256k for PTSD

Eggs For Dinner

This is a prime example of why insurers often settle claims quickly, out of court, even when they feel the claimants demands are excessive compared to the injury incurred.

In this instance, the insurers obviously felt they had a good case. Now they face a ridiculous award and the legal costs that go with it. Why should they bother next time?

McCrack

colm_mcm wrote: »

These judges must think they’re on a Winning Streak, and that big chunks of magic free money from insurance companies can be used to change someone’s life. Same old crap. No personal responsibility anymore.


If she was a motorist and broke a red light, causing another motorist to crash into her, she’d suddenly not be entitled to the money, and would most likely be found to be 100% at fault.

This is an example of the tripe I mentioned earlier

McCrack

Greyfox wrote: »

Which is where the problem is, her injurys are her fault for breaking a red light, she did not have the right of way. Insread of making these payouts we should be sending a message that it's never ok to break a red light, rules of the road are there for a reason.

As I said before none of us are privy to the particular facts and circumstances of this case

Perhaps there was contributory negligence found against her or apportionment of liability

That can arise in circumstances where a Plaintiff did or didnt do something they should have done

seamus

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

I seem to remember you being very cynical of these large payouts in your early boards.ie life, now you appear in similar threads defending them, what changed?

I don't know if that's the case, but if it is, that was was 17 years ago.

I grew up and realised that reality is more nuanced than every compo claim and dole claim being an outrageous money grab.

Galwayguy35

I've seen this happen numerous times at pedestrian crossings where people don't have the patience to wait and run across traffic.

This idiot should have got nothing because she took the risk running in front of a car, I feel sorry for the driver who's insurance probably went through the roof and has to think about this every day when it wasn't their fault.

Kivaro

There should be an impartial investigation into these ludicrous claim awards and the relationship between the judiciary and solicitor offices.
Solicitors are making a fortune from these very generous judges ......... on the backs of the people who are playing fair.

McCrack

Kivaro wrote: »

There should be an impartial investigation into these ludicrous claim awards and the relationship between the judiciary and solicitor offices.
Solicitors are making a fortune from these very generous judges ......... on the backs of the people who are playing fair.

Well you see there is a thing called the Court of Appeal that defendant's (insurance company)can appeal questions of liability (fault) and quantum (amount of compensation) if they think the High Court was wrong

Eggs For Dinner

McCrack wrote:

This is an example of the tripe I mentioned earlier

McCrack, don't deny you have a vested interest in maintaining the current system we have where uncertainty abounds in the legal process. Insurers often cave in to spurious claims brought by the legal profession on behalf of many chancers rather than face idiot judges.

*Awaits personal attack in response*

seamus

Kivaro wrote: »

Solicitors are making a fortune from these very generous judges ......... on the backs of the people who are playing fair.

It's not legal for solicitors to take their fee as a percentage of costs awarded in court.

Legal fees must be representative of the time and expertise used during the case, it can't be an arbitrary percentage.

So, basically you're completely wrong. Whether the award is €1,000 or €1,000,000 the solicitor gets the same fee.

McCrack

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

McCrack, don't deny you have a vested interest in maintaining the current system we have where uncertainty abounds in the legal process. Insurers often cave in to spurious claims brought by the legal profession on behalf of many chancers rather than face idiot judges.

*Awaits personal attack in response*

Tripe example #2

Eggs For Dinner

McCrack wrote:

Tripe example #2

Your eloquent argument in response has converted me away from my original opinion

Nermal

McCrack wrote: »

Well you see there is a thing called the Court of Appeal that defendant's (insurance company)can appeal questions of liability (fault) and quantum (amount of compensation) if they think the High Court was wrong

Why spend more money to get the same answer?

Insurers can deal with nonsensical crap like this very easily, they just put up their prices.

The costs fall on the rest of society, who unfortunately have no avenue to modify the behaviour of the judiciary.

Kivaro

seamus wrote: »

So, basically you're completely wrong. Whether the award is €1,000 or €1,000,000 the solicitor gets the same fee.

