Swinging off a goal post insurance payout

kippy

olestoepoke wrote: »

Higher than the payout for scarring that is not on the face, sorry I thought that was obvious

So where are the list of compensation amounts for various injuries? Book of quantum I think it's called. Is it available?
I ask this because you said the award was higher but did not provide a reference point.

kippy

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

If a person climbed onto the roof of my house, fell and injured himself, would he have a case against me for negligence?

Yes. Because apparently you are required to secure your house against people trying to climb it

Gussie Scrotch

so, a burglar, attempting to enter through a skylight, trips and breaks his back.....I'm responsible?

kippy

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

so, a burglar, attempting to enter through a skylight, trips and breaks his back.....I'm responsible?

Pretty much according to some of the logic and legal precedence here.
Let's say you left the skylight open and didn't lock it.....youd defo be in bother.

Montage of Feck

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

so, a burglar, attempting to enter through a skylight, trips and breaks his back.....I'm responsible?

Yes, unless you felt threatened for your life then you can just shoot them.

El Gato De Negocios

The laws of the land are a problem, the tick like nature of the legal fraternity is a problem.

Obviously the defendant and their insurers (probably IPB who are a non profit agency and insure most public spaces in the country) felt there was a case to be answered if they made a settlement offer but there in lies the problem, they made the offer based on previous payments that were made, its not a figure plucked from the clouds.

A year or two ago there was uproar about play centres not being able to either get insurance or being charged an arm and a leg for it. The reason was because of the amount of claims that were being paid out and the insurers exiting the market.

The only winners out of all of this are ambulance chasing solicitors and barristers. Hopefully when the awards levels are recalibrated it will result in claims not being guaranteed money makers and that will remove solicitors from the equation. They are not needed and serve no purpose that the PIAB cannot provide for 2000% less of a cost.

Gussie Scrotch

By that logic, every property owner ( or organisation ) must foresee all possible risks, however remote, and implement preventative measures, or be exposed to financial ruin?

olestoepoke

kippy wrote: »

So where are the list of compensation amounts for various injuries? Book of quantum I think it's called. Is it available?
I ask this because you said the award was higher but did not provide a reference point.

You can do your own research on that one, I think you'll also find that the sex and age of the person who receives the facial scar also influences the size of the compensation.

olestoepoke

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

The laws of the land are a problem, the tick like nature of the legal fraternity is a problem.

Obviously the defendant and their insurers (probably IPB who are a non profit agency and insure most public spaces in the country) felt there was a case to be answered if they made a settlement offer but there in lies the problem, they made the offer based on previous payments that were made, its not a figure plucked from the clouds.

A year or two ago there was uproar about play centres not being able to either get insurance or being charged an arm and a leg for it. The reason was because of the amount of claims that were being paid out and the insurers exiting the market.

The only winners out of all of this are ambulance chasing solicitors and barristers. Hopefully when the awards levels are recalibrated it will result in claims not being guaranteed money makers and that will remove solicitors from the equation. They are not needed and serve no purpose that the PIAB cannot provide for 2000% less of a cost.

I agree, why is a simple whiplash in the UK 3k and the average here is 15k? The whole system is clearly broken

kippy

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

By that logic, every property owner ( or organisation ) must foresee all possible risks, however remote, and implement preventative measures, or be exposed to financial ruin?

This is the way it is going. The precident is being set and seen every day that in general payouts will come to those with the 'bravery' to go after them. More and more people see this so more and more cases start to occur.
The only logical end point particularly when it comes to what once we're amenities is to close them down unless under strict supervision.
I personally think of the local sports clubs and parks which are essentially run by volunteers for the good of the wider community and this type of thing together with the blatent disregard for littering and dog fouling on these amenities means a lot of volunteers don't want to be involved.
Tis easier just not do anything and/or close the gates completely.
We've seen warnings from many businesses as well but no, laws can't be changed, books of quantum can't be rewritten and heaven help us but personal responsibility does not apply anymore....

kippy

olestoepoke wrote: »

You can do your own research on that one, I think you'll also find that the sex and age of the person who receives the facial scar also influences the size of the compensation.

Sorry. I have tried in the past but not been able find anything I could match up with what was being awarded. I thought you might have an idea but no problems.

olestoepoke

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

By that logic, every property owner ( or organisation ) must foresee all possible risks, however remote, and implement preventative measures, or be exposed to financial ruin?

Its not as black and white as that. In general you are not liable if a trespasser injures themselves on your property but there are exceptions. What if a child decides to walk along your garden wall and the wall collapses because it was old. If they can prove rhat you knew the wall was a hazard then you can be sued. Different if the wall was well built and the child fell off and broke their arm, how can you then be negligent?

Your Face

Recently there has a vote by the Judaical Council reduce personal injury awards.
Great for claims like this but the new guidelines will have a knock-on effect of reducing payouts for everyone - including the genuine cases.

Such backwards thinking - theres a problem - do the opposite and hope that sorts it.

olestoepoke

kippy wrote: »

Sorry. I have tried in the past but not been able find anything I could match up with what was being awarded. I thought you might have an idea but no problems.

You don't have Internet?

Odyssey 2005

Montage of Feck wrote: »

Yes, unless you felt threatened for your life then you can just shoot them.

Dead men can't talk

Odyssey 2005

Montage of Feck wrote: »

Yes, unless you felt threatened for your life then you can just shoot them.

Dead men can't talk

kippy

olestoepoke wrote: »

You don't have Internet?

