Compo Culture

Pinch Flat

Good to see some common sense on this one

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/finger-case-is-compensation-culture-gone-mad-says-judge-29843585.html

joe stodge

Bout time, people will claim for anything theses days.

wazky

Maybe if she kept her childs snotty fingers out of dispensers then this wouldn't have happened.

TheBody

I'm still waiting for my case against the publishers of The Never Ending Story, for false advertising, to come up.

anncoates

wazky wrote: »

Maybe if she kept her childs snotty fingers out of dispensers then this wouldn't have happened.

Hardly the child's or the mother's fault. Just an accident.

As for the story: I wish more judges would start throwing these compensation claims out of court.

krudler

Yay for common sense. Kids do stupid sh1t at times, that's life.

The judge also awarded costs of both the High Court and Circuit Court cases against Ms Behan but suggested the parties may be able to come to some private arrangement whereby only costs from only one hearing might have to be paid.

Hope they tell her to sing for it.

cantdecide

OMG like something unpleasant happened to my child that was like partly my fault. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender and little Mary will get paid for a cut and a slightly unpleasant experience.

As a kid, I once ran off in a shopping centre and ended up playing on an escalator. I somehow managed to get my shoe/ boot stuck in the side of it and got sucked into the workings of it. My trousers got torn, my footwear ruined and I was bruised. I got a lecture and a clip 'round the ear for running off. I could have been rich beyond my wildest dreams if I were 20 years younger

krudler

cantdecide wrote: »

OMG like something unpleasant happened to my child that was like partly my fault. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender and little Mary will get paid for a cut and a slightly unpleasant experience.

As a kid, I once ran off in a shopping centre and ended up playing on an escalator. I somehow managed to get my shoe/ boot stuck in the side of it and got sucked into the workings of it. My trousers got torn, my footwear ruined and I was bruised. I got a lecture and a clip 'round the ear for running off. I could have been rich beyond my wildest dreams if I were 20 years younger

Exactly, kids being kids and doing stupid things means cha-ching time for mammy when her little angle hurts itself.

Pinch Flat

krudler wrote: »

Exactly, kids being kids and doing stupid things means cha-ching time for mammy when her little angle hurts itself.

It's swings and roundabouts as well (excuse the pun!:pac:). Days out in the circuit court and especially the high court are expensive, and r€tards that take these cases need to realise this.

bringupthebook

Would be interesting to see what costs the mother ends up paying. Very little I would imagine. This kind of case is a waste of everyone's time and I'm very glad the judge saw sense and threw it out.

The onus to watch your child does not fall to someone else once you step into a restuarant/shop etc.

That said I'm sure it wasnt a nice experience for anyone involved.

debabyjesus

She looks like a regular in eddie rockets, she should have known about the risk associated with the sugar dispensers.

Hope eddie robs her pockets for costs.

Frank Black

I sometimes do a bit of work for Local Authorities.
In one particular one I was in Court giving evidence on a road scheme. Was chatting to one of the Local Authority Engineers, and he mentioned that at the previous sitting of the court, three members of the same family (mother father and son) had taken three separate actions against the local authority for various issues (tripping over loose paving slab and the like). The judge can't take this into account apparently, but some people are absolutely trying to ride the system.

Good to see sense prevailing in this case.

seamus

bringupthebook wrote: »

Would be interesting to see what costs the mother ends up paying. Very little I would imagine.

The judge knows that she's on the hook for probably tens of thousands, but if the defendants were to take her to court to claim their costs, she'd play the poor mouth about how she's struggling to make ends meet and has a family to look after. And she'd end up only having to pay a fraction of the costs.
So the judge advising that they come to an agreement is basically him saying, "Don't waste your time pursuing her for costs, it'll cost you in the long run".

This woman is the reason that commercial insurance is so high and indirectly that the cost of goods is inflated. Good job Ms Behan, a real soldier of society.

BMJD

I'm suffering deep distress from seeing the ma's PIC, gimme ten grand plz.

chicken foot

I do a bit of work in this area, from the claims I have dealt with I would imagine up to 75% are dodgy and nearly all are exaggerated to some extent.
The classic rear-ending scenario is a particular favourite - get one people carrier, fill it to the max with people (must include at least one child and one pregnant woman for maximum score), get said People carrier rear-ended by another car driven by Mick (also filled to the max) and lets all sit back and watch the seven occupants of the people carrier and the four occpuants of the car all claim against Mick - you just got yourself a mini lottery win when you tot it all up!!

It pays to be dishonest folk!!!

hfallada

In fairness it's worse in the uk. Half the ads on British tv for no win, no fee solicitors.

donegal_man

hfallada wrote: »

In fairness it's worse in the uk. Half the ads on British tv for no win, no fee solicitors.