And when has that actually happened?
In real life (away from the keyboard), you will find that solicitor "fees" will substantially increase based on the amount of the award and not the actual work/time involved on the lawsuit. Padding increases when the award increases.
Don't take us for fools ............... as a lot of judges/solicitors seem to do.

The majority of solicitors taking part in these spurious claims are no different to snake-oil salesmen. They are, of course, empowered by the judges who make decisions using bewildering criteria (e.g. observing the claimant in court).

A change on how judges are selected and removed (both civil and criminal) needs to happen in Ireland for any trust to exist between the people and the judiciary. At the moment, we do not trust many of them.

seamus

Kivaro wrote: »

In real life (away from the keyboard), you will find that solicitor "fees" will substantially increase based on the amount of the award and not the actual work/time involved on the lawsuit. Padding increases when the award increases.

If you have any evidence for this claim, the law society would love to hear from you.

I have no doubt that this is uninformed speculation with no basis in reality though.

What you'll find is that solicitors with a flair for landing large awards tend to be popular and therefore charge higher fees than their less talented colleagues.

But that's still not the same thing, the fee structure is laid out up front before the work starts, if they arbitrarily increased fees at the end, they'd be savaged by their clients and regulatory bodies.

McCrack

Nermal wrote: »

Why spend more money to get the same answer?

Insurers can deal with nonsensical crap like this very easily, they just put up their prices.

The costs fall on the rest of society, who unfortunately have no avenue to modify the behaviour of the judiciary.

Well the Court of Appeal has varied High Court decisions on both liability and quantum on personal injury cases in line with its and the Supreme Court's jurisprudence

You should Google Shannon v. O'Sullivan decision for further explanation

Cabaal

Mint Sauce wrote: »

I'm on the fence of this one. Yes. once she stepped into the road, she had right of way, but some personal responsibility has to be taken. Did the driver get anything for the unexpected hazard in the road, and the shock he might have received?

Bigger responsibility is on the motorists (I say this as a motorists), they are controlling a large metal box that can easily kill people.

Motorists are supposed to expect unexpected stuff to happen, if you don't then you are frankly....a ****e motorist.

duffman3833

Cabaal wrote: »

Bigger responsibility is on the motorists (I say this as a motorists), they are controlling a large metal box that can easily kill people.

Motorists are supposed to expect unexpected stuff to happen, if you don't then you are frankly....a ****e motorist.

Its not as if motorists can read peoples minds and see what they are going to do.

you could be the most cautious driver in the world but you cant predict if someone will suddenly walk out in front of you all of a sudden.

Im sure its happened to all of us at some stage that something unexpected happened while driving that you never saw coming

AlekSmart

King of Kings wrote: »

you make a fair point regarding hazards but i dont think its fair to blame the driver in the absence of evidence the driver was driving without due care.
She did cross when it was Red for her and its not unreasonable to assume that the driver was taken by surprise and/or didnt see her. Not all hazards can be accomodated.

She is a grown woman and although the driver should be mindful of dangers on the road etc...the bulk of the blame ( i mean 90% ish) should lie with her.

From the report I read (indo online) I got an impression that the judge was swayed by his positive impressions of the lady rather than the facts of the case.

Its a whopper payout even with 45% deduction its whopper...

Its a dangerous ruling i think

I found the account somewhat unusual also.

The Judge went to some lengths to draw attention to,and praise the young lady's handling of her case.
His recognition of her Chinese background,and how she represented herself through the process also causes me some unease.

For any person suffering from PTSD,to progress a case through the Irish Legal Process up to the level of a superior court is surely,of itself,an indication of the absence of PTSD or other psychological issues ?

I wonder if the Insurance Industry will appeal ?

AlekSmart

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I've seen this happen numerous times at pedestrian crossings where people don't have the patience to wait and run across traffic.

This idiot should have got nothing because she took the risk running in front of a car, I feel sorry for the driver who's insurance probably went through the roof and has to think about this every day when it wasn't their fault.

Perhaps She did'nt just"Take a risk",but instead took a calculated risk ?

Could one do enough research,to choose and plan an occurence such as this ?

On the other hand,the Judge would have had access to the full Garda incident report,and any other supporting evidence,which this thread does not....so,until that changes.....it's a Done Deal.

