Aquiring a good affordable reputable personal injury solicitor

Rumpybumpy

Hi all,never posted here before but thought Id give it go as need some info

My 2 year old son was at a birthday party in a childrens play centre, and through staff and the centres dangerous negligance my son badly injured his finger, he required emergency plastic surgery and currently he is on medication and his hand competely dressed and bandaged, we have wait week to see if there is any tendon damage and how badly scarred it will be.
I was told it definately will be scarred.

Whatever the outcome, I will taking the centre to court for damages, not for money but on principal.

Thing is Im out of work right now and so is my wife so obviously we cant afford be forking out alot of money.

We'll probably have to go down route of no win, no fee.

But by doing this will we get as good representation?

And is it possible to get outcome as good an outcome while keeping costs low?

I dont know where to start can anyone help?

Any help appreciated

Bluefox21

Hi,

Tell me where you are based and I can try make some recommendations. To be honest most firms these days will offer a "no win no fee" although this will vary depending on the merits of your case. I know a few solicitors who will offer free consultations these days.

Hope your son is ok and there is no permanent damage.

Rumpybumpy

Bluefox21 wrote: »

Hi,

Tell me where you are based and I can try make some recommendations. To be honest most firms these days will offer a "no win no fee" although this will vary depending on the merits of your case. I know a few solicitors who will offer free consultations these days.

Hope your son is ok and there is no permanent damage.

Thanks be a big help

Im in centre of Dubiin so anywheres handy

Bluefox21

I think some of the Dubliners here may be able to provide a better recommendation than me. Most of my experience with Solicitors has been in Munster which won't really help you.

Don't worry about the quality of representation being linked to how much you afford up front. Many Solicitors are struggling at the moment so you'll hopefully get a better response than you would have a few years ago.

Best of luck.

drkpower

if its about principle and not about the money, why don't you get them to apologise publicly and get them to pay your medical and other expenses. Then you could avoid the courts altogether.

ResearchWill

drkpower wrote: »

if its about principle and not about the money, why don't you get them to apologise publicly and get them to pay your medical and other expenses. Then you could avoid the courts altogether.

As there is a minor involved the courts must be involved. Any money paid either by the company or through piab or through settlement, has to be ruled by a judge. This is to make sure the child's interests are looked after.

If the parents accepted an apology and payment of medical expenses, the child could bring an action in his own name at age 18 and receive compensation.

drkpower

No, the courts do not have to be involved in the creche giving an apology and paying medical expenses.

The creche would of course leave themselves open to a future action as you say, but that is their problem.

nuac

In case there are complications with this finger later, ( and we are told already there is possibility of permanent scarring ) it would be safer to have any settlement approved by the court.

ResearchWill

drkpower wrote: »

No, the courts do not have to be involved in the creche giving an apology and paying medical expenses.

The creche would of course leave themselves open to a future action as you say, but that is their problem.

You are right, and the problem would be for the Crèche. But any business owner who writes a letter of apology and pays money for medical expenses, and then leaves them selves open to legal action for the next 18 or so years. That person in my opinion would be a total numpty.

As a child is involved I would personally seek legal advice.

Storminateacup

Have to love the whole "let's sue" nature that's taking over Ireland. It's disgusting.

MagicSean

ResearchWill wrote: »

You are right, and the problem would be for the Crèche. But any business owner who writes a letter of apology and pays money for medical expenses, and then leaves them selves open to legal action for the next 18 or so years. That person in my opinion would be a total numpty.

As a child is involved I would personally seek legal advice.

I'd be surprised if any creche's or similar things will be in existence in ten years or so. They are so open to liability. Kids get hurt. It's in their nature. But most parents and even the courts seem to think someone is always to blame. When you also consider the reduced demand for child minding due to the amount of people unemployed and not needing it as well as the prohibitive costs in a lot of cases it spells out a bleak outlook for the industry.

drkpower

ResearchWill wrote: »

You are right, and the problem would be for the Crèche. But any business owner who writes a letter of apology and pays money for medical expenses, and then leaves them selves open to legal action for the next 18 or so years. That person in my opinion would be a total numpty.

Not necessarily. It may be critical for a creche owner that he does not now get embroiled in a potentially draw-out acrimonius court process. They may know and trust the parents and feel they are very unlikely to sue down the line. They may care very little about whether they are sued in 18 years (and an 18 year old kid with no functional deficit and a small scar on his finger is very unlikely to sue). They may well be very willing to take those chances. Circumstances are king. And the client will decide what is in his best interests, not the lawyer.