I've found it but assumed it wasn't the one the legal and medical profession worked off as I was not able to match up figures in it with awarded amounts in some cases I had looked for.

kippy

olestoepoke wrote: »

Its not as black and white as that. In general you are not liable if a trespasser injures themselves on your property but there are exceptions. What if a child decides to walk along your garden wall and the wall collapses because it was old. If they can prove rhat you knew the wall was a hazard then you can be sued. Different if the wall was well built and the child fell off and broke their arm, how can you then be negligent?

Surely it is the property owners responsibility to ensure the wall is not climbed on? Based on some of the logic we see on this and other cases.

olestoepoke

Your Face wrote: »

Recently there has a vote by the Judaical Council reduce personal injury awards.
Great for claims like this but the new guidelines will have a knock-on effect of reducing payouts for everyone - including the genuine cases.

Such backwards thinking - theres a problem - do the opposite and hope that sorts it.

This is the problem and often pushed by big business, a balance needs tk be struck. The narrative of frivolous law suits can sway public opinion to the point where genuine people don't get compensated for the negligence of others. I knkw it was the US but the doc "hot coffee" addressed thei very issue and often it was the chamber of commerce that drove the frivolous law suit narrative.

El Gato De Negocios

Your Face wrote: »

Recently there has a vote by the Judaical Council reduce personal injury awards.
Great for claims like this but the new guidelines will have a knock-on effect of reducing payouts for everyone - including the genuine cases.

Such backwards thinking - theres a problem - do the opposite and hope that sorts it.

AFAIK, the new guidelines will only relate to unprovable injuries like soft tissue/whiplash injuries. Complex claims with serious injuries will still be handled in the same manner, as well they should.

Yes, there may be instances where genuine claimants may not get as much as they could have however if it results in the tried on, frivolous, exaggerated and out right false claims only getting a fraction of what they currently get then that's the price that must be paid.

Insurers will then be compelled to reduce their premiums, there simply won't have a choice in the matter.

As I said in a previous related thread, we will never get back to the giveaway motor prices for the majority of motorists that we saw in in 00s but we shouldn't as that model was proven to be unsustainable but its possible for insurers to be profitable and for policy holders to pay fair prices, if claims awarded are at more realistic levels.

El Gato De Negocios

kippy wrote: »

I've found it but assumed it wasn't the one the legal and medical profession worked off as I was not able to match up figures in it with awarded amounts in some cases I had looked for.

I believe the BOQ is guidelines and minimum amounts only that should be paid and is based on previous payouts, which in and of itself is flawed. The judge still has the ultimate discretion to award what they see fit within the various parameters set depending at what Court the case is heard before.

astrofool

corner of hells wrote: »

It sounds from the article the goalpost was left unattended in an unsecured area , that said ,52 grand for a couple of stiches is unbelievable. 100euros for A&E should've been enough.

Im in my 50s now and if my parents were to sue for every injury i got from acting the bollix as a kid id be worth a fortune .

It sounds extreme that a club would have to "secure" their unused goalposts on their own property every time they're not training. The law needs to change to put the liability on the trespassers, and then the club can sue them for trespassing. It would quickly solve most of these frivolous suits.

astrofool

kippy wrote: »

Surely it is the property owners responsibility to ensure the wall is not climbed on? Based on some of the logic we see on this and other cases.

It's both their responsibility to ensure that it's not climbed on and also their responsibility to make it safe to climb on if someone is determined to do so.

kippy

astrofool wrote: »

It's both their responsibility to ensure that it's not climbed on and also their responsibility to make it safe to climb on if someone is determined to do so.

How does one make sure a wall is 'safe to climb on'......
Like seriously now.

astrofool

kippy wrote: »

How does one make sure a wall is 'safe to climb on'......
Like seriously now.

Cover it with pillows saying "do not climb" and add a net around it, I guess.

Neamhshuntasach

I had a goal post fall on me when I was 14. Doing the exact same thing as this girl. Only for the stitches I needed in the back of my head I probably would have got a slap there for being so stupid. Thoughts of claiming against anybody never once entered our heads. I could be 50k plus richer.

tayto lover

Can’t understand how anyone was awarded damages in this case at all.
So if I go into my local park and start swinging on a tree branch can I claim off the council if it breaks and I get injured? Or maybe I trip over a duck near the pond. Madness.

millb

olestoepoke wrote: »

Unfortunately there's a long set precedent in Irish law regarding occupiers liability. Yes there is a question of contributory negligence but if you own a property it is on you make it secure and safe in the event that people, kids or other wether trespassing or not don't come to any harm on your property. The goal post falling was clearly a health hazard and the unlocked gate showed no awareness. Now before you reply to give me a bollocking I'm not condoning our comps culture, I agree it's a problem. But the law is pretty set on this and has been for a long time, you own a property it is up to you to make it safe and thats the law. All follows from the seminal case of McNamara V ESB where a young lad had his arms blown off after he trespassed into an electrical station.

Great that explains lockdown. The state are trying to gradually reduce the space where we can occupy. When we get 5k down to 0km then they will have everything secured. we will all trespass and claim against the occupier. maybe even rebel against the occupier..
Goalpost a health hazard, roads dangerous, foothpaths and trees clear killers, vermin and viruses everywhere, none of this the individuals fault. A grand plan for redistribution of wealth because taxation and hard work don't function..

Purple Mountain

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

Then you bear the responsibility if something goes wrong. Why should someone else pay because you used something in way it wasn't designed for? Go to a playground to swing, not open a gate and enter a pitch. Jesus people need their hands held constantly these days.

No wait... there was probably no sign beside the goal post instructing on how to swing from it safely!
So therefore, it wasn't the teenager's fault.

Gussie Scrotch

Yes...something like that.

I remember our health and safety team at work insisting that there needed to be written instructions, prominently displayed in the kitchen, on how to correctly boil the kettle......I kid you not......