Liam McPoyle

seamus wrote: »

So, basically you're completely wrong. Whether the award is €1,000 or €1,000,000 the solicitor gets the same fee.

Hogwash.

If a claim is going to be settled for €1,000,000 then it will literally take years for it to get through the system. The one in the OP took 7 years to get to this point didn't it. A claim for €1000 will most likely settle quickly so a small legal fee will apply. A claim that takes 2, 3, 4, 5 etc years to get to court will cost more and more as time goes on. Its to a solicitors advantage to keep claims open as long as possible. They will charge for literally everything they do, from reading a report to posting a letter so the bigger the claim the bigger their fee will be.

In this case I believe the claimant represented herself so her legal fees are not a factor but in the majority of claims cases legal fees will run between 20% and 30% of the overall award. Its anecdotal of course as I cannot publish proof of this as it would cost me my job and most likely a criminal record but I can provide details of an accident involving my wife.

About 2 years ago she was involved in a collision with a truck where the truck hit her on a roundabout. It was low impact and thankfully she wasnt hurt. Damage to her car was settled for just shy of €3000. There was zero damage to the truck. It took 18 months for it to get to court. The judge ruled against her as she was found to be at fault by virtue of the fact she was in a wrong lane so that means her insurer at the time covered the full cost of the claim. No issue with that.

The claim settlement letter arrived a few weeks after the court date and the final figure was in excess of €7000. There were no injuries, no damage to the third party vehicle, and her own damage was less than €3k. So over €4000 of a €7000 claim were for legal expenses.

Talk about money for old rope.

monkeybutter

plus all the other hangers on


Doctors, psychologists etc


all make a packet for little work, all on the gravy train

thebaz

Judge Anthony Barr seams to constantly award high payouts - then he wouldn't have to worry too much about insurance premiums hike on his nice Judicial permanent salary - but honest hard working ordinary folk are getting crippled by ever increasing insurance premiums - and when you get your quote , payouts like this are one of the main reasons. Judges never seam to be held accountable for ther actions. Judge Barr has a few of these easy payouts to his name..

McCrack

Business Cat wrote: »

Hogwash.

If a claim is going to be settled for €1,000,000 then it will literally take years for it to get through the system. The one in the OP took 7 years to get to this point didn't it. A claim for €1000 will most likely settle quickly so a small legal fee will apply. A claim that takes 2, 3, 4, 5 etc years to get to court will cost more and more as time goes on. Its to a solicitors advantage to keep claims open as long as possible. They will charge for literally everything they do, from reading a report to posting a letter so the bigger the claim the bigger their fee will be.

In this case I believe the claimant represented herself so her legal fees are not a factor but in the majority of claims cases legal fees will run between 20% and 30% of the overall award. Its anecdotal of course as I cannot publish proof of this as it would cost me my job and most likely a criminal record but I can provide details of an accident involving my wife.

About 2 years ago she was involved in a collision with a truck where the truck hit her on a roundabout. It was low impact and thankfully she wasnt hurt. Damage to her car was settled for just shy of €3000. There was zero damage to the truck. It took 18 months for it to get to court. The judge ruled against her as she was found to be at fault by virtue of the fact she was in a wrong lane so that means her insurer at the time covered the full cost of the claim. No issue with that.

The claim settlement letter arrived a few weeks after the court date and the final figure was in excess of €7000. There were no injuries, no damage to the third party vehicle, and her own damage was less than €3k. So over €4000 of a €7000 claim were for legal expenses.

Talk about money for old rope.

So let me get this right-

Your wife was in a road traffic accident - there was no injury suffered - there was damage to your wife's car which settled by the truck driver's insurer for 3,000 Eur

And the matter somehow went to Court to have a Judge decide a 3,000 Eur material damage claim?

Right...

Markcheese

Stop giving claimants money for a nice holiday,and start covering medical bills, including counselling, physio ect...and provable expenses...
Who'd bother going for a fake whiplash claim if all it got them was whiplash treatment....

