Compo Culture?

silverharp

RTE were doing a piece over the weekend about issues that may face business and the head of Supermacs (I think) was on saying that Public Liability insurance had dropped in recent years due to less claims. His worry was that this trend may reverse.
Just curious if his observations and worries are correct?

daithip

silverharp wrote: »

RTE were doing a piece over the weekend about issues that may face business and the head of Supermacs (I think) was on saying that Public Liability insurance had dropped in recent years due to less claims. His worry was that this trend may reverse.
Just curious if his observations and worries are correct?

Imo I wouldn't think the number of claims has reduced, rather in the way they are dealt with (Just my opinion, don't know the stats.). It appears insurance companies are trying to cut the cost of claims by bypassing the legal profession and making offers to people rather than going to court. In this way they are saving themselves all those hefty legal and court fees, thus reducing their costs and sometimes payouts.

_JOE_

daithip wrote: »

Imo I wouldn't think the number of claims has reduced, rather in the way they are dealt with (Just my opinion, don't know the stats.). It appears insurance companies are trying to cut the cost of claims by bypassing the legal profession and making offers to people rather than going to court. In this way they are saving themselves all those hefty legal and court fees, thus reducing their costs and sometimes payouts.

I would agree with the above...some insurance firms are making offers (albeit not great ones) without even assessing the claim in any detail or receiving medical reports...it would appear that they are hoping that claimants will take anything they can due to financial difficulties...

Our man in Havana

Indeed and the solicitors are livid about it.

I can see where they are coming from. Where there is a solicitor on record all correspondance should go via them.

Amazotheamazing

Bond-007 wrote: »

Indeed and the solicitors are livid about it.

I can see where they are coming from. Where there is a solicitor on record all correspondance should go via them.

True, just remember no matter what, Insurance companies are evil.

McCrack

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

True, just remember no matter what, Insurance companies are evil.

haha I wouldnt of put it quite like that but yes insurance cos. obviously dont have injuried parties best interest's at heart. Either does PIAB in my opinion and the recent O'Brien SC decision put an abrupt halt to that. Also the PIAB legislation is fundamentally unfair too put popular opinion would have people think it's all for the better when in reality it's not.

grumpytrousers

ahem...from another thread...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59098658&postcount=3

Latchy

If the compo culture had being around in previous decades then people who genuinely tripped over ,or had an accident due to somebody else's fault /incompetence, we would have being many quids in .I put myself in that bracket but we just brushed it off as ''an accident '' because that's what the culture was back then, always your own fault , never anybody else's .:(

Amazotheamazing

As an aside, why does every insurance agent I ring up have one of those really false sounding Northern accents?

Latchy

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

As an aside, why does every insurance agent I ring up have one of those really false sounding Northern accents?

Not sure but I see Roy walker from NI is in a car insurrence advert with that Basset hound Here

r14

Very funny compo stories here:
http://www.stellaawards.com/

As bad as it is in Ireland we are nowhere near the Americans. I heard somewhere (not sure where so don't quote me in court) that half of all qualified lawyers practice in the US. No wonder they have so many cases.

The 2008 stella winner was a woman who put her mobile home on cruise control and went back to make a sandwich. When the van crashed she sued and won because there was no notice warning her not to be such an idiot.

Latchy

The compo culture is crazy . Yesterday , a top muslim clerical leader leader ,who preaches hate and violence against westeners has his appeal against being thrown out of UK , put on hold for 12 months ( costing hundreds of thousends more £ tax payers money ) was also awarded £3,000 pounds for being illigally held by police .

r14

latchyco wrote: »

The compo culture is crazy . Yesterday , a top muslim clerical leader leader ,who preaches hate and violence against westeners has his appeal against being thrown out of UK , put on hold for 12 months ( costing hundreds of thousends more £ tax payers money ) was also awarded £3,000 pounds for being illigally held by police .

In fairness if you profess your attachment to a legal system and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by that system you must also honour the obligations of that system. You can't say provide one standard for "good" people and a separate standard for others.

We may not agree with Qatada but you have to respect the rights you give him.

