Swinging off a goal post insurance payout

millb

kippy wrote: »

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....

The high level solution is to establish (or restate) the fundamentals of the "Common Good" starting with society, extending principles of proportionality, duty of care, shared or proportional interest and relevant ownership or contributions to same. In recent times models of governance and vested interests have blurred boundaries and principles of governance and this allows a more chaotic society with all sorts of outcomes. Legal folks then benefit out of conflict and aversity

WE could revert to closing playgrounds, public amenities, putting up bigger fences, more barriers, having gated communities, protected rabbit holes etc and split communities - increasing division and inequality

millb

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.

Insurance people are also winners. They do like cases and fear - that drives their careers and business. 40+ years ago we had very little insurance for sports clubs, school children, childcare, playgrounds, etc now everything seems to "need" insurance. I have advised some business to let folks know that they carry no liability insurance and that seems to encourage far more mutual respect.

El Gato De Negocios

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

This is precisely the problem.

Parent allows child to do something they shouldn't be doing.

A piece of equipment was used for purposes that it was in no way, shape or form intended to be used.

An accident occurred and the child got a few stitches.

Let's give them €50k for being reckless.

Sports clubs and public amenities the length and breadth of the country are closing or having difficulties paying massive insurance premia and this case and others like it are the reason why.

Not profiteering by insurance companies.

Not price gouging of businesses by insurance companies.

Because insurance companies are having to pay ridiculous amounts of compensation because of the greed and stupidity of the public.

If its not addressed we simply won't have anywhere to bring our children to play or exercise because everywhere will be bloody well closed cos they can't get public liability insurance.

Yup, this is the issue.

While for companies it's a massive issue it's a much, much bigger issue for sports and recreation.

I've done a little bit of refereeing of kids football. For a simple U10s match you have 4-6 coaches taking time out of their day (usually a weekend morning), a few parents show up. All the kits have been washed. The only money involved is about a quid per child that goes to the referee. There isn't a load of money floating around to take a percentage of to cover a €50k claim by some idiot who has no business being anywhere near the pitch who then does something they're not meant to do.

To set up a community facility of any kind where everyone involved does it voluntarily shouldn't cost a bunch of money. I remember being in Holland visiting a few mates and we went to some kind of local social club to watch a football match. Mostly ould lads in it. Load of snooker tables, pool tables, dart boards. Wide open, spacious etc. From what I could tell it was run not for profit and the pints started from €3.50 which was cheap for the area. All I could think about was that in Ireland just the rates and insurance alone would probably cost a grand a week and the only way it would work in Ireland would be to have high traffic, high occupancy of everything.
As it is most of the money that goes to funding such things here go on completely unnecessary things, or at least things that should be completely unnecessary in any sane society. We can see the likes of pool halls and snooker clubs shutting down everywhere because the fixed costs are so high. The utility of local and community facilities is under-estimated to a massive extent.

BattleCorp

You can blame the legal system and the insurance system but don't forget that it's Joe Public taking these frivolous claims so throw some blame that way too.

If a child runs at home and falls against a chair and breaks a tooth, off to the dentist and that's the end of it.

If a child runs in a business premises and falls against a chair and breaks a tooth, off to the solicitor on the way to the dentist and that's far and away not the end of it.

astrofool

millb wrote: »

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..

Don't forget actual swings! We all need to be safely instructed on how to use a swing, and all swings should have an instructor on standby to ensure that the rules are being followed.

This is just redistribution of wealth into the legal system, whatever the victims are making, the solicitors, barristers and Judges involved keep making mint.

GreeBo

kippy wrote: »

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

It's simple, you just put a wall around your wall to protect it!

BattleCorp

astrofool wrote: »

Don't forget actual swings! We all need to be safely instructed on how to use a swing, and all swings should have an instructor on standby to ensure that the rules are being followed.

This is just redistribution of wealth into the legal system, whatever the victims are making, the solicitors, barristers and Judges involved keep making mint.

Judges get paid the same whether they award large amounts of money or small amounts of money. Just sayin.

GreeBo

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

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.

I have no issue with the size of the award, the problem is with the club being seen as responsible for this accident.
50k for facial injuries is appropriate, but only if the club was negligent...I really can't see for they were in this case.

If someone trespases in my shed and injures themselves trying to juggle my hammers, am I at fault? Based on this case it would seem so, despite the person's legal guardian supervising them!

BattleCorp

GreeBo wrote: »

I have no issue with the size of the award, the problem is with the club being seen as responsible for this accident.
50k for facial injuries is appropriate, but only if the club was negligent...I really can't see for they were in this case.

If someone trespases in my shed and injures themselves trying to juggle my hammers, am I at fault? Based on this case it would seem so, despite the person's legal guardian supervising them!

I think it's easier to argue that someone was trespassing if they were found in your shed rather than in a park with an open gate.

twowheelsonly

olestoepoke wrote: »

They should have had the foresight to lock the gate and secure the goalpost and they didn't. Their own defence admitted negligence and argued the level of contributory negligence because they knew that was their best chance of a reduced payout. The fee was high because scarring to the face is always higher.