Liam McPoyle

McCrack wrote: »

So let me get this right-

Your wife was in a road traffic accident - there was no injury suffered - there was damage to your wife's car which settled by the truck driver's insurer for 3,000 Eur

And the matter somehow went to Court to have a Judge decide a 3,000 Eur material damage claim?

Right...

Liability was in dispute.

He crashed into her so she felt he was at fault, as did her insurer.

He felt that she was in the wrong due to her positioning and he would not accept liability, nor his insurer.

As neither party would accept liability and her insurer were not happy to settle on a 50/50 basis, it went before the courts.

McCrack

Business Cat wrote: »

Liability was in dispute.

He crashed into her so she felt he was at fault, as did her insurer.

He felt that she was in the wrong due to her positioning and he would not accept liability, nor his insurer.

As neither party would accept liability and her insurer were not happy to settle on a 50/50 basis, it went before the courts.

Hogwash

A material damage claim arising from a road traffic accident with no personal injuries worth 3000 eur is not going to see inside a Courtroom

knucklehead6

McCrack wrote: »

Hogwash

A material damage claim arising from a road traffic accident with no personal injuries worth 3000 eur is not going to see inside a Courtroom

How can you be so dismissive? The man has just told you that's what happened!! :rolleyes:

McCrack

knucklehead6 wrote: »

How can you be so dismissive? The man has just told you that's what happened!! :rolleyes:

I'll tell you how

Two insurance companies of two vehicles involved in a minor collision where the material damage is 3,000 and there are no personal injuries involved (drivers and/or passengers) will always agree liability (apportionment or otherwise) between themselves and settle

Such a minor claim will not darken the door of a Court

Believe me

Kivaro

Between your quote below:

seamus wrote: »

So, basically you're completely wrong. Whether the award is €1,000 or €1,000,000 the solicitor gets the same fee.

And the one below, I wonder if you are just adding joviality to the topic.

seamus wrote: »

If you have any evidence for this claim, the law society would love to hear from you.

The law society is the representative and regulatory body of the solicitors' profession in Ireland.

The abysmal track record of the "society" is proof that it cannot be both a regulatory body and representative body at the same time. To get impartial adjudication on complaints against solicitors, the profession needs to be regulated. This regulation would also reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits that we are currently seeing in the courts.

But the government (present government) will never allow this to happen due to the obvious conflict of interest (self interest) if it did happen.

Kivaro

McCrack wrote: »

I'll tell you how

Two insurance companies of two vehicles involved in a minor collision where the material damage is 3,000 and there are no personal injuries involved (drivers and/or passengers) will always agree liability (apportionment or otherwise) between themselves and settle

Such a minor claim will not darken the door of a Court

Believe me

If AH posters did a crowdsourcing thingy to get some money together, and bought you a large number of "full stops" (periods), I wonder if you would use them.

seamus

Kivaro wrote: »

To get impartial adjudication on complaints against solicitors, the profession needs to be regulated.

Oh yeah, I agree. Self-regulation is no regulation at all. It's been proven time and time again in all industries that when you allow self-regulation, people take the piss.

Still doesn't mean that solicitors take a % fee though.

Because they don't. And they can't. And your segway onto self-regulation is still not evidence of it happening.

One of the more interesting thing regards solicitors and self-regulation is that they love nothing more than bringing legal challenges. They consider this to be the default and superior method of conflict resolution.

Whereas other self-regulated industries will sit down and have a chat and agree to keep the conflict schtum in a back-scratching exchange, solicitors will instead issue legal proceedings against eachother to resolve conflicts.

In other words, if one solicitor was taking a % fee, another solicitor would have no qualms about bringing a case against the first one.

That doesn't mean they do self-regulation very well, it's just a specific quirk of that profession.

Eggs For Dinner

seamus wrote:

Still doesn't mean that solicitors take a % fee though.

Solicitors will take a % of an estate for probate on a will. Effectively means that they will get more money if the estate involves a 3 bedroom semi in an affluent area than a poorer one. Same amount of work, different charge

McCrack

Kivaro wrote: »

If AH posters did a crowdsourcing thingy to get some money together, and bought you a large number of "full stops" (periods), I wonder if you would use them.

