Is the rate of litigation in Ireland high?

drkpower

The high rate of litigation in Ireland has almost become a trusim. Compo culture, doctors practising in constant fear of litigation, these claims are common place. But is this truism true? Do we really have a high rate of litigation, in an absolute sense, or by international standards?

Just to take an example; medical negligence. The Dept of Health believes that the rate of medical accidents roughly matches international rateswhich equates to 160,000 patients injured every year. The State Claims Agency said there were almost 84,000 medical accidents reported in 2009. But the typical number of annual medical negligence cases is around 500. Thats just over 0.5% of medical accidents becoming claims (or just over 0.3%, if you go by the DoH figures). Hardly a figure that supports a fear of out-of-control litigation, is it? If, as a doctor, you only get sued once out of every 200 medical accidents you are involved in, surely you would be thankful, rather than fearful of excessive litigation?

So what do people think? Is the whole thing being blown out of proportion? Do we really have a litigous culture? Does anyone have any comparative figures for personal injury claims internationally?

johnnyskeleton

If anything we need more litigation.

234

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If anything we need more litigation.

The answer that all lawyers give.

drkpower

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If anything we need more litigation.

:Dmaybe i should have posted this query in a different forum...!

McCrack

Medical negligence is notoriously under-litigated. The SCA for example received only 3 cases of MRSA related negligence in 2009. More are thought to have settled but overall it's very under-litigated. There are a number of reasons for this. Reasons include needing a medical professorial of the same or greater standing to provide expert evidence, cost, general unwillingness of patients harmed to take legal action, ignorance and fear.

An example of one area that I have direct involvement in my legal work is with is DePuy orthopaedics. Google and read about their products. 3,500 people in this country (mostly in the south and south-east) were directly affected by their products and have and are continue to suffer terribly. A minority have gone legal, the rest are ignorant or are being hoodwinked by DePuy/HSE/Consultant that performed the operation/s.

Apathy towards the medical profession and ignorance are the biggest problems.

drkpower

All (or some) of the above may be true, but, again, taking medneg as an example, the perceived logic out there (amongst the public and doctors) is that litigation is rife and that Ireland is at the top of the international league table of medical litigation. While I fully understand the reason that medneg claims are often not pursued, the figures of those that are pursued do not support a country awash with litigation (at least, not medneg).

The question is where this perception has come from?
Or perhaps in comparison with other countries we do have a high rate, but ive never been able to find any 'international league tables'.

McCrack

I don't have national or international comparisons to hand but I wouldn't say Ireland is over-litigious. If there's negligence there's negligence and people sue on that basis as is their right.

Some people will chance their arm but it would take a reckless lawyer to take a case on a folly. There is too much to lose financially to risk a weak case. Cases are vetted by lawyers and if the ingredients are not there for at least a good case it would be very wasteful for a solicitor to take on the matter. At the end of the day the basic principles apply, duty of care, breach, damage. Each has to be proved.

The perception if it exists comes from the media, like a lot of things it makes people believe nonsense.

drkpower

McCrack wrote: »

The perception if it exists comes from the media, like a lot of things it makes people believe nonsense.

I suspect that is partially the case; but the widespread belief that litigation in this country is 'out of control' must have started with some kind of factual basis (I hope!).

Certainly before i got into law, my understanding (from where, i dont recall) was that Ireland was , with the exception of The US, the most likely country for a doctor to get sued. But anything i have seen since has not suggested that.

johnnyskeleton

drkpower wrote: »

I suspect that is partially the case; but the widespread belief that litigation in this country is 'out of control' must have started with some kind of factual basis (I hope!).

Certainly before i got into law, my understanding (from where, i dont recall) was that Ireland was , with the exception of The US, the most likely country for a doctor to get sued. But anything i have seen since has not suggested that.

Ireland has a relatively small number of judges compared to other countries. Although there has been a much commented upon and controversial increase in the numbers of lawyers, the legal profession in Ireland has similar numbers to other countries.

Therefore, either Irish courts are far more efficient than other countries, or else the level of litigation is far less.

drkpower

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ireland has a relatively small number of judges compared to other countries. Although there has been a much commented upon and controversial increase in the numbers of lawyers, the legal profession in Ireland has similar numbers to other countries.