But, as I said, that is a matter for the creche and is not a matter for the OP.

The reality is that if the kid has any chance of a functional deficit, the OP should be very very careful. If there is no chance of a functional deficit, save yourself the hassle of court, come to an agreement with the creche, get your medical bills paid and move on. That is of course if the pricnciple is what matters and not the money.

ResearchWill

Storminateacup wrote: »

Have to love the whole "let's sue" nature that's taking over Ireland. It's disgusting.

Why? I assume if you or yours suffer an injury, due to the fault of another, and have suffered a loss of income and have to pay out, you will not request the person at fault pays for what they caused.

ResearchWill

drkpower wrote: »

Not necessarily. It may be critical for a creche owner that he does not now get embroiled in a potentially draw-out acrimonius court process. They may know and trust the parents and feel they are very unlikely to sue down the line. They may care very little about whether they are sued in 18 years (and an 18 year old kid with no functional deficit and a small scar on his finger is very unlikely to sue). They may well be very willing to take those chances. Circumstances are king. And the client will decide what is in his best interests, not the lawyer.

But, as I said, that is a matter for the creche and is not a matter for the OP.

The reality is that if the kid has any chance of a functional deficit, the OP should be very very careful. If there is no chance of a functional deficit, save yourself the hassle of court, come to an agreement with the creche, get your medical bills paid and move on. That is of course if the pricnciple is what matters and not the money.

I am assuming the crèche has insurance, knowing of a claim and not informing insurance company may impact on the insurance policy and may infact invalidate it.

There does not have to be a drawn out legal process, as you say if there is no problem with the child the offer of an apology and medical expenses todate and into the future, can be ruled. It's a very simple process and it brings the matter to a proper conclusion.

As the statute of limitations does not start till your child is 18, then you can wait till all the medical stuff is over, and then decide what to do.

drkpower

ResearchWill wrote: »

I am assuming the crèche has insurance, knowing of a claim and not informing insurance company may impact on the insurance policy and may infact invalidate it.

Who said anything about not informing your insurance company? Some Insurance Co's quite often encourage these agreements.

ResearchWill wrote: »

There does not have to be a drawn out legal process, as you say if there is no problem with the child the offer of an apology and medical expenses todate and into the future, can be ruled. It's a very simple process and it brings the matter to a proper conclusion.

A business tends not to like uncertainty. The court may not approve the ruling. Once the legal process starts and the family starts to receive legal advice from solicitor/counsel, the family are more likely to change their mind and possibly hold out for more. Entering into an agreement early may bring many advantages to the creche and they may be very happy to take the chance that the kid will sue at a later date.

There are clearly pros & cons on either side. But your original point was that a person coming to an agreement in these circumstances would be a total numpty. That is quite a lawyer-centric view; it fails to understand the respective pressures that a client feels. That is the most important bit and often what (inexperienced) lawyers miss.

ResearchWill wrote: »

As the statute of limitations does not start till your child is 18, then you can wait till all the medical stuff is over, and then decide what to do.

Good advice.

johnnyskeleton

Storminateacup wrote: »

Have to love the whole "let's sue" nature that's taking over Ireland. It's disgusting.

So if you left your child in a crèche where his hand was seriously injured, you'd just chalk it up to life and fork out for the medical bills?

Or is it more like the old cognitive dissonance where people complain about the litigation culture, but obviously don't mean their case is part of it, or complain about people getting off crimes "on a technicality" but don't min when they themselves get off "because the proofs weren't in order", or those who hate all solicitors and barristers, except their own who gave them a good service at a reasonable fee?

ResearchWill

drkpower wrote: »

Who said anything about not informing your insurance company? Some Insurance Co's quite often encourage these agreements.


A business tends not to like uncertainty. The court may not approve the ruling. Once the legal process starts and the family starts to receive legal advice from solicitor/counsel, the family are more likely to change their mind and possibly hold out for more. Entering into an agreement early may bring many advantages to the creche and they may be very happy to take the chance that the kid will sue at a later date.

There are clearly pros & cons on either side. But your original point was that a person coming to an agreement in these circumstances would be a total numpty. That is quite a lawyer-centric view; it fails to understand the respective pressures that a client feels. That is the most important bit and often what (inexperienced) lawyers miss.


Good advice.

For any insurance company to agree to settle a matter by admitting full liability and remaining open to suit for the next 18 years after paying out would not be good business. This would do away with your argument that the crèche owner could take the risk as he may not be in business in 18 years but the insurance company would be.