Probably not

But I'd lend you some money to buy some question marks

And it's crowdfunding - crowdsourcing is for gathering information not money

McCrack

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Solicitors will take a % of an estate for probate on a will. Effectively means that they will get more money if the estate involves a 3 bedroom semi in an affluent area than a poorer one. Same amount of work, different charge

That's allowed - taking a percentage of an estate in professional fees for probate services

It's not permitted (working a fee as a percentage of the damages) in personal injuries work

McCrack

Kivaro wrote: »

Between your quote below:



And the one below, I wonder if you are just adding joviality to the topic.



The law society is the representative and regulatory body of the solicitors' profession in Ireland.

The abysmal track record of the "society" is proof that it cannot be both a regulatory body and representative body at the same time. To get impartial adjudication on complaints against solicitors, the profession needs to be regulated. This regulation would also reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits that we are currently seeing in the courts.

But the government (present government) will never allow this to happen due to the obvious conflict of interest (self interest) if it did happen.

I would advise you read up on regulation generally and also the Legal Services Regulation Act and also the Solicitor's Disciplinary Tribunal - their website is www.distrib.ie

Read all that and then come back to us with your drivel

Eggs For Dinner

McCrack wrote:

That's allowed - taking a percentage of an estate in professional fees for probate services

My point is that there is a different fee where the work was the same.

I have personal experience of this. I subsequently discovered that I should have been notified of the fee at the time I appointed the solicitor. When I complained, the Law Society advised that I could make a complaint and if I had difficulty in finding a solicitor to represent me, then they would appoint one. Effectively, they would pick the solicitor to fight my case against one of their fee paying members. Rancid profession

McCrack

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

My point is that there is a different fee where the work was the same.

I have personal experience of this. I subsequently discovered that I should have been notified of the fee at the time I appointed the solicitor. When I complained, the Law Society advised that I could make a complaint and if I had difficulty in finding a solicitor to represent me, then they would appoint one. Effectively, they would pick the solicitor to fight my case against one of their fee paying members. Rancid profession

The Law Society will investigate excessive/overcharging and they are quite robust on that and every client also has the option of referring their Bill to the taxing master who is part of the Courts Service

If a professional negligence claim is being considered against a solicitor and that person cannot find their own solicitor to take the case the Law Society have a panel of solicitors wiling to take cases against other solicitors

The Law Society do not "pick" the solicitor - they provide a list who are on the panel and it is up to the person to instruct whom they wish

Liam McPoyle

McCrack wrote: »

Hogwash

A material damage claim arising from a road traffic accident with no personal injuries worth 3000 eur is not going to see inside a Courtroom

You are wrong.

Kivaro

McCrack wrote: »

Probably not

But I'd lend you some money to buy some question marks

And it's crowdfunding - crowdsourcing is for gathering information not money

No question mark required, as it was rhetorical.
And crowdsourcing is correct, as we would need to discuss the concept first before divesting money in what is obviously a lost cause.

Based on your manner on this thread, many would presume that you are involved somehow in the legal profession in Ireland. Some hints:

I always get a laugh at these threads because I know for certain every bitter cnut on them would be straight down to a solicitor

The usual ill informed statements from people unqualified to give any opinion on personal injuries law and practice

This is an example of the tripe I mentioned earlier

Read all that and then come back to us with your drivel

knucklehead6

McCrack wrote: »

I'll tell you how

Two insurance companies of two vehicles involved in a minor collision where the material damage is 3,000 and there are no personal injuries involved (drivers and/or passengers) will always agree liability (apportionment or otherwise) between themselves and settle

Such a minor claim will not darken the door of a Court

Believe me

What? You think he’s making it up just for sh!ts n giggles?

A long time ago my father gave me some advice. If someone tells you to believe them or to trust them, that’s generally an indication that you shouldn’t.

So I know who I’m gonna believe.

Eggs For Dinner

McCrack wrote:

The Law Society do not "pick" the solicitor - they provide a list who are on the panel and it is up to the person to instruct whom they wish

So I'm free to pick one cnut from a list of cnuts compiled by the people investigating a complaint against one of their own cnuts.