People seem to be forgetting the fact that this was a Saturday. Being a weekend day the chances are that there was matches being played there, possibly a couple of matches during the day.
In that case it's surely not unreasonable for gates to be open and goalposts being left out in between games. I've never seen, and hope I never do, a case where gates are locked and goalposts secured or removed before the next game up has to reverse the procedure 20 minutes later.
The contributory negligence here surely has to be far higher. That child and her mother had no business being on the pitch in the first instance. Just because you can doesn't mean that you should.

McCrack

astrofool wrote: »

Don't forget actual swings! We all need to be safely instructed on how to use a swing, and all swings should have an instructor on standby to ensure that the rules are being followed.

This is just redistribution of wealth into the legal system, whatever the victims are making, the solicitors, barristers and Judges involved keep making mint.

You do know that judges are paid a set salary?

whisky_galore

BattleCorp wrote: »

You can blame the legal system and the insurance system but don't forget that it's Joe Public taking these frivolous claims so throw some blame that way too.

If a child runs at home and falls against a chair and breaks a tooth, off to the dentist and that's the end of it.

If a child runs in a business premises and falls against a chair and breaks a tooth, off to the solicitor on the way to the dentist and that's far and away not the end of it.

Greed and Me Feinerism in society now has a lot to answer for.

I got my big payout but I don't really care about the business or public amenity that was forced to close.

Gussie Scrotch

This discussion raises some interesting points regarding "negligence" and culpability.

What about the publican who sells Johnny 15 pints. Johnny staggers out and into the road and is struck by a car. If Johnny is permanently disabled - wheelchair bound - surely the publican has been negligent? The risk is totally foreseeable and could be averted by refusing to serve Johnny more than, say, two pints.

It seems to me that the publican, above, is far more culpable for the consequences of his actions/lack of care that the people who didn't lock the gate of the park, for example?

astrofool

McCrack wrote: »

You do know that judges are paid a set salary?

I didn't think I would have to say this, but the more cases occurring, the more requirement there is for judges.

Sheep Shagger

Why can't things just be an accident without bringing money into it (claims)?...think of the 'old days'

Strumms

Stihl waters wrote: »

There we have it folks, bad parents and stupid people get rewarded for being stupid, compo in Ireland is like a failsafe for utter fcuking morons who can chance their arms without it costing them anything, and all the while normal joe public will pick up the bill by paying more for their premiums, the no win no fee bottom feeders needs a radical reform to stop these leeches

Compensation is an industry.

The more negligent you are towards your health and wellbeing and the more negligent you are towards the health and wellbeing of your offspring the more you are rewarded...welcome to 2021.

If the kid was playing a match and an opposition player cracked a shot off a post or the bar, the kid was injured by the falling steel.. yup the council have been negligent...

If a fûckwit was reefing out of it, using it for a purpose which it wasn’t designed, they injure themselves ? The fûck should that be on the public to compensate them... off to a&e, pay for your own physio...thanks...

If another kid goes to the tennis courts, decide in their stupidity to use a net as a tightrope, fall break their whatever, should they sue the city council because there wasn’t a person there preventing them or directing them NOT to use the net as a tightrope....

El Gato De Negocios

GreeBo wrote: »

I have no issue with the size of the award, the problem is with the club being seen as responsible for this accident.
50k for facial injuries is appropriate, but only if the club was negligent...I really can't see for they were in this case.

If someone trespases in my shed and injures themselves trying to juggle my hammers, am I at fault? Based on this case it would seem so, despite the person's legal guardian supervising them!

Essentially, yes.

I once saw a claim where a guest at a wedding, in the early hours of the morning, decided it would be a good idea to vault over one of the perimeter walls of the hotel. Unbeknownst to him, there were a large number of rocks on the ground the other side of the wall and he badly broke his femur. He unsuccessfully tried to sue the hotel for his injuries. He was however successful in suing the farm who owned the field to the tune of €70,000 excluding legal expenses.

This is modern Ireland.

El Gato De Negocios

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

This discussion raises some interesting points regarding "negligence" and culpability.

What about the publican who sells Johnny 15 pints. Johnny staggers out and into the road and is struck by a car. If Johnny is permanently disabled - wheelchair bound - surely the publican has been negligent? The risk is totally foreseeable and could be averted by refusing to serve Johnny more than, say, two pints.

It seems to me that the publican, above, is far more culpable for the consequences of his actions/lack of care that the people who didn't lock the gate of the park, for example?

Yep, a duty of care would be owed by the publican and they would most likely be held partly accountable.

McCrack

astrofool wrote: »

I didn't think I would have to say this, but the more cases occurring, the more requirement there is for judges.

