution.

Stick to the point.
Youre obfuscating and conflating the right to a fair trial of an accused, which is a cornerstone of democracy and justice, with the rights, or the word you used "entitlements" of wrong doers to seek to profit of their transgressions from their victims, represented by lawyers capitalising on the very justice system they purport to hold dear.

That is neither just, morally or ethically right.

Maybe lawyers should have some test of just merit prior to taking a case on, at least ensure the plaintiff was not unlawfully trespassing or committing a crime. But when you can even consider posting a statement such as "Even those who seek compensation after committing a crime", really shows the system for what it is, where can a buck be made, or a trick turned. Whos the next mark.
(the) "more law...(the) less justice" said Cicero 2000 yrs ago. He was spot on.

Our friend the hill walker had a case, but im glad she lost. (Link to the kids, im not familiar with it.)

Skedaddle

And we wonder why our insurance bills keep going up, and up, and up and up and up.

Vic_08

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Stick to the point.
Youre obfuscating and conflating the right to a fair trial of an accused, which is a cornerstone of democracy and justice, with the rights, or the word you used "entitlements" of wrong doers to seek to profit of their transgressions from their victims, represented by lawyers capitalising on the very justice system they purport to hold dear.

That is neither just, morally or ethically right.

Maybe lawyers should have some test of just merit prior to taking a case on, at least ensure the plaintiff was not unlawfully trespassing or committing a crime.

Nah, leaving it up to the lawyers is why we have the joke of a system we are being screwed over by now. The control of most of the legal system needs to be taken away from them if we ever have any expectation of it being more than a massive trough for the pigs to feed from.

What's needed is an independent panel for civil defendants to go to if they have won their case but cannot claim costs from the plaintiff. If they judge the case was below a reasonable level of merit then the plaintiff's solicitor becomes liable for the award. If they cannot or will not pay they loose their right to practice.



But when you can even consider posting a statement such as "Even those who seek compensation after committing a crime", really shows the system for what it is, where can a buck be made, or a trick turned. Whos the next mark.
(the) "more law...(the) less justice" said Cicero 2000 yrs ago. He was spot on.

Our friend the hill walker had a case, but im glad she lost. (Link to the kids, im not familiar with it.)[/QUOTE]

There is a reason the Shakespeare quote "First we kill all the lawyers" is so often repeated.

There are two types of people in Ireland: those that hate the legal system with all the morally bankrupt shysters coining it in at the expense of the unwary public and those that are lucky enough to never had any dealings with our "justice" system.

Roger Hassenforder

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Stick to the point.
...
Our friend the hill walker had a case, but im glad she lost. (Link to the kids, im not familiar with it.)

If you're not familiar with the cases that are the bedrock of occupiers liability in Ireland, fair enough...but you must accept that overshadows your analysis of the law. Both of them involved trespassers.

Nekarsulm

RoboRat wrote: »

I'm no legal eagle but could this just be a case of using an alternative means to get his client off any charges. If the owner admits liability, they are essentially agreeing that they are responsible and therefore the solicitor could argue their client wasn't necessarily trespassing as the owner has admitted responsibility... it could at least be used to muddy the waters somewhat/.

The Polish lad who got a cut on his scrotum has already been sentenced for the robbery during which he was injured.
6 months suspended, but was later caught for something else and jailed for the 6 months anyway.
So he can't "get off ".

Roger Hassenforder

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If you're not familiar with the cases that are the bedrock of occupiers liability in Ireland, fair enough...but you must accept that overshadows your analysis of the law. Both of them involved trespassers.

How about you reference cases you introduce and we can discuss them...you're here long enough to know how this works...
The only thing overshadowing my analysis is your condescending attitude, and aptitude in goalpost moving. Have we moved on from your hillwalker, and the OP scrote with the, ahem, torn scrotum?