Seems fair

Nermal

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-personal-injury-payouts-four-times-higher-in-ireland-than-in-uk-37142368.html

Irish necks uniquely soft and can only be repaired by cash payouts. Imagine my shock.

McCrack

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/20b39c06592ad8e3802582d40033b0b0?OpenDocument

So there's the actual judgment and it explains why the person was awarded damages of 256k

I hope people that take the time to read it can appreciate the extent of her injuries both physical and psychological and I certainly would not like to be in her shoes and really no money can compensate for what she has gone through

And she was judged 45% contributory negligence made against her because she was crossing when the pedestrian light was showing red against her. The full value of her injuries were in fact 465k.

ShiverinEskimo

I think the main issue being discussed is not the extent of her injuries and mental illness as a result of the collision but the fact that she was only judged to have 45% responsible despite walking out into traffic and ignoring traffic lights. I think most would be willing to accept that she has suffered - no one is arguing that she was hit, just whose fault it was that she was hit.

The judgement from the hearing that came up with the 45% figure would make more interesting reading IMO. Would also be interesting to know if the driver was prosecuted as a result of the collision.

Nermal

McCrack wrote: »

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/20b39c06592ad8e3802582d40033b0b0?OpenDocument

So there's the actual judgment and it explains why the person was awarded damages of 256k

I hope people that take the time to read it can appreciate the extent of her injuries both physical and psychological and I certainly would not like to be in her shoes and really no money can compensate for what she has gone through

And she was judged 45% contributory negligence made against her because she was crossing when the pedestrian light was showing red against her. The full value of her injuries were in fact 465k.

The provable extent of her injuries are a torn ACL/MCL, which fully healed.

Everything else is opinion.

McCrack

Nermal wrote: »

The provable extent of her injuries are a torn ACL/MCL, which fully healed.

Everything else is opinion.

Medical opinion (both her treating doctors and the insurance doctors who examined her) backed up by extensive attendances and treatments over many years which are continuing

McCrack

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

I think the main issue being discussed is not the extent of her injuries and mental illness as a result of the collision but the fact that she was only judged to have 45% responsible despite walking out into traffic and ignoring traffic lights. I think most would be willing to accept that she has suffered - no one is arguing that she was hit, just whose fault it was that she was hit.

The judgement from the hearing that came up with the 45% figure would make more interesting reading IMO. Would also be interesting to know if the driver was prosecuted as a result of the collision.

It seems that apportionment of liability was agreed between the sides without the necessity for a Judge to decide

The Court was deciding quantum or in other words the value of the injuries and that is the judgment I pasted above

seamus

Nermal wrote: »

The provable extent of her injuries are a torn ACL/MCL, which fully healed.

Everything else is opinion.

Perhaps. But opinion which qualified professionals on both sides of the argument were broadly in agreement on and there was no argument about whether she was "faking it" or whether the extent of her suffering was genuine.

Unless you are a professional who has reviewed the notes in full and sat in on the arguments, then you have no basis on which to disagree with the award.

PlaneSpeeking

McCrack wrote: »

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/20b39c06592ad8e3802582d40033b0b0?OpenDocument

So there's the actual judgment and it explains why the person was awarded damages of 256k

I hope people that take the time to read it can appreciate the extent of her injuries both physical and psychological and I certainly would not like to be in her shoes and really no money can compensate for what she has gone through

And she was judged 45% contributory negligence made against her because she was crossing when the pedestrian light was showing red against her. The full value of her injuries were in fact 465k.

I read that thoroughly - thank you for the link.

I'm even more sure now she's a spoofer. One of the most often used phrases in that is following medical tests "nothing was found".

Sorry but, no. Still not having it.

PlaneSpeeking

seamus wrote: »

Perhaps. But opinion which qualified professionals on both sides of the argument were broadly in agreement on and there was no argument about whether she was "faking it" or whether the extent of her suffering was genuine.

Unless you are a professional who has reviewed the notes in full and sat in on the arguments, then you have no basis on which to disagree with the award.

Except that pesky freedom of opinion we currently enjoy.