Sister in law works for one of those outfits and reckons their business model means no hope cases like this never reach court as they wouldn't waste time effort and resources on it.

Pinch Flat

http://www.bettercallsaul.com/ :pac:

mike65

Not as bad now as in the 80s and 90s in my memory - people "slipping up" on commercial premises and tripping on broken pavements was endemic.

suicide_circus

A former colleague of mine got 10k out of our employer because she walked into a large clearly visible object and injured herself

Pro Hoc Vice

chicken foot wrote: »

I do a bit of work in this area, from the claims I have dealt with I would imagine up to 75% are dodgy and nearly all are exaggerated to some extent.
The classic rear-ending scenario is a particular favourite - get one people carrier, fill it to the max with people (must include at least one child and one pregnant woman for maximum score), get said People carrier rear-ended by another car driven by Mick (also filled to the max) and lets all sit back and watch the seven occupants of the people carrier and the four occpuants of the car all claim against Mick - you just got yourself a mini lottery win when you tot it all up!!

It pays to be dishonest folk!!!

I don't think it does, http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/6-arrested-over-car-insurance-claims-scam-225337.html

pablomakaveli

Good to see a judge finally stand up to this type of nonsense. Unfortunately we don't seem to see enough judges taking this approach.

This compo culture only seems to be a reward for stupidity nowadays.

Mr. CooL ICE

Friend of mine rear-ended another car (only minor - friend's car had no noticeable damage, other car had a small dent). He accepted responsibility on the spot and offered to settle outside insurance, but other party refused. It just ended up screwing his premium.

14 months later, he got a vague letter from the insurance company about a court case and he rang to ask them to elaborate. As it turns out, the other party claims to have suffered soft tissue damage and was out of work for 4 months. Claims court offered a reward of 13k, which the party refused. After an appeal, 16k was offered, which the other party also refused.

I hope people like this are done for wasting court time.

Pro Hoc Vice

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Good to see a judge finally stand up to this type of nonsense. Unfortunately we don't seem to see enough judges taking this approach.

This compo culture only seems to be a reward for stupidity nowadays.

It happens a lot do google search and there are a number of reported cases in all courts, I can think of a number off the top of my head in the past year.

topper75

Could these claims be filtered off earlier in the system by stipulating that those taking on the case are to receive no payment on losing and further be saddled with a portion of defending costs?

That way no solicitor would touch these types of claims unless they were genuine.

anncoates

Slipped once in a pub and got a cut above my eye. Wasn't pissed but there was a wet patch on the floor in the jacks

They called me an ambulance even though I was grand and were explaining that the floor must have been recently splashed as somebody was cleaning the jacks every half hour or so and I beleived them as I'm a regular there. Even so, it's hardly mass negligence on their part.

I'm sure I could have got a few grand out of them if I wanted but I wouldn't have dreamt of it unless they were properly negligent.

The compensation culture is disgusting.

oldyouth

I was at a dog training class last week and slipped on pee that some other dog had done on the floor. I landed on my ass and I'm still a bit sore. I'm a clumsy fecker at the best of times.

That's where my story ends, life happens...........

Pro Hoc Vice

anncoates wrote: »

Slipped once in a pub and got a cut above my eye. Wasn't pissed but there was a wet patch on the floor in the jacks

They called me an ambulance even though I was grand and were explaining that the floor must have been recently splashed as somebody was cleaning the jacks every half hour or so and I beleived them as I'm a regular there. Even so, it's hardly mass negligence on their part.

I'm sure I could have got a few grand out of them if I wanted but I wouldn't have dreamt of it unless they were properly negligent.

The compensation culture is disgusting.

I have seen a number of such casses, where the Plaintiff lost due to the evidence of the defendant that they had a very good cleaning system, good cleaning no negligence

omega666

topper75 wrote: »

Could these claims be filtered off earlier in the system by stipulating that those taking on the case are to receive no payment on losing and further be saddled with a portion of defending costs?

That way no solicitor would touch these types of claims unless they were genuine.

Or better still if the insurance companies went to the bother of actually investigating every claim. The way i see it they just make a judgement call if it cheaper to just pay someone early off than go to court.

Pro Hoc Vice

topper75 wrote: »

Could these claims be filtered off earlier in the system by stipulating that those taking on the case are to receive no payment on losing and further be saddled with a portion of defending costs?

That way no solicitor would touch these types of claims unless they were genuine.

But that is the situation at the moment. If a person does not win their court cases, they get no award and they get a costs order made against them. Collecting that may be an issue but you can be sure Defendants will do all in their power to get any costs due from the Plaintiff. Not only are they saddled with a portion of the costs, they will be ordered to pay all the defendants reasonable costs.