I said a person would be a total numpty because they are admitting liability and not ending the case. Any person would be stupid to do so. By all means pay medical expenses but do not offer an apology, unless the case is settled. There is a child involved in this case, there is very good reason why the court should be involved.

BTW as an experienced lawyer both plaintiff and defence, I know full well that the client may wish to make an agreement for many reasons , but if I was advising the crèche owner I would be negligent if I did not point out to him the issue of possible future law suit from the child. Remember there is possibility of plastic surgery in this case. But if after my good advice the client wished to go ahead that is his dollar he is risking not mine.

You also mention the business like certainty, what you propose let's that company open to a suit for the next 18 years even after paying out and because of the apology they have no defence to liability. My way the reserve the right to defend the matter on liability or contrib and when the matter is over its over.

nuac

I don't think it is a question of being lawyer-centric or otherwise.

I am aware of one case where I was peripherally involved in which a minor on reaching 18 disputed a prior informal settlement and sued for damages.

If the injury is likely to have permanent consequences ( in this case at least a scar ) any settlement should be ruled on by the court.

drkpower

ResearchWill wrote: »

For any insurance company to agree to settle a matter by admitting full liability and remaining open to suit for the next 18 years after paying out would not be good business. This would do away with your argument that the crèche owner could take the risk as he may not be in business in 18 years but the insurance company would be.

We obviously dont know the circumstances, so for the purposes of this discussion, I am operating on the basis that there is little doubt about liability. If there was a real doubt over liability, then that would make the full apology route far less attractive. Indeed it would make the idea of settling the action less attractive.

ResearchWill wrote: »

BTW as an experienced lawyer both plaintiff and defence, I know full well that the client may wish to make an agreement for many reasons , but if I was advising the crèche owner I would be negligent if I did not point out to him the issue of possible future law suit from the child.

Obviously. Noone has disputed that. But to go further and to state that the creche owner would be a 'numpty' to enter into an agreement in such circumstances is potentially quite short-sighted. Obviously all depends on circumstances.

ResearchWill wrote: »

You also mention the business like certainty, what you propose let's that company open to a suit for the next 18 years even after paying out and because of the apology they have no defence to liability. My way the reserve the right to defend the matter on liability or contrib and when the matter is over its over.

I should have said certainty in the short term. Obviously, as I have already stated, uncertainty in the longer term is a risk that the creche would need to balance against the advantages of coming to an earlier settlement with the parents. If they have reason to trust that the parents wont immediately repudiate the agreement, the advantages of an early agreement might outweigh the risks. I would imagine that a creche owner would have good reason not to want to go through public legal proceedings, and a public ruling, where they could instead enter into a reasonably priced (hopefully private) agreement with the parents, albeit with perhaps the risk that the proceedings could be issued 18 years later.

Again, I am not stating that such a course of action would be the best approach in every case. But to state that any person who chose to exercise the pre-proceedings settlement option is a numpty fails to understand that there may be very good commercial reasons and other circumstances that would warrant such an approach.

MagicSean

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So if you left your child in a crèche where his hand was seriously injured, you'd just chalk it up to life and fork out for the medical bills?

Or is it more like the old cognitive dissonance where people complain about the litigation culture, but obviously don't mean their case is part of it, or complain about people getting off crimes "on a technicality" but don't min when they themselves get off "because the proofs weren't in order", or those who hate all solicitors and barristers, except their own who gave them a good service at a reasonable fee?

Everyone wants the law enforced until it's enforced on them.

drkpower

nuac wrote: »

If the injury is likely to have permanent consequences ( in this case at least a scar ) any settlement should be ruled on by the court.

No; you should advise the client of that precise risk. But the client doesnt just have to worry about the legal issues and risks, they have to worry about other issues that have nothing to do with the law (publicity of court proceedings/rulings, an aggrieved customer who might be aggrieved at the creche's insistence on court proceedings and might tell every other parent about the incident etc).

It IS lawyer-centric to suggest or advise that every case of this nature must be ruled. It is client centric to advise them of the various risks they face, and let the client decide what risks they wish to take, and which ones they do not.

Just like in medicine, there has been a fondness for a type of paternalism in law; generally, it is not a good thing in either field.

nuac

drklpower

You appear to be consiodering the matter from the point of view of the defendant.

