Personal injury claims against management company

greep

I would like to understand the rationale behind an individual suing & claiming compensation from a Management Company of an apartment complex for personal injuries, e.g.:
1) tripping over in the common area and twisting an angle
2) falling down the staircase and breaking a leg
3) head injuries resulting from breaking fire door glass

It's unimaginable for me how such ridiculous cases are filed, but since they are, there must some good odds for winning them.
I understand a small percentage might be filed for valid reasons, but the majority are not.

My guess is that the solicitor of the accuser can come up with some 'made up' breaches of law/defects within the apartment complex, which are extremely hard or impossible to prove for the accused.
It is then down to which side can collect stronger evidence or witnesses to support their case?
Is it how it works?

What are the best methods for mitigating the risk of loosing such cases by a company, except keeping CCTV footage?

Thanks

Caranica

Is "injured party" a visitor? Isn't there something that precludes an owner from suing a management company that they are part of?

Peregrinus

greep wrote: »

I would like to understand the rationale behind an individual suing & claiming compensation from a Management Company of an apartment complex for personal injuries, e.g.:
1) tripping over in the common area and twisting an angle
2) falling down the staircase and breaking a leg
3) head injuries resulting from breaking fire door glass

It's unimaginable for me how such ridiculous cases are filed, but since they are, there must some good odds for winning them.
I understand a small percentage might be filed for valid reasons, but the majority are not.

My guess is that the solicitor of the accuser can come up with some 'made up' breaches of law/defects within the apartment complex, which are extremely hard or impossible to prove for the accused.
It is then down to which side can collect stronger evidence or witnesses to support their case?
Is it how it works?

Why are you assuming that the breaches of law/defects/poor maintenance/whatever are made up? Presumably in many cases they are not made up.

greep wrote: »

What are the best methods for mitigating the risk of loosing such cases by a company, except keeping CCTV footage?

The biggest thing, far and away, that the management company can do is to keep the place properly and safely maintained.

Plus, of course, insure.

CCTV cameras might be helpful in identifying fraudulent claims. But, of course, once you have insurance in place, identifying fraudulent claims benefits the insurance company in the first instance. Why should the management company pay out to install a CCTV system from which the insurance company will benefit?

If the incidence of fraudulent claims in the building is high enough that it's affecting the insurance premium, then it may make financial sense to install the CCTV system, if it will keep premiums down by more than the cost of the system.

IsaacWunder

Caranica wrote: »

Isn't there something that precludes an owner from suing a management company that they are part of?

How does that work?

SteM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why should the management company pay out to install a CCTV system from which the insurance company will benefit?

Because successful claims lead to higher premiums down the line?

kirving

In many cases I read about online or in papers, the circumstances are generally fine, and the person is looking to sue for what seems like absolutely nothing - these are the cases that make the news.

There are equally many cases where due to laziness, greed, ineptitude or just bad timing that a fault in a property causes injury.

For example, your apartment owners want to reduce maintenance/cleaning costs, and make the place more desirable, so use nice smooth concrete on the walkways outside.

If you fell on the smooth concrete floor that was wet due to say an overflowing gutter in very heavy rain. The gutter is the cause of the circumstance, but there is a responsibility on the building owners to make reasonable efforts to mitigate against things like this. ie: brushed concrete should have been used.

Peregrinus

SteM wrote: »

Because successful claims lead to higher premiums down the line?

A point I made myself.

But that connection has to be there before it make financial sense for the management company to spend money on a CCTV system. They're not interested in lowering insurance costs for the community at large; they will only spend money on a CCTV system if they know it will lower their insurance costs. That might be the case if they are already suffering a loading for a poor claims record, or if the insurer offers a discount to customers who already have or agree to install CCTV. But, without circumstances like that, spending money on putting in a CCTV system in the hope that, in the long term, you will save on insurance premiums, is going to look a bit speculative.

(And of course it makes no sense at all unless you are already spending whatever it costs to keep the place well-maintained and safe.)

Caranica

IsaacWunder wrote: »

How does that work?

You can't sue yourself

Peregrinus

Caranica wrote: »

You can't sue yourself

But the company is not the shareholder; it's a separate legal person. That's the whole point of incorporating a company.

hullaballoo

I think the confusion might be from the general proposition that club members can't sue the club they're a member of.

Peregrinus

hullaballoo wrote: »

I think the confusion might be from the general proposition that club members can't sue the club they're a member of.

And similarly partners can't sue their own partnership. But that's because clubs and partnerships don't have legal personality.

hullaballoo

Indeed. But it's easy to see how confusion might arise if there's a lack of general awareness of the distinction between entities that do and do not have legal personalities separate to their owners/members.

It is easy to see how someone who has no formal education in the law might assume that a member of a company has the same relationship with the company as a club member does with the club, even though most lawyers would or should know that's not the case.

NUTLEY BOY

hullaballoo wrote: »

I think the confusion might be from the general proposition that club members can't sue the club they're a member of.

Correct where the club is an unincorporated association i.e. no legal personality distinct from the individual club members a la Murphy -v- Roche [No. 2] [1987] IR 106.

IsaacWunder

hullaballoo wrote: »

Indeed. But it's easy to see how confusion might arise if there's a lack of general awareness of the distinction between entities that do and do not have legal personalities separate to their owners/members.

It is easy to see how someone who has no formal education in the law might assume that a member of a company has the same relationship with the company as a club member does with the club, even though most lawyers would or should know that's not the case.

Ignorantia juris non excusat.