Latest compo culture award

That's not true,
I rear ended an old couple and they just wanted directions.
I was also side swiped (three panels busted) and only wanted my car back in order.

Not everyone is a greedy fecker looking for a payout at the expense of their fellow Irishmen.

I foresee the Union Beards looking for danger money, for anyone not working on the ground floor

Do you get taxed on payouts such as this?

Why are parcels being delivered upstairs only for them to be brought down again. Maybe some cost savings here which will no doubt be passed to the consumer.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Why is someone else always to blame?

Why can people not just accept that sometimes bad things happen through no ones fault?

Because in our current compensation culture with its massively overly generous payouts for very trivial injuries, if you can find someone to point the finger at you’re likely in for a significant windfall.

And we seem to be quite greedy as a nation.

whisky_galore wrote: »

Fell down some stone stairs in a castle but wouldn't go running to my solicitor because I'm not a money grabbing cnut. Plus it would probably close off the thing for other people to enjoy.

More fool you

Just read on breaking news, about a toddler who ran at a ride on lawnmower at his cousins place and lost a part of his foot. He is 14 now and enjoys playing soccer and other sports. He also will enjoy the 725k he has just been awarded through his mother who sued her cousins and late cousins estates.
I think now I'll either tell me cousins to feck off when they want to visit or if that doesn't fly I'll be looking for cousin visiting insurance!

After 38 years the lack of manual handling training should really be on him. Fair enough the employer was at fault but personal responsibility comes into play too, he should have refused if he felt he wasn't trained sufficiently.

Common sense also plays a part for those who aren't trained.

Raconteuse wrote: »

No doubt this is the situation with a lot of court cases. But on the face of it (and that's all the rest of us can go on in fairness) suing extended family seems in poor taste to say the least.

It was probably by agreement. The other side possibly made some money from it too.

We got the compo culture from the states . In America they will sue for anything

Some hope for honesty and common decency in this High Court judgement. Mr. Justice Twomey dismissed an appeal against a Circuit Court ruling in favour of the defendant in a PI case, and he went further by dismissing the entire set of proceedings.

The judgement is worth reading in full. It sets out in clear language the malpractice and biases in our legal system which rewards bogus and exaggerated PI claims. (Don't imagine that other judges who lash out big damages to chancers are blind to the problems that everyone else can see.) Judge Twomey is careful not to accuse the lawyers of malpractice but the legal profession are now on notice that the senior judiciary have lost patience with their monkey-business. Referring a client directly to a (well-paid and compliant) consultant when they haven't even been to their GP is a major red flag.

And the Indo highlighted the stress which the innocent defendant suffered. I hope Judge Twomey wiped the smile off the face of this chancer Damien Hennessy who couldn't even get his story straight. Sadly this fraudster can afford to smile after getting a tongue-lashing in the High Court. His social and economic status gives him an extraordinary legal privilege - he's unemployed and so immune from any claim for costs.

Something cheering in this legal outcome as well.

Good to see that the average payout has reduced by 40% since the new guidelines were introduced in April. Back then, 12% of awards were below €10,000. Now, 50% are.

Personal injury awards down 40% from 2020 - PIAB (rte.ie)

Ongoing afaik, bloody disgusting 🤮 behaviour

One could hear Joe Duffy vocally masturbate as an aul bag told how it was someone else's fault that her fat hole fell off a child's swing.

Joe..yer a bollix giving these ones airtime. Any reason half the country won't pay the TV licence to keep churning out chronic bollox on whineline

Cheeky whoor solicitor was on an evening show on radio giving it the big one blaming the insurance companies for the large premiums.

Let me tell you a simple fact. The legal profession are the only winners in this. They're literally creaming it.

I know someone that lost the tip of their finger. Quite genuine case. The settlement out of court was 20k

The solicitors took that specialise in chasing ambulances took a nice slice of it to the tune of 7k. I seen 1 invoice for 1500 from a plastic surgeon constantly for 15 mins

Susan was on Liveline to explain her side of the story. While I totally agree with the judgement in this case it was interesting to hear her side of it. She thought it was okay to sit on the swing with a child to support the child as I think she said he was a bit afraid on his own (something to that effect). I would say that if the child was too nervous to use the swing on his own or too young for such a "bird's nest" swing as it was described then the child should not have been using it. Susan said that an engineer's report stated that the swing should be lifted another foot off the ground for safety and to avoid accidents. But ....what about the fact that if that were done the swing would be too high for some children and they could fall out of it and injure themselves? I blame the engineer for such a report. He must have been judging the height of the swing from an adult's perspective yet the swing was designed for use by young children! Susan was awarded €23,000 by a lower court (I think) but the Council rejected her claim so she took it to a higher court. Susan said she would have been happy to accept that amount. She had the advice of a barrister to go to a higher court and the barrister has also informed her that she has grounds for appeal. Good advice? I don't think so and I'm no barrister! Susan stated that she sat on the swing without thinking too much about it (she was simply helping the child she was minding at the time) and she doesn't agree that adults should use children's play equipment in playgrounds. That's fair enough.

I think this is a case where everything wasn't thought through. Susan appeared to have good motives for her case. She didn't want an accident to happen to anyone else and she wanted to send a message to the County Council and so on. She was also unable to work for a good few weeks after her accident. The fact that the other lady Sarah (whom she met at the court and apparently has no friendship with) was taking a similar case to the court probably helped to convince her that she was doing the right thing. From listening to Susan today I don't think she was out for as much as she could get (unlike some!) ... I didn't get that impression anyway. I think she was badly advised (and yes I do think some barristers like to line their own pockets!) When you think about it rationally playgrounds are for children, not adults. I'm nearly sure (and stand corrected if I'm wrong) that there were signs in the playground to that effect. Perhaps additional signs warning adults NOT to accompany children on the equipment need to be erected? There are times when people need to think these things through for them selves and perhaps not be swayed by engineers and barristers. It's called common sense.

It's human instinct to blame someone else for accidents rather than look inward

If you look at someone walking on lego with their bare feet the immediate reaction is who the **** left that there..

Accidents happen. I broke my hand in work. Twice. I never sued anyone, because on the first occasion was my own fault and the second was a genuine accident. Literally no fault of anyone. Of course, If I was a thieving little scroat, I could make l a case and cash them cheques. But I'm not a cnut.