If advising the plaintiff, the real client is a two year old child. That is why there is a procedure for having any settlement approved by the court. Inprudent imho not to use that procedure. My view is based on 40 plus years experience of court practice

ResearchWill

drkpower wrote: »

We obviously dont know the circumstances, so for the purposes of this discussion, I am operating on the basis that there is little doubt about liability. If there was a real doubt over liability, then that would make the full apology route far less attractive. Indeed it would make the idea of settling the action less attractive.

Obviously. Noone has disputed that. But to go further and to state that the creche owner would be a 'numpty' to enter into an agreement in such circumstances is potentially quite short-sighted. Obviously all depends on circumstances.


I should have said certainty in the short term. Obviously, as I have already stated, uncertainty in the longer term is a risk that the creche would need to balance against the advantages of coming to an earlier settlement with the parents. If they have reason to trust that the parents wont immediately repudiate the agreement, the advantages of an early agreement might outweigh the risks. I would imagine that a creche owner would have good reason not to want to go through public legal proceedings, and a public ruling, where they could instead enter into a reasonably priced (hopefully private) agreement with the parents, albeit with perhaps the risk that the proceedings could be issued 18 years later.

Again, I am not stating that such a course of action would be the best approach in every case. But to state that any person who chose to exercise the pre-proceedings settlement option is a numpty fails to understand that there may be very good commercial reasons and other circumstances that would warrant such an approach.

Now I understand where you are coming from, yes it may be the best to enter into a private agreement, I can see the advantage for the crèche owner. But as long as the crèche owner and his insurance company know the risk. I stand by by assertion that any person in such a situation makes such an offer without taking full advice from their insurance company and lawyers is a numpty. Also as then lawyers are involved it would be wrong not to have any settlement rulled as a matter of course.

drkpower

ResearchWill wrote: »

I stand by by assertion that any person in such a situation makes such an offer without taking full advice from their insurance company and lawyers is a numpty.

Well, I can agree with that assertion.

ResearchWill wrote: »

Also as then lawyers are involved it would be wrong not to have any settlement rulled as a matter of course.

But not that one...

Why? why does the involvement of lawyers change the rightness or wrongness of having the matter ruled?

drkpower

nuac wrote: »

You appear to be consiodering the matter from the point of view of the defendant.

Obviously, that was the basis of my last few posts. And that is because more issues arise for the potential Defendant (as a settlement agreement would have more uncertainty than usual).

From the parent's point of view, it all depends on whether there is a risk of functional deficit (or risk of significant pain). If there is, that is a total game changer. On the other hand ,a scar on the finger is likely to be trivial enough. The costs, potential risks and more importantly the stress of issuing legal proceedings would not in my view be worth it, if the parent can ensure that they get an apology/acknowledgment and all of their medical and other out of pocket expenses covered.

Just because the courts exist does not mean that people have to use them.

ResearchWill

drkpower wrote: »

Well, I can agree with that assertion.


But not that one...

Why? why does the involvement of lawyers change the rightness or wrongness of having the matter ruled?

I think once solicitors are involved, as an officer of the Court, he or she must ensure that the rules of court are observed and Order 22 rule 10 should be adhered to. A payment is about to be paid to a minor and any amount above the medical expenses should be lodged to the benefit of the minor in to the court.

10. (1) In any cause or matter in which money or damages is or are claimed by or on behalf of an infant or a person of unsound mind suing either alone or in conjunction with other parties, no settlement or compromise or payment or acceptance of money paid into Court, either before or at or after trial, shall, as regards the claims of any such infant or person of unsound mind, be valid without the approval of the Court.



Say in our example the crèche agrees to pay 3k medical expenses todate and 5k for a future operation and 1k in special damages. If there is no court involvement there is nothing to stop the parents taking the 9k paying the 3k out and then both bothering with the surgery and spending the 6k on a holiday.

drkpower

ResearchWill wrote: »

I think once solicitors are involved, as an officer of the Court, he or she must ensure that the rules of court are observed and Order 22 rule 10 should be adhered to. A payment is about to be paid to a minor and any amount above the medical expenses should be lodged to the benefit of the minor in to the court.

10. (1) In any cause or matter in which money or damages is or are claimed by or on behalf of an infant or a person of unsound mind suing either alone or in conjunction with other parties, no settlement or compromise or payment or acceptance of money paid into Court, either before or at or after trial, shall, as regards the claims of any such infant or person of unsound mind, be valid without the approval of the Court.

I think you are misunderstanding the rule. It applies to actions that have been commenced.

