Swinging off a goal post insurance payout

gozunda

Strumms wrote: »

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:

True. If the same child had deliberately jumped of a cliff whilst walking with a parent - who would they sue - the sea? Or should they parent have a duty of care towards their child who they are supposed to be looking after ..

El Gato De Negocios

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

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?

I wouldn't think so, most likely because it couldn't reasonably be proven that Johnny didn't have violent tendencies without alcohol. Sure if things like that could be claimed for then in pre lockdown you'd have hundreds of potential claims everywhere every weekend.

1874

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

I'd say Maria Bailey is kicking herself.;)

She was already onto a winner (her employment), she reached too far (to try get more), but she had form, and by her own constant admissions, she seems to think she did no wrong, the public didn't like this, imo that came back to her. Had she pursued her situation, she probably would have gotten something, although she seemed to try to offset any personal responsibility by claiming she hadn't touched a drop

olestoepoke wrote: »

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

It seems to work for those that need it to work that way, large payments means large percentages.

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

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......

Going by this, or pretty much anything Ive read, that seems liek a very sensible thing to do. Otherwise, if something happened they'd be liable. In some situations, Ive heard of a person bringing their own kettle in or people clubbing together and buying items, how businesses aren't all over that to prevent it is beyond me, if anything happens anyone using that equipment, they could be liable, having permitted it to be used.

millb wrote: »

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.

I dont see how this works? It looks like I incorrectly assumed businesses would want to have liability insurance, but Im more surprised that anyone would think that having a notice of no liability insurance would stop anyone from pursuing a business if something did occur? surely this just puts them at greater risk?

twowheelsonly wrote: »

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.

While I agree with you, I think the best thing seems to be to have goalposts secured at each point of use, warning signs and locked gates, that way if the gates aren't locked at least the goalposts are secured, that said, if it wasnt the goalposts, it might have been something else.

McCrack wrote: »

You do know that judges are paid a set salary?

The thing is, the rest of the legal profession aren't, cases to take means business.

astrofool wrote: »

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

The more requirement there is for a supporting industry of the rest of the legal profession.

If someone gains access to my property and for example climbs onto my shed roof, which isn't designed or suitable to be walked on, and falls through it either injuring themselves from the fall or landing on something inside, it looks like I could be liable and sued for negligence somehow.
Even though a reasonable person would say its not right to gain entry onto another persons property (even taking account that someone might be of a different opinion/experience) I consider this is knowingly wrong, then for someone to climb onto a shed (someone cited this in the thread and a person actually successfully got a payment for climbing onto something previously a reasonable person would say they should not have climbed onto), it seems there is very little you can do, I dont want my property littered with warning signs in case someone trespasses with or without intent.
I think people should keep private property and businesses safe for reasonable expectations, I shouldnt have glass on my walls, but I might have other safer security measures, I shouldnt have a hole in the ground someone could fall into without even trying, in the case of the award, while I disagree with it based on the fact that people appear to have trespassed, it didnt help by not having the goalposts secured, but I think the gate being unlocked should not be cause for someone seeking compensation as they should not have been present, it seems that leaves everyone wide open to being challenged for liability, Im wondering if people are seeking these opportunities out, ie with children, suing vicariously through them. imo personal responsibility for their actions and whether what someone was doing was questionable, ie trespassing with intent or otherwise, if what they were doign was considered reasonable or not, should play a more significant factor in limiting awards, that way, in cases which are more genuine, people could still be compensated appropriately.

Curse These Metal Hands

gozunda wrote: »

True. If the same child had deliberately jumped of a cliff whilst walking with a parent - who would they sue - the sea? Or should they parent have a duty of care towards their child who they are supposed to be looking after ..

Unfortunately, erosion would be footing the bill for that one.

millb

McCrack wrote: »

You do know that judges are paid a set salary?

Some judges are peculiar and enjoy being part of a system to be gamed.

It's like they may be interested in paying back to their legal friends or creating more work / complexity and "case law" for others within in the system.

It is not about their wage, sometimes its power. Generally they have a role to play in an entire industry (non-productive) and it includes politics and ego.

millb

1874 wrote: »

She was already onto a winner (her employment), she reached too far (to try get more), but she had form, and by her own constant admissions, she seems to think she did no wrong, the public didn't like this, imo that came back to her. Had she pursued her situation, she probably would have gotten something, although she seemed to try to offset any personal responsibility by claiming she hadn't touched a drop





It seems to work for those that need it to work that way, large payments means large percentages.





Going by this, or pretty much anything Ive read, that seems liek a very sensible thing to do. Otherwise, if something happened they'd be liable. In some situations, Ive heard of a person bringing their own kettle in or people clubbing together and buying items, how businesses aren't all over that to prevent it is beyond me, if anything happens anyone using that equipment, they could be liable, having permitted it to be used.