Therefore, either Irish courts are far more efficient than other countries, or else the level of litigation is far less.

Or because of the increased costs in the system, the settlement rate is higher, thus meaning that judges are not called upon more often?

FreudianSlippers

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ireland has a relatively small number of judges compared to other countries. Although there has been a much commented upon and controversial increase in the numbers of lawyers, the legal profession in Ireland has similar numbers to other countries.

Therefore, either Irish courts are far more efficient than other countries, or else the level of litigation is far less.

I doubt it's the former.

drkpower wrote: »

Or because of the increased costs in the system, the settlement rate is higher, thus meaning that judges are not called upon more often?

From my experience, costs are lower in Ireland than in my knowledge of the UK and experience in the US.

drkpower

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

From my experience, costs are lower in Ireland than in my knowledge of the UK and experience in the US.

I wasnt suggesting that the Irish system was more expensive than the UK/US (although Irish P.I. awards are still slightly ahead of the UK). I was suggesteing that increased cost within the Irish system itself, caused by delay and inefiiciency, was a likely incentive to settle (for both parties), and in turn a reason why less cases make it before judges. Perhaps, in countries where the litigation process is more efficient and speedy, more cases actually make it in front of a judge.

johnnyskeleton

drkpower wrote: »

Or because of the increased costs in the system, the settlement rate is higher, thus meaning that judges are not called upon more often?

If the settlement rate is higher, then it is a more efficient system. Given that the purpose of courts is not to fight cases but to resolve disputes, a court which facilitates settlement will be more efficient. Indeed, the concept of higher settlements suggests that we are less litiguous rather than more, as people are prepared to accept just compensation rather than fighting to the bitter end.

There are no objectively "increased costs in the system". The price is set by the market and that is no different in any other country. Legal fees are usually more expensive in other countries too.

drkpower wrote: »

I was suggesteing that increased cost within the Irish system itself, caused by delay and inefiiciency, was a likely incentive to settle (for both parties), and in turn a reason why less cases make it before judges.

No, there should not be any greater costs involved in a case that is delayed by a year because of lack of court time than a case that is heard within a few weeks. In fact, the opposite is true and urgent cases usually cost a whole lot more.

drkpower wrote: »

Perhaps, in countries where the litigation process is more efficient and speedy, more cases actually make it in front of a judge.

Well obviously if you had more judges there would be more cases heard per day, but I think that more judges would overall reduce the number of cases that are actually heard. The incentive and the facility to settle cases increases substantially when the trial date is fixed and imminent.

drkpower

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No, there should not be any greater costs involved in a case that is delayed by a year because of lack of court time than a case that is heard within a few weeks. In fact, the opposite is true and urgent cases usually cost a whole lot more. .

The practical reality is that cases that drag on tend to become costlier; increased medical examinations, pleadings, and the requirement for repeated review by perhaps new solicitor (within the same practice) etc. Now, I think it is fair to say that much of the reason for this is the delay caused by either or both parties, rather than by a difficulty in obtaining a court date, so i take your point. But, as a rule, a case prosecuted expeditiusly in a focussed manner will, in fact, cost less to prosecute & defend.

Truly urgent cases (injunctions etc.) tend to carry a premium due to the 'drop everything' nature of the case, rather than by anything inherent in the speed the case is being taken

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well obviously if you had more judges there would be more cases heard per day, but I think that more judges would overall reduce the number of cases that are actually heard. The incentive and the facility to settle cases increases substantially when the trial date is fixed and imminent.

Absolutely; i agree with the latter.

But in any case, while ineteresting (;)), all of this is OT. I still cant find any objective evidence of Ireland being high in the internation laddder of litigous nations, despite the common perception to that effect.:mad:

johnnyskeleton

drkpower wrote: »

But in any case, while ineteresting (;)), all of this is OT. I still cant find any objective evidence of Ireland being high in the internation laddder of litigous nations, despite the common perception to that effect.:mad:

I'm sure that in primitive societies when the very first court was invented to deal with the first time a dispute was resolved by litigation instead of bloody murder, people went around grumbling about how litigious society was getting and how it was so much better when if a man stole one of your sheep you cudgeled him to death.