The compo culture is not a legal problem but rather a cultural problem. Qatada's rights were infringed, so he had a right to sue. The court was legally right to hold as it did and I don't think you can object to that.

It's the people who see liability everywhere, bringing frivolous lawsuits that I object to. That attitude that everything is always someone else's fault with no-one taking personal responsibility is a very annoying modern flaw.

Latchy

r14 wrote: »

In fairness if you profess your attachment to a legal system and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by that system you must also honour the obligations of that system. You can't say provide one standard for "good" people and a separate standard for others.

We may not agree with Qatada but you have to respect the rights you give him.

The compo culture is not a legal problem but rather a cultural problem. Qatada's rights were infringed, so he had a right to sue. The court was legally right to hold as it did and I don't think you can object to that.

It was just my excuse to rant aginst this parasite who is only using the EU system in the same way somebody might abuse the compo system .A westener in same situation in his country would have being killed long ago but agreed , it's a legal problem about human rights .

It's the people who see liability everywhere, bringing frivolous lawsuits that I object to. That attitude that everything is always someone else's fault with no-one taking personal responsibility is a very annoying modern flaw.

Yes, which goes back to a previous post of mine . But everybody from the top to the bottom has being guilty ,from the guy who say's he tripped over an unbalanced paving stone and got a few thousend £ pay out to the high flying excecutive /police Commisnor who may , or may not have a ligitimate case for being awarded very large 6 figure sums in tree seperate cases .It's not about accountablity in many cases .

daithip

r14 wrote: »

It's the people who see liability everywhere, bringing frivolous lawsuits that I object to. That attitude that everything is always someone else's fault with no-one taking personal responsibility is a very annoying modern flaw.

Would half of these lawsuits not have been brought on if we didin't have law firms advertising to help you sue for free??

Won't see too many of them advertising for no reward no fee in the future, I bet:rolleyes:

McCrack

daithip wrote: »

Would half of these lawsuits not have been brought on if we didin't have law firms advertising to help you sue for free??

Won't see too many of them advertising for no reward no fee in the future, I bet:rolleyes:

No I wouldnt personally say the legal profession is responsible. I think people generally are better educated today and aware of their rights and responsibilities. We live in a more transparent and accountable society than previous. As a consequence people injured are more likely to seek redress and rightly so. The legal profession is the conduit in this.

The advertisements you refer to are called 'no win, no fee' not 'no reward no fee'. There's nothing novel with this and it will certainly continue into the future. Generally costs follow the event which means the losing party is responsible for the other sides costs so solicitors are happy to take personal injury on a no win, no fee basis if the client's case is strong.

Victor

daithip wrote: »

Imo I wouldn't think the number of claims has reduced

Certain claims have reduced in number, especially through the use of technology - Supermacs put CCTV in the shared areas of their toilets.

Berti Vogts

Victor wrote: »

Certain claims have reduced in number, especially through the use of technology - Supermacs put CCTV in the shared areas of their toilets.

As far as I know, claims go up during a recession so watch this space.

I read somewhere recently that UK personal injuries solicitors are taking a stand against insurance companies offering payments to injured parties prior to seeing a solicitor.

andrewdeerpark

Re opening an olde thread however its worth it daft judgement today:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-who-fractured-knee-after-slipping-on-new-tiles-wins-71k-29729070.html

A woman got 71K compo from slipping on tiles she bought and that were laid by here husband. What about a bit of personal responsibility??

The PIAB has been picked over and destroyed by the legal profession, the gravy train is back.

Pro Hoc Vice

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

Re opening an olde thread however its worth it daft judgement today:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-who-fractured-knee-after-slipping-on-new-tiles-wins-71k-29729070.html

A woman got 71K compo from slipping on tiles she bought and that were laid by here husband. What about a bit of personal responsibility??

The PIAB has been picked over and destroyed by the legal profession, the gravy train is back.

Women a 2 other members of her family slip on tiles, judge accepts her experts evidence.

"Awarding her €71,340, Mr Justice Cross said he accepted expert evidence on behalf of Ms Ryan that these tiles were unsuitable for a kitchen as they were particularly slippy when wet. Given the amount of time between when they were laid and when these accidents or near-accidents involving the Ryan family occurred, he must agree with a description by one witness that the floor was lethal."