Suggesting that an agreement between parents of a child and a third party must always be ruled by the court is incorrect.

Consider the following: Child A grazes his knee after child B pushes him off his trike. Parent B agrees to pay the €50 GP fee that was incurred by parent A in getting the graze cleaned and dressed, and maybe a tetanus shot. Must that agreement be ruled?

ResearchWill wrote: »

Say in our example the crèche agrees to pay 3k medical expenses todate and 5k for a future operation and 1k in special damages. If there is no court involvement there is nothing to stop the parents taking the 9k paying the 3k out and then both bothering with the surgery and spending the 6k on a holiday.

If a future operation were on the cards, then as per your own suggestion above, entering into any agreement would be premature and inadvisable. The entire basis of my suggestion that an agreement might be an option in this case is if the injuries that the kid has sustained are certain.

ResearchWill

drkpower wrote: »

I think you are misunderstanding the rule. It applies to actions that have been commenced.

Suggesting that an agreement between parents of a child and a third party must always be ruled by the court is incorrect.

Consider the following: Child A grazes his knee after child B pushes him off his trike. Parent B agrees to pay the €50 GP fee that was incurred by parent A in getting the graze cleaned and dressed, and maybe a tetanus shot. Must that agreement be ruled?

In the case you give there is no involvement of solicitors at all. We are discussing where lawyers are advising the defendant. I gave an example which had a payment for both future medical expenses and general damages.

I agree there may be many cases where there may be no need to rule. Based on the information provided by the OP this is a case where there is future medical expenses and possible general damages. If that is the case it should be ruled. If anything more than a few quid is being discussed for medical expenses, and once any generals are being offered the matter should be rulled.

BTW proceedings do not have to be in existence to seek a ruling from the Court.

drkpower

ResearchWill wrote: »

In the case you give there is no involvement of solicitors at all. We are discussing where lawyers are advising the defendant. I gave an example which had a payment for both future medical expenses and general damages.

Why does the involvement of lawyers change the meaning of the rule?

ResearchWill wrote: »

I agree there may be many cases where there may be no need to rule. Based on the information provided by the OP this is a case where there is future medical expenses and possible general damages. If that is the case it should be ruled. If anything more than a few quid is being discussed for medical expenses, and once any generals are being offered the matter should be rulled.

Why does the amount of cash involved change the meaning of the rule?

ResearchWill wrote: »

BTW proceedings do not have to be in existence to seek a ruling from the Court.

You are suggesting an obligation (once a lawyer is involved, anyway), not an option to seek a ruling.

ResearchWill

drkpower wrote: »

Why does the involvement of lawyers change the meaning of the rule?

Why does the amount of cash involved change the meaning of the rule?

You are suggesting an obligation (once a lawyer is involved, anyway), not an option to seek a ruling.

Because once lawyers are involved they understand the implications of making such a agreement with out the court.

The amount involved changes the situation in the following way. In your example it was a small amount for medical expenses. I am talking about a large payment for future medical expenses. Say the defendants lawyer says ok pay 8k for future and generals, as per my example and the parents spend it. The child then in the future or through another best friend sues the crèche owner who says I already paid for that opperation and pain and suffering, the child says I never had the nor did I get money. I think the lawyer who advised the defendant in that situation may face a problem.

I believe once a child is involved, unless the payment is going straight to the hospital, any payment to protect the lawyer should go through the court. Otherwise there is no protection that the child will get the money for what it was intended for.

Also the OP requested information to get a good lawyer. I believe the OP is correct to seek good legal advice and good medical advice. Once the OP has that then decide what they wish to do.

Can I ask you do you what area you work in.

drkpower

ResearchWill wrote: »

Because once lawyers are involved they understand the implications of making such a agreement with out the court.

Sure; but you are suggesting an obligation. Nowhere in the rule does it reference the value of the claim, or whether any party is legally advised/represented. What it does say is that it applies to a party suing another. Which suggests the obligation only arises where proceedings have commenced.

Going back to the €50 GP arrangement i referenced earlier. If one party consulted theiir lawyer about it, would that mean that the matter must then be ruled?

ResearchWill wrote: »

I believe once a child is involved, unless the payment is going straight to the hospital, any payment to protect the lawyer should go through the court. Otherwise there is no protection that the child will get the money for what it was intended for.

Well, as i have said repeatedly, the hypothetical circumstances (and agreement) i have been discussing would apply only where the payment is for ascertained medical and out-of-pocket expenses. If there was a risk of any future expenses or future functional deficit, an agreement of this nature would be highly inadvisable.