I dont see how this works? It looks like I incorrectly assumed businesses would want to have liability insurance, but Im more surprised that anyone would think that having a notice of no liability insurance would stop anyone from pursuing a business if something did occur? surely this just puts them at greater risk?





While I agree with you, I think the best thing seems to be to have goalposts secured at each point of use, warning signs and locked gates, that way if the gates aren't locked at least the goalposts are secured, that said, if it wasnt the goalposts, it might have been something else.





The thing is, the rest of the legal profession aren't, cases to take means business.





The more requirement there is for a supporting industry of the rest of the legal profession.

If someone gains access to my property and for example climbs onto my shed roof, which isn't designed or suitable to be walked on, and falls through it either injuring themselves from the fall or landing on something inside, it looks like I could be liable and sued for negligence somehow.
Even though a reasonable person would say its not right to gain entry onto another persons property (even taking account that someone might be of a different opinion/experience) I consider this is knowingly wrong, then for someone to climb onto a shed (someone cited this in the thread and a person actually successfully got a payment for climbing onto something previously a reasonable person would say they should not have climbed onto, it seems there is very little you can do, I dont want my property littered with warning signs in case someone trespasses with or without intent. I think people should keep private property and businesses safe for reasonable expectations, I shouldnt have glass on my walls, but I might have other safer measures, I shouldnt have a hole in the ground someone could fall into without even trying, in the case of the award, while I disagree with it based on the fact that people appear to have trespassed, it didnt help by not having the goalposts secured, but I think the gate being unlocked should not be cause for someone seeking compensation as they should not have been present, it seems that leaves everyone wide open to being challenged for liability. imo personal responsibility for their actions and whether what someone was doing was questionable, ie trespassing with intent or otherwise.

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

Oh I can't wait to pay more taxes for these extra Judges..

So they can have more fun deciding right and wrong and appealing and writing case law and playing their game with the "productive" sector . ie people who work, create, build, entertain, heal and care.. Legal people add very little value to society they just benefit and thrive on conflict, adversity, crime and disputes. They are supposed to be wise but ................

Think about it.. the cost of legal fees / eg divorce / small claims / appeals .. La

Gussie Scrotch

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

I wouldn't think so, most likely because it couldn't reasonably be proven that Johnny didn't have violent tendencies without alcohol. Sure if things like that could be claimed for then in pre lockdown you'd have hundreds of potential claims everywhere every weekend.

yes, I can see that. But compare the publicans role in the consequential damage to that of the groundsman or caretaker or whoever left the gate to the sports field unlocked;

Which of the two incidents was the more foreseeable?

Which of the two people was the more negligent?

My point is that the sports field organisation were liable to the tune of 50k for a small scar which resulted from a simple oversight, whereas the publican, who wilfully turned a blind eye to the possible consequences of sending Johnny onto the street in a state of drunken stupor, would, apparently not be liable for a single penny despite the devastating injuries which resulted.

I find it difficult to understand how the law views the respective cases with regard to culpability.

touts

olestoepoke wrote: »

Ha how do I make a fortune in legal fees? I'm a carpenter who did a few accountancy modules that had plenty of law in them as an interest outside of my job as a carpenter. I've never met a carpenter who charges legal fees have you? Lol.

Yea. Spin another one there. How's things in the law library.

El Gato De Negocios

Gussie Scrotch wrote: »

yes, I can see that. But compare the publicans role in the consequential damage to that of the groundsman or caretaker or whoever left the gate to the sports field unlocked;

Which of the two incidents was the more foreseeable?

Which of the two people was the more negligent?

My point is that the sports field organisation were liable to the tune of 50k for a small scar which resulted from a simple oversight, whereas the publican, who wilfully turned a blind eye to the possible consequences of sending Johnny onto the street in a state of drunken stupor, would, apparently not be liable for a single penny despite the devastating injuries which resulted.

I find it difficult to understand how the law views the respective cases with regard to culpability.

The injured party in this case was a minor, big difference.

Gussie Scrotch

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

The injured party in this case was a minor, big difference.

OK, so if our Johnny had beaten up a fourteen year old......the outcome would be different?

My point is about the way the law views liability/culpability.......it just seems inconsistent to me.

In my view, the fictitious publican should have more to answer for than the keepers of the sports ground, certainly in the moral sense...

kippy

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

The injured party in this case was a minor, big difference.

Yeah, it's a difference but as I mentioned above we need to seriously cop the fcuk on as a society if we want to see shared public amenities and sports facilities remain open and accessible while appreciating that there are duty of care situations also.

We see people making decisions that ultimately they have control over, that leads to accidents. There were multiple options here whereby the parent could have made any one of a number of decisions here that ended up not costing the state a fortune in legal and damage claims. But they chose to make those decisions that led to the injury.
Then decided to blame another party for the outcome of their decisions and won a partial victory. This seems to be happening more and more and as someone stated above we don't read/see/hear about a vast majority of them.
It's not just insurance costs that go up, but costs in general go up and you lose the interest of volunteers who want to provide services for the community.