Seems an open and shut negligence case, also the other side of the coin for a bit of balance, http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mother-loses-damages-bid-for-dancefloor-fall-at-coppers-29408564.html

Bepolite

From reading that it sounds like a liability for defectives products case no?

andrewdeerpark

She bought of her own free will, porcelain tiles, everybody knows when wet they are slippy. Are right price tiles going to have an avalanche of cases brought by people slipping who bought these tiles? Are they insured against such claims; I doubt it? They may as well shut up shop now before more claims roll in...

This could be another mini "army deafness style" legal junket.

Pro Hoc Vice

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

She bought of her own free will, porcelain tiles, everybody knows when wet they are slippy. Are right price tiles going to have an avalanche of cases brought by people slipping who bought these tiles? Are they insured against such claims; I doubt it? They may as well shut up shop now before more claims roll in...

This could be another mini "army deafness style" legal junket.

Unless there is a spate of people slipping all over the country I doubt it. Kitchen tiles should be non slip tile companies I assume spent a fortune developing non slip tiles for a reason, if she bought such tiles she did so in the expectation that she would not slip. She produced expert evidence to that effect, which was accepted by the judge.

Do you think if a person injuries a third party by their negligence they should be immune from paying compensation.

andrewdeerpark

What negligence on the part of Right Price Tiles? They sold her porcelain tiles, she obviously saw them in the shop they were shiny slippy, her husband put them down. The product we have to assume did not wear and become slippy it was always such, so basically the product performs the same now as originally, so it has not failed in any way. How is this a faulty product case?

Did the original receipt specifically say "Kitchen Porcelain Tiles" if it did then she may have a case? Otherwise did the tile shop care what she done with the product?

Bepolite

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

Did the original receipt specifically say "Kitchen Porcelain Tiles" if it did then she may have a case? Otherwise did the tile shop care what she done with the product?

You're uncovering the floors (sorry!) in your own argument here. The main one being you're working off a fraction of the info the Judge in the case had.

Pro Hoc Vice

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

What negligence on the part of Right Price Tiles? They sold her porcelain tiles, she obviously saw them in the shop they were shiny slippy, her husband put them down. The product we have to assume did not wear and become slippy it was always such, so basically the product performs the same now as originally, so it has not failed in any way. How is this a faulty product case?

Did the original receipt specifically say "Kitchen Porcelain Tiles" if it did then she may have a case? Otherwise did the tile shop care what she done with the product?

So your first paragraph says why you believe she has no case. Your second paragraph says why she may have a case.

Let's look at the only info we have, "Ms Ryan, a married mother of three, claimed the company was negligent in supplying a tile which was not fit for purpose in that they did not have sufficient anti-slip properties particularly for use in a kitchen which would regularly be wet."

A person must show the court the defendant was negligent, if the plaintiff just bought wall tiles and put them on a floor then tough. I assume that as an expert said the tiles are not fit for purpose then the plaintiff must have told the tile company she wanted non slip kitchen tiles. If the tile company supplied the wrong tile then they are liable, if they provided the correct tile but it was faulty (say wrong coating in manufacture) then they are liable. I really don't see the issue.

Sala

_JOE_ wrote: »

I would agree with the above...some insurance firms are making offers (albeit not great ones) without even assessing the claim in any detail or receiving medical reports...it would appear that they are hoping that claimants will take anything they can due to financial difficulties...

This is really wrong. Whatever people say about Solicitors feeding the compo culture, it is foolish to believe insurance companies dealing directly with claimants will ever have the claimants best interest at heart. They are a business and want to pay out as little as possible.

andrewdeerpark

No where in the article does it say that Right Price Tiles sold the porcelain tile as kitchen tiles, so we have to assume they were sold as just tiles. Did she get written information that these tiles were suitable for a kitchen or had they printed brochures stating their kitchen suitability? Anyway this is all balmy, what about her own cop on and ability when picking the product. That is the compo culture mindset always somebodies else's fault and I deserve my rightful redress.