ResearchWill wrote: »

Can I ask you do you what area you work in.

Does it matter?! If I was a plumber who never practised law, it wouldnt change the truth of what I am saying!

(doctor and medneg & healthcare lawyer, btw)

Storminateacup

ResearchWill wrote: »

Why? I assume if you or yours suffer an injury, due to the fault of another, and have suffered a loss of income and have to pay out, you will not request the person at fault pays for what they caused.

If me or mine suffered an injury, that wasn't life threathening, due to someone else at fault, I'd accept their offer to pay medical bills, and an apology, as unfortunately that's life - accidents happen and it's just part of life.

Deciding you need compensation because you or your child is going to be left with a scar on your/their finger is pathetic.

It's actions like that that makes others wary of you... You think that child would be wolcome to come play in his friends house when he's a little older? I doubt it. I personally wouldn't want that sort of responsiblity on my shoulders, terrified should the child slip or fall - like children do - incase the parents sued me for injuries too.

If the child was very seriously hurt and the injuries impacted on his daily life and restricted him in daily activities, I think they deserved to be compensated, but this is only a few days after it happens and the fathers already looking for a solicitor -- without even knowing the full extent of the injury. It "might" be left with a scar.

Storminateacup

Rumpybumpy wrote: »

Hi all,never posted here before but thought Id give it go as need some info

My 2 year old son was at a birthday party in a childrens play centre, and through staff and the centres dangerous negligance my son badly injured his finger, he required emergency plastic surgery and currently he is on medication and his hand competely dressed and bandaged, we have wait week to see if there is any tendon damage and how badly scarred it will be.
I was told it definately will be scarred.

Whatever the outcome, I will taking the centre to court for damages, not for money but on principal.

Thing is Im out of work right now and so is my wife so obviously we cant afford be forking out alot of money.

We'll probably have to go down route of no win, no fee.

But by doing this will we get as good representation?

And is it possible to get outcome as good an outcome while keeping costs low?

I dont know where to start can anyone help?

Any help appreciated

You brought your two year old son to a play centre and blamed the staffs neglegence for damage to your sons hand. Where were you/your wife while your son was injured. You not watching him? Smell some neglegence myself.

And you'll be suing whatever the outcome?? You come from a home that's both parents unemployed, no doubt youre child has a medical card,, which would cover your childs injuries and care so is this about medical expenses (which would be good) or about handy money for your son?

ResearchWill

drkpower wrote: »

Sure; but you are suggesting an obligation. Nowhere in the rule does it reference the value of the claim, or whether any party is legally advised/represented. What it does say is that it applies to a party suing another. Which suggests the obligation only arises where proceedings have commenced.

Going back to the €50 GP arrangement i referenced earlier. If one party consulted theiir lawyer about it, would that mean that the matter must then be ruled?


Well, as i have said repeatedly, the hypothetical circumstances (and agreement) i have been discussing would apply only where the payment is for ascertained medical and out-of-pocket expenses. If there was a risk of any future expenses or future functional deficit, an agreement of this nature would be highly inadvisable.


Does it matter?! If I was a plumber who never practised law, it wouldnt change the truth of what I am saying!

(doctor and medneg & healthcare lawyer, btw)

All I am saying and have said is as follows, look at my previous posts, I said if a defendant after legal advice wished to pay medical expenses and apologise that's fine by me. My only issue was if there was any element of future expenses and generals. Then there is a risk that the defendant may end up paying out twice. It really is simple. There is no obligation to rule my first posts make that clear. I just believe once a lawyer is involved and the amount is large or involves future expenses and generals the defendant takes on not only the risk he may be sued for something he has not paid out but he runs the risk of being sued for something he has already paid.

ResearchWill

Storminateacup wrote: »

If me or mine suffered an injury, that wasn't life threathening, due to someone else at fault, I'd accept their offer to pay medical bills, and an apology, as unfortunately that's life - accidents happen and it's just part of life.

Deciding you need compensation because you or your child is going to be left with a scar on your/their finger is pathetic.

It's actions like that that makes others wary of you... You think that child would be wolcome to come play in his friends house when he's a little older? I doubt it. I personally wouldn't want that sort of responsiblity on my shoulders, terrified should the child slip or fall - like children do - incase the parents sued me for injuries too.