Lol

If anything there is a shortage of judges, have a look at the lists all around the country and the waiting times to get cases on

Curse These Metal Hands

Sheep Shagger wrote: »

Why can't things just be an accident without bringing money into it (claims)?...think of the 'old days'

Greed and opportunism. The parents of the girl are immoral.

astrofool

McCrack wrote: »

Lol

If anything there is a shortage of judges, have a look at the lists all around the country and the waiting times to get cases on

And why is there a shortage of judges?! Come on, get to the end without being stepped through it all the way.

Although I was negligent in not including instructions with my post, maybe you can sue? What % do you think boards.ie is accountable.

elperello

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

This discussion raises some interesting points regarding "negligence" and culpability.

What about the publican who sells Johnny 15 pints. Johnny staggers out and into the road and is struck by a car. If Johnny is permanently disabled - wheelchair bound - surely the publican has been negligent? The risk is totally foreseeable and could be averted by refusing to serve Johnny more than, say, two pints.

It seems to me that the publican, above, is far more culpable for the consequences of his actions/lack of care that the people who didn't lock the gate of the park, for example?

Interesting indeed.

I would say that the culpability of the publican might rest somewhere between the 2 pints and 15 pints.

A funny old world indeed where publicans would refuse to serve someone a third pint in case they might stagger into the road.

On the other hand if Johnny was in the habit of regularly consuming 15 pints and safely navigating his way home would the publican assume any liability?

kippy

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

Yep, a duty of care would be owed by the publican and they would most likely be held partly accountable.

But this is never actually implemented/pursued by anyone....

McCrack

astrofool wrote: »

And why is there a shortage of judges?! Come on, get to the end without being stepped through it all the way.

Although I was negligent in not including instructions with my post, maybe you can sue? What % do you think boards.ie is accountable.

You included judges in your "redistribution of wealth" post which is nonsensical when I've pointed out that they are on a salary regardless and that theres a shortage to meet the number of cases. So there's nothing negligent in your postings just retardedness

astrofool

McCrack wrote: »

You included judges in your "redistribution of wealth" post which is nonsensical when I've pointed out that they are on a salary regardless and that theres a shortage to meet the number of cases. So there's nothing negligent in your postings just retardedness

OK, here we go.

We need more judges when there are more cases.

Solicitors and barristers aspire to be judges due to the gravy train it puts them on.

Most judges got their position due to more judges being needed to sit on more cases.

As long as the number of cases increases, the more chance a solicitor or barrister has of becoming a judge.

Thus by having more personal injury cases, which is incentivised by high pay-outs, more judges are needed and more barristers and solicitors get to join the gravy train and guaranteed tenure for life.

gozunda

I think we're missing one of the main points here.

Yes the kid went swinging on a goalpost somewhere she and the parent shouldn't have been.

The kid hurt herself as a result.

There should be no payout.

The parent however should be done for failure to look after her child and allowing the child to come to harm. I'm sure we have legislation to cover that.

We really do seem to have it backward in this instance - where apparently some foreign nationals and those living here seem to know the countries judiciaries a soft touch.

I wonder much like the exploding glass jug case - how many are chancing their arm?

Gussie Scrotch

kippy wrote: »

But this is never actually implemented/pursued by anyone....

Yet......................

Strumms

gozunda wrote: »

I think we're missing one of the main points here.

Yes the kid went swinging on a goalpost somewhere she and the parent shouldn't have been.

The kid hurt herself as a result.

There should be no payout.

The parent however should be done for failure to look after her child and allowing the child to come to harm. I'm sure we have legislation to cover that.

We really do seem to have it backward in this instance - where apparently some foreign nationals or at least those living here seem to know the countries judiciaries a soft touch.

I wonder much like the exploding glass jug case - how many are chancing their arm?

Disregarding parental duty and enabling a child to come to harm should be a crime....maybe it is... if two parents piss off on the lash leaving a 6 year old home alone, they set fire to themselves I’m sure the courts would be ‘forced’ to act...

This situation with a fûckin thick incompetent parent decided to disregard their parental responsibility and put their kid in danger should merit a charge and conviction...

Unfortunately parents by some quarters and in politics especially for the purposes of attracting votes.. are treated like gods.... ohh you have kids, you are parents ? Well PARENT then ! :rolleyes:

GreeBo

BattleCorp wrote: »

I think it's easier to argue that someone was trespassing if they were found in your shed rather than in a park with an open gate.

How is opening and passing through a gate not trespassing?
I don't always lock my shed door, or my house door for that matter, what if they hurt themselves playing with my meat cleaver?

Gussie Scrotch

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

Yep, a duty of care would be owed by the publican and they would most likely be held partly accountable.

Okay, lets say Johnny gets across the road safely but as he weaves his way homewards, he becomes involved in an exchange of insults with a local corner boy, which leads to a punch up. Johnny sticks a haymaker on the aforesaid corner boy, who falls backward and splits his skull on the kerb. He is permanently disabled as a result. Now, Johnny is known to be as quiet as a lamb when sober, but a bit unpredictable when pissed.

Is the publican vicariously liable for Johnny's behaviour and the tragic consequences, since he negligently served him so much alcohol despite the obvious risks of doing so? And does the corner boy have a case against him?