Tomorrow people who "Forest Wengue" tiles from Right Price Tiles, that then laid them in their kitchen, and are of the compo culture mindset will be off to their local solicitor tomorrow. The precedent has been set, this is only the beginning, might be the end of Right Price tiles and their employees as from reading the case the company was defending the action itself (no mention of an insurance company) so its head is in the noose and how deep are its pockets.

Pro Hoc Vice

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

No where in the article does it say that Right Price Tiles sold the porcelain tile as kitchen tiles, so we have to assume they were sold as just tiles. Did she get written information that these tiles were suitable for a kitchen or had they printed brochures stating their kitchen suitability? Anyway this is all balmy, what about her own cop on and ability when picking the product. That is the compo culture mindset always somebodies else's fault and I deserve my rightful redress.

Tomorrow people who "Forest Wengue" tiles from Right Price Tiles, that then laid them in their kitchen, and are of the compo culture mindset will be off to their local solicitor tomorrow. The precedent has been set, this is only the beginning, might be the end of Right Price tiles and their employees as from reading the case the company was defending the action itself (no mention of an insurance company) so its head is in the noose and how deep are its pockets.

The only barmy bit is the assumptions you are making based on a news article. A High Court Judge,found negligence. You disagree with that based on nothing more than maybes.

There are many cases where it is no ones fault, except the plaintiff, and same is found by the courts, including the example I posted.

andrewdeerpark

Have to agree to differ on this case. Interesting to read how the Times will write it up tomorrow, that is if they will cover it.

McCrack

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

Re opening an olde thread however its worth it daft judgement today:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-who-fractured-knee-after-slipping-on-new-tiles-wins-71k-29729070.html

A woman got 71K compo from slipping on tiles she bought and that were laid by here husband. What about a bit of personal responsibility??

The PIAB has been picked over and destroyed by the legal profession, the gravy train is back.

The tiles were inherently defective and this lady suffered significant injuries as a result. There's nothing novel here. There's a defect, a causal link and injury.

The judge also made the point that the injuries board (PIAB) book of quantum is out-of-date even though courts are obliged to have regard to it when assessing quantum or the amount of compensation. That's constructive criticism and something personal injury solicitors and the courts have been aware about for some years now.

You're really just ranting nonsense tbh.

Victor

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

She bought of her own free will, porcelain tiles, everybody knows when wet they are slippy.

Irish Rail had to replace all the tiles on Platform 4 at Connolly Station. While it is an indoor location and they used indoor tiles, someone forgot that thousands of people per day walking on it on rainy days would bring in lots of rainwater.

Similarly, the white (but not the red) paving bricks on Grafton Street, North Earl Street and a few other streets in Dublin are unsuited.

Screw-ups happen.

andrewdeerpark

Victor wrote: »

Irish Rail had to replace all the tiles on Platform 4 at Connolly Station. While it is an indoor location and they used indoor tiles, someone forgot that thousands of people per day walking on it on rainy days would bring in lots of rainwater.

Similarly, the white (but not the red) paving bricks on Grafton Street, North Earl Street and a few other streets in Dublin are unsuited.

Screw-ups happen.

Different situation entirely these are public locations and have to be engineered and tested for public use.

andrewdeerpark

McCrack wrote: »

The tiles were inherently defective and this lady suffered significant injuries as a result. There's nothing novel here. There's a defect, a causal link and injury.

The judge also made the point that the injuries board (PIAB) book of quantum is out-of-date even though courts are obliged to have regard to it when assessing quantum or the amount of compensation. That's constructive criticism and something personal injury solicitors and the courts have been aware about for some years now.

You're really just ranting nonsense tbh.

If I'm ranting no one has answered whether the tiles were sold as "Kitchen tiles" either on the receipt or on any documentation.

How much will this case have cost Right Price Tiles when its all over and all the legal teams are paid on both sides; 100, 150K, more; that damages the company directly and will effect jobs?

It is amazing how the compo culture and sense of entitlement with no sense of personal responsibility has spread like a cancer in society and how many posters see nothing wrong with these headline payouts.