If the child was very seriously hurt and the injuries impacted on his daily life and restricted him in daily activities, I think they deserved to be compensated, but this is only a few days after it happens and the fathers already looking for a solicitor -- without even knowing the full extent of the injury. It "might" be left with a scar.

Can you point out where I said a child or any person should sue where they have no real claim. The OP said the child will require a further operation. In fact you will see I said as the statute of limitations does not start to run until the child is 18. There is nothing to stops the OP waiting to see how the matter pans out. I for one only agree with a person being entitled to claim for vouched special damages and a fair sum for general damages. If the child has no visible scar and no lasting problems that figure should be small.

drkpower

ResearchWill wrote: »

All I am saying and have said is as follows, look at my previous posts, I said if a defendant after legal advice wished to pay medical expenses and apologise that's fine by me. My only issue was if there was any element of future expenses and generals. Then there is a risk that the defendant may end up paying out twice. It really is simple. There is no obligation to rule my first posts make that clear. I just believe once a lawyer is involved and the amount is large or involves future expenses and generals the defendant takes on not only the risk he may be sued for something he has not paid out but he runs the risk of being sued for something he has already paid.

I dont have a difficulty in any of that.

What I was disputing was that there is an obligation to have it ruled. When you posted the Rule, it seemed that you were making that point. I cannot see anywhere that that Rule (or any other rule/law) makes ruling an agreement between parents a legal obligation.

If you are simply saying that the possibility of future medical expenses/general damage makes a ruling much much more advisable, then I certainly agree with that.

ResearchWill

Storminateacup wrote: »

You brought your two year old son to a play centre and blamed the staffs neglegence for damage to your sons hand. Where were you/your wife while your son was injured. You not watching him? Smell some neglegence myself.

And you'll be suing whatever the outcome?? You come from a home that's both parents unemployed, no doubt youre child has a medical card,, which would cover your childs injuries and care so is this about medical expenses (which would be good) or about handy money for your son?

If you can't stay civil and not insult people, please go and troll somewhere else.

I will never understand why people throw about personal insults, and not discuss the issue.

Storminateacup

But where does it stop? It's people that sues for ridiculous reasons that puts the cost of everybody elses insurance up. It's absolutely disgusting to think after a child being injured, the first thing the parents think about - without even knowing the outcome - is "free money". I realise the statute of limitations doesn't start until the child is 18 but I would hope any adult going to court because of a scar on their finger, would be laughed out of court or fined for wasting court time.

Added to the fact -- why is the parents blaming the staff and facilities but not mentioning their taking any responsibility in the matter? The child was 2 years old -- he should not have been unaccompanied, so why wasn't his parents ensuring his safety?

ResearchWill

drkpower wrote: »

I dont have a difficulty in any of that.

What I was disputing was that there is an obligation to have it ruled. When you posted the Rule, it seemed that you were making that point. I cannot see anywhere that that Rule (or any other rule/law) makes ruling an agreement between parents a legal obligation.

If you are simply saying that the possibility of future medical expenses/general damage makes a ruling much much more advisable, then I certainly agree with that.

If you look back I posted that it should be ruled, you then said it did not have to be. I agreed that it did not have to be but there was a risk that the child could sue later. Then we discussed if lawyers where involved, in such circumstances as the matter can be rulled, any payment for anything more than expenses all read incurred and paid could result in double payment.

I agree with you in a very minor case where one person agrees to cover medical expenses there is no need for any ruling. But if there is any complication then I would go down the court ruling road.

Storminateacup

ResearchWill wrote: »

If you can't stay civil and not insult people, please go and troll somewhere else.

I will never understand why people throw about personal insults, and not discuss the issue.

Personal insults? I reread my post and do not see any personal insults.

drkpower

Storminateacup wrote: »

But where does it stop? It's people that sues for ridiculous reasons that puts the cost of everybody elses insurance up.

We really dont know the reasons, so we dont know if its ridiculous. What if the care centre left shatttered glass lying on the floor for hours. What would your view be then?

Also, were the parents even supposed to be there given that it was a birthday party at a care centre? is it not akin to a creche type arrangement?

Storminateacup

As per my experiences with play centres, you do not leave infants unattended and with the play centre staff. Parents must remain on site.

drkpower

ResearchWill wrote: »

If you look back I posted that it should be ruled, you then said it did not have to be.

I must have gotten the idea from this post. You seemed to be indicating an absolute requirement and that the Order applied to pre-proceedings agreements. But you have clarified that you didnt mean either of the above are the case; so all is good in the world again.....

