There was no admission of liability by the defendants.

funnyname

What does this mean?

When ever there is large compensation paid out due to negligence this sentence is always in the subsequent report. If the compensation needs to be paid then surely the party paying this out is actually admiting liability?

Sleepy

I think it's usually something which is attached to a report of an out of court settlement and is put there to indicate that the company/party was not actually found guilty of anything.

Taxipete29

funnyname wrote: »

What does this mean?

When ever there is large compensation paid out due to negligence this sentence is always in the subsequent report. If the compensation needs to be paid then surely the party paying this out is actually admiting liability?

No quite the opposite. They are making no admission of liability.

funnyname

I know that but agreeing that there is no admission of liability and still paying out compensation are they protecting themselves against similar claims in the future?

humanji

funnyname wrote: »

I know that but agreeing that there is no admission of liability and still paying out compensation are they protecting themselves against similar claims in the future?

Compensation is usually paid out to put an end to the matter. You get many cases in the States where people would, say injure themselves in MacDonalds and even though they themselves are 100% to blame, they sue MacDonalds. A court case can sometimes cost more money than a settlement, plus there's the bad publicity too. So a company might prefer to just get the matter over and done with. They aren't guilty, but it's the only decision that makes financial sense to them.

cm2000

theres a legal discussions forum, this is politics

Manic Moran

I think Humanji's on the ball there.

It's just a case of 'here's some money, now shut up and go away. These lawyers cost money, and we don't need our name in the news negatively. Even if we're completely right, all the press is resulting in people thinking there's no smoke without fire.'

Indeed, if such a payout is made, there is an argument to be made that it's an indicator that they were in fact going to be found not guilty to begin with: Otherwise, why not go through with the court case, gain both the money and the satisfaction of publicly having it pronounced that the other guy was wrong?

NTM

Overheal

My Employer Settled a case by all rights he could have won, only because the cost of litigation was in the thousands. It was too much good money and Risk to chase after bad.

drkpower

Its standard practice. There are loads of reasons to settle. Sometimes its to keep it out of the media, sometimes its purely economic (the Defendant has a good case but knows it will spend more in defending it), more often because a court and a judge are unpredictable, often dependent on the relative credibility of both sides witnesses, which is difficult to ascertain prior to trial. In the latter, the view is often that taking the case to trial will be difficult for the witnesses, will cost an awful lot of money (a High Court case can be anywhere in the region of €10-30,000+ per day plus the increased costs of discovery and other preparatory work) and when there is a substantial chance you will lose (even in a strong case), why risk it. And from the Plaintiff side, the same issues arise; so if you are asked to take the cash , the vast vast majority of Plaintiffs dont care whether liability is admitted or not.

GuanYin

Moved: Politics -> Legal Discussion

Kanye

funnyname wrote: »

What does this mean?

When ever there is large compensation paid out due to negligence this sentence is always in the subsequent report. If the compensation needs to be paid then surely the party paying this out is actually admiting liability?

Settlements can be considered nuisance money where, as has been pointed out, the parties would prefer not to have to fight a battle that could go on for some time and where the outcome is often Pyrrhic by the end of the case. That might happen in a case where the legal costs of running a case would exceed the case's value.

For example, a matter was recently settled inter partes in the commercial court that was due to run for up to four weeks. With five Senior and five Junior counsels involved, the case would have cost whomever paid the legal bills an absolute fortune.

It may be cheaper to pay "go-away" money, even if you have a good chance of winning.

Reloc8

Irrespective of the amount of money paid in settlement, it being reached on a stated 'no admission of liability' offers the Defendant some recourse and protection in respect of reputation should somebody say or write that it had been negligent/unsafe or acted wrongly etc. etc. Without admission of liability anybody could say or write such a thing and the fact of the settlement in and of itself would be effectively proof that whatever the defendant was sued for was established. Without admission of liability in an action for defamation the defendant sued in that action would have to effectively prove that the defamation plaintiff (defendant in the initial case) had been culpable.


While the settlement of one claim never affects an independent claim, it is of course also the case that a given defendant may wish to present a tough front to other prospective litigants and not admit liability. Also, if the same circumstances caused many injuries an admission of liability would of course be of significance.

Victor

The it little use in a defendant winning a case and being unable to recover their costs.