These are the same individuals that give out about the lack of goodwill and hark back to the olde friendly Ireland, no realizing or appreciating how compo culture has damaged our society.

littlemac1980

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

If I'm ranting no one has answered whether the tiles were sold as "Kitchen tiles" either on the receipt or on any documentation.

How much will this case have cost Right Price Tiles when its all over and all the legal teams are paid on both sides; 100, 150K, more; that damages the company directly and will effect jobs?

It is amazing how the compo culture and sense of entitlement with no sense of personal responsibility has spread like a cancer in society and how many posters see nothing wrong with these headline payouts.

These are the same individuals that give out about the lack of goodwill and hark back to the olde friendly Ireland, no realizing or appreciating how compo culture has damaged our society.

I have to agree with all the other posters here. The Judge described the tiles as "Lethal" - based on the summary in the article - she mopped them and left them dry for 20 mins and then came back and slipped on them.

It seems to me that regardless of whether or not they were described as "Kitchen Tiles" is irrelevant.

They were sold and described as "Floor tiles" - thats obvious from the article.

For one thing - it must be expected that Floor Tiles are likely to be used in a Kitchen or Bathroom, where the floor is likely to get wet.

Secondly - even if they are not used in a Kitchen, they are going to need to be mopped regularly and if 20 minutes later they are still "Lethal" then they clearly aren't fit to be used as Floor Tiles.

If there was an issue with the tiles, which clearly there was, then it was the manufacturer's / seller's responsibilty to ensure that they weren't described as suitable for a purpose which clearly they weren't suitable for.

The Woman sustained a serious injury. Why should she have to pay for that, she did nothing wrong. The manufacturer and seller are at fault.

What if it had been an elderly visitor who had slipped and broken a hip, or a teenager who had slipped and suffered a broken vertebrae?

If you're going to seek to make profit from selling goods, then you have to ensure that the goods you sell are not dangerous, if you fail to do such, and someone is injured as a result of that failure, then you are responsible for the innocent person's injury.

Incidentally the fact that her husband installed the tiles is irrelevant in this case, as there is no suggestion that the tiles were installed incorrectly.

Bepolite

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

If I'm ranting no one has answered whether the tiles were sold as "Kitchen tiles" either on the receipt or on any documentation.

How much will this case have cost Right Price Tiles when its all over and all the legal teams are paid on both sides; 100, 150K, more; that damages the company directly and will effect jobs?

It is amazing how the compo culture and sense of entitlement with no sense of personal responsibility has spread like a cancer in society and how many posters see nothing wrong with these headline payouts.

These are the same individuals that give out about the lack of goodwill and hark back to the olde friendly Ireland, no realizing or appreciating how compo culture has damaged our society.

I'm sorry but you're talking non-sense. If you want to hark back to ye olde Ireland before the advent of modern tort law you'll find children being mutilated in cotton machines without recourse so please so trying to make out tort law is some kind of evil entity.

Ireland is not overly litigious and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest our society has been ruined by people making valid claims. People seem to think we have the US style of punitive damages, we do not. Damages are awarded on the basis of actual harm suffered to make the person whole. Do litigants ham it up? Yes of course they do, are Judges well aware of this? Yes of course they are. €71K for a knee injury, given surgery, time off work etc., is hardly and excessive award.

You're asking questions about the evidence in the case. You weren't there, we weren't there so how is anyone supposed to answer you? How do you know the person who sold the tiles wasn't cross examined and admitted he sold them as Kitchen floor tiles? As for a sense of entitlement, if you do me damage through negligence of course I'm going to feel entitled.

If you want to continue this argument at least have the gumption to educate yourself on how the system works and not rely on a few lines written in a Newspaper. I'd be more than happy to educated by some actual figures from the various insurance groups or academic opinions on the subject, but frankly this ranting is just annoying.

andrewdeerpark

I think most agree, outside the legal profession itself, that it needs reform and fees and payouts have to be reduced (from January of this year):

http://www.thejournal.ie/euroleaks-troika-legal-services-750176-Jan2013

We saw it ourselves during the tribunal years and the fees paid.