I think once solicitors are involved, as an officer of the Court, he or she must ensure that the rules of court are observed and Order 22 rule 10 should be adhered to. A payment is about to be paid to a minor and any amount above the medical expenses should be lodged to the benefit of the minor in to the court.

ResearchWill

Storminateacup wrote: »

But where does it stop? It's people that sues for ridiculous reasons that puts the cost of everybody elses insurance up. It's absolutely disgusting to think after a child being injured, the first thing the parents think about - without even knowing the outcome - is "free money". I realise the statute of limitations doesn't start until the child is 18 but I would hope any adult going to court because of a scar on their finger, would be laughed out of court or fined for wasting court time.

Added to the fact -- why is the parents blaming the staff and facilities but not mentioning their taking any responsibility in the matter? The child was 2 years old -- he should not have been unaccompanied, so why wasn't his parents ensuring his safety?

Anyone taking a frivolous claim takes a real risk of not only losing but getting costs awarded against them. You don't just go into court any say judge I had an accident give me money. You need evidence that the defendant was negligent, that may be a expert in child care or an engineer or both. You will also need a medical opinion on the extent of the injury.

A small scar on the hand may be no big deal, the same scar on the face maybe. But I think the OP is right to seek good legal advice, to protect the interests of the child. A good lawyer may say there is no claim for what ever reason. In my career I have advised many people not to take proceedings, as liability may be a serious issue or there may be no injury.

ResearchWill

drkpower wrote: »

I must have gotten the idea from this post. You seemed to be indicating an absolute requirement and that the Order applied to pre-proceedings agreements. But you have clarified that you didnt mean either of the above are the case; so all is good in the world again.....

I could have put that post better. I think I have now made my meaning clear.

drkpower

Storminateacup wrote: »

As per my experiences with play centres, you do not leave infants unattended and with the play centre staff. Parents must remain on site.

Ah, I see. Then the Op might be in difficulty. But, as always, it does depend on the circumstances, and it may have been that the kid was injured on a dangerous piece of equipment which may not have been obvious to the parent.

You are a little quick to blame the OP. There are many possibilities as to what actually happened and whether there was negligence or not, and if so, who's.

Storminateacup

I'm sorry if I seem like I'm quick to blame the OP but given the fact the child shouldn't have been unattended, and he's blaming the staff (who is not his childs parent) and saying he's going to sue "whatever the outcome" without knowing the extent or if there is damage, I just find that vile and i know plenty of people like the OP who are of exactly the same mindset.

wendell borton

i got plenty scares when i was young and it never affected me. parents would have given a b#???#king back in the day, nowadays

they call the lawyers.

McCrack

ResearchWill is correct. It would be absolute madness for the OP to enter into a private arrangement with the creche (assuming they are prepared) in the absence of any legal advice.

The childs interests would not be protected. If the proper channels are done i.e. obtain legal representation and submit an application to PIAB and if necessary issue proceedings then as has been pointed out the matter must be ruled and the monies lodged with the court until the child turns 18.

That protects the child. Anything else would be just wrong.

johnnyskeleton

wendell borton wrote: »

i got plenty scares when i was young and it never affected me. parents would have given a b#???#king back in the day, nowadays

they call the lawyers.

Or child protection services.

potsy11

a little off topic....

The new CPC for 2012 ensure that all regulated entities (insurance companies) must send out the IB leaflet to all potential claimants (or guardians) once they have been notified of the incident.

So if we apply this new CPC for the OP's incident...The creche (as per ins policy conditions) must notify their insurers of the incident and the insurers must send out the IB leaflet to the parents of the injured party. The Ins Co must then assist the claimant if they wish to make a formal claim.

For those that are genuinely injured in a public place due to the negligence of a property owner / business entity etc - it will be reassuring that all dealings will be above board. The 'potential' claimant will have more rights and given more knowledge as to the workings of making a claim. I have no issues with this whatsoever.

My worry is that it will also enable all the fraudsters out there to bring claims for the usual soft tissue injuries, that in my opinion, are far too easy to fake. The payout figure is far too attractive to not take up the opportunity. Its basically an incentive for people to make or exaggerate fraudulent claims.

My fear is that premiums are now going to go up significantly over the next few years and one of two things will happen.....either ins companies will go bust (unlikely, or not offer ins for said risks) or Policyholders (businesses) will go out of business (unrealistic premiums to stay in business or very high excess thus increase exposure to payout on claims).

What has been very mush light touch regulation has now turned into over regulation with potentially disastrous consequences.