RSA are saying this morning they are increasing premiums due to increased claims, there is anecdote evidence that the PIAB has been successfully undermined and more cases are going to court with higher payouts. The legal system needs a gravy train for the lavish lifestyle of those who feed off the High court and Supreme Court, and compo culture is encouraged as they are the real winners.

I accept small solicitors and junior barristers have suffered and do not make near the fees of the elite at the top, this same elite controls their respective overseeing bodies.

Anyone suggesting otherwise is deluded or feeding from the trough.

littlemac1980

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

I think most agree, outside the legal profession itself, that it needs reform and fees and payouts have to be reduced (from January of this year):

http://www.thejournal.ie/euroleaks-troika-legal-services-750176-Jan2013

We saw it ourselves during the tribunal years and the fees paid.

RSA are saying this morning they are increasing premiums due to increased claims, there is anecdote evidence that the PIAB has been successfully undermined and more cases are going to court with higher payouts. The legal system needs a gravy train for the lavish lifestyle of those who feed off the High court and Supreme Court, and compo culture is encouraged as they are the real winners.

I accept small solicitors and junior barristers have suffered and do not make near the fees of the elite at the top, this same elite controls their respective overseeing bodies.

Anyone suggesting otherwise is deluded or feeding from the trough.

1. What have tribunal fees got to do with Personal Injury litigation, and awards?

2. PIAB don't have a legal duty to protect the best interests of an injured party. Solicitors do, that's the fundamental reason most PIAB assessments are not accepted.

Insurance companies reject assessments as much as Plaintiffs do - that also affects premium levels.

3. "Compo Culture" as you refer to it, is fundamentally a product of more accountability and regulation of commercial entities vis-a-vis their obligations to consumers and end-users of their products and services, as well as all those who might be adversely affected by them. In my opinion that's obviously a good thing - but you appear to disagree.

McCrack

Sorry now words like lavish, tribunal fees, gravy train, compo culture and linking articles from the Indo and journal.ie to back up your rants just tell me you really haven't a clue except to pander to populist opinions.

There is no substance at all to your posts.

Bepolite

Can someone enlighten me as to who all these millionaire senior counsel are?

The majority of the legal profession make average - good professional wages in the order of €40,000 - €200,000. Given the profession requires a similar amount of training (and I include the first couple of years of practice here for barristers and PPC for solicitors) as Doctors I don't think it's unreasonable to for them to make similar amounts of money.

Yes there are some that make a lot more, there are many that make a lot less as with every profession.

andrewdeerpark

We all know the restrictive practices in the legal profession in particular becoming a barrister and sustaining an income and work long enough to survive in the profession. All designed to keep the working and lower middle classes from entering the club.

I see the case of the slippy tiles the most read story in examiner.ie as of today. Interesting?

Pro Hoc Vice

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

We all know the restrictive practices in the legal profession in particular becoming a barrister and sustaining an income and work long enough to survive in the profession. All designed to keep the working and lower middle classes from entering the club.

I see the case of the slippy tiles the most read story in examiner.ie as of today. Interesting?

People find law stories interesting hence the most read story.

In relation to restrictive practice, its a myth, I am in practice, most of my friends at the bar are from working class backgrounds. There are people whose parents could help, but more in my opinion who did it themselves.

Bepolite

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

We all know the restrictive practices in the legal profession in particular becoming a barrister and sustaining an income and work long enough to survive in the profession. All designed to keep the working and lower middle classes from entering the club.

I see the case of the slippy tiles the most read story in examiner.ie as of today. Interesting?

There's nothing by design about it. It's because the profession seeks to maintain independence. As it stands at the moment anyone (through their solicitor) can hire one of the top senior counsel in a particular area. If we go down the same road as the US we might see a small reduction in fees but the availability of top lawyers will be greatly reduced. We'll see representation in criminal trials being handed off to a 'public defenders office' that will no doubt be poorly resourced and then we will truly have a two tier justice system.

If one wants to enter the legal profession it is available to anyone who has the ability through the solicitors route and the barrister route is available for anyone with the ability + time to work a part-time job. It's an utter myth that the bar are some sort of privileged landed gentry.