Financial compensation - Do you agree with it?

Howdy folks,

There's a thread on the main page at the moment called 'Compensation'. It's about a chap that was rollerblading, but when I seen the title and I clicked into it, I thought it was going to be a thread on the merits of financial compensation being paid out to people.

Alas, it wasn't, but at the same time, my curiousity to hear what people thought about it made me just throw such a thread together myself.


So pretty much, what I'm wondering is, what are your views on financial compensation?

A couple of years back, a mate of mine got a payout. Without giving too many details, he was employed to work on the loading and unloading of articulated lorries. He slipped from the top of a trailer on one of the lorries, fell to the ground, and was brought to hospital.

He was injured, but healed and returned to work (elsewhere).

I'm not 100% sure of the exact specifics of the claim, but I am lead to believe that he was given a payment that covered loss of earnings, medical costs, etc. (so he wasn't out of pocket at all) and also gave him ~€18,000 in his back pocket for the inconvenience.

Friend is a fairly honest bloke, and didn't want to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. I'm sure if he tried to 'fiddle the system' he could have potentially gotten a bigger payout.


I've also heard of other stories where people get decent payouts for incidents (some of which I know exact specifics on, and people have pocketed up to €9,000 for minor falls).


My question is; do you agree with this?

Personally, I do understand that a person should get something, but at the same time, I can't help but think a holiday from work, all bills paid for and retain your weekly wage while you're out seems pretty fair.

I do find it odd, though, that the payouts for these events are so high in general. Running into the thousands of euro for cosmetic scrapes and scratches, generally due to an honest mistake, is crazy stuff.

I can't help but feel it's people hearing of the high payouts that spur on the 'compo culture'.

In my own life, I've had a few minor slips and falls here and there. Thankfully all I've ever bruised is my ego. However, even though I'd consider myself an honest person, if I did slip and hurt myself in a commercial premises, and had to be taken to hospital, these over the top payouts would have to be in the back of my mind. I'm sure they'd be in everyone's..?


Just curious to hear other people's thoughts. It's a half-baked thread, I admit, as I'm probably wording it terribly, but you get the gist of the debate I'm bringing up... I hope...

scwazrh

We currently have someone with a claim against our company .he hurt himself in work , completely his own fault, he refused to wear safety equip and did something so stupid that no one could ever envisage that someone would do it. He missed 2 months of work even though he was doing nixers after the first week of being out "sick" and we paid him his regular wage for the time he was out.He will still get a minimum payment of €20k from our insurance company .Insurance claims are now just an easy way to get a lump sum payment from your employer .

Pro Hoc Vice

In any compensation claim it is made up of two elements General Damages and Special Damages. Specials are the verified out of pocket expenses so I don't think any person can have issue with them. The others are Generals or pain and suffering money. In irish law there is no limit to Specials and Generals are limited to approx 450k (that would be a really serious damages case.

So I guess your question OP is should their be pain and suffering money. Well again at the extreme end I would find it hard to argue against a payment to a person who is in permanent pain and wheelchair bound being compensated. At the low end if the scale it's not so easy, but I for one would rather not go through a painfully injury rather than wait around for years waiting for a few K.

Pro Hoc Vice

scwazrh wrote: »

We currently have someone with a claim against our company .he hurt himself in work , completely his own fault, he refused to wear safety equip and did something so stupid that no one could ever envisage that someone would do it. He missed 2 months of work even though he was doing nixers after the first week of being out "sick" and we paid him his regular wage for the time he was out.He will still get a minimum payment of €20k from our insurance company .Insurance claims are now just an easy way to get a lump sum payment from your employer .

How can he get a payment if it was his own fault? If no negligence no claim. If I was the insured in such a case I would be having serious words with my insurance company even if only half of what you claimed was verifiable.

http://m.rte.ie/news/touch//2013/0620/457767-cork-operation-nascar/

Victor

infosys wrote: »

If no negligence no claim.

What if it was a non-negligent situation, where the employee is injured?

Pro Hoc Vice

Victor wrote: »

What if it was a non-negligent situation, where the employee is injured?

It could stem from a breach of duty, in an employment situation a breach of statutory duty. But I can not see how a claim could be maintained if there is no negligence, or breach of duty.

Penny Tration

I agree with financial compensation, depending on the circumstances.

I received compensation after an accident in work, caused by their negligence, a negligence myself and other staff tried to have fixed only a week before my accident, and were told was 'much too eexpensive' to fix.

I have to say, I take umbrage with you saying 'holiday' time. I was off work for two months after my accident, and spent it in bed, in a hell of a lot of pain. It certainly was not holiday time. Today, 3 years later, iI still cannot lift anything heavy, and have regular pain in my back and hip.

It depends entirely on the circumstances. In cases of negligence, I agree with compensation. In cases where people fiddle the system, have minor accidents that don't warrant more than a course of painkillers and isn't going to leave the person out of pocket, I don't agree with it.

There are many bogus claims out there. However, there are plenty of genuine cases, too. It depends entirely on the circumstances of the case. I could have gotten a LOT more money than I did, if I had went to court. Instead, I wanted it over and done with, so settled for about one third of what I could have received in court.

Bepolite

OP modern negligence law has come about, in very simplistic terms, because of the industrial revolution (well that and a snail). Simply put if damages didn't exist businesses would simply do what ever was cheapest. You seem to have more of a problem with the quantum than actual financial damages. Lets say you're out tomorrow and drunk driver in a big 141 Merc runs you down. You're paralysed, no more sex, no more pooping/peeing - baggy time for you. You think that €450K is enough to compensate your loss even bearing in mind your out of pocket expenses will be covered by special damages?

Do I agree with financial compensation hell yeah. I don't agree with the US system of massive punitive damaged, which so many people think we have here because of watching too much TV. Punitive damages in Ireland are the exception and frankly I think we have it about right here. You'll never have a perfect system, chancers are everywhere - judges working with a particular breed of chancers everyday are pretty good at spotting them.

kennM

KKV wrote: »

Howdy folks,

There's a thread on the main page at the moment called 'Compensation'. It's about a chap that was rollerblading, but when I seen the title and I clicked into it, I thought it was going to be a thread on the merits of financial compensation being paid out to people.

Alas, it wasn't, but at the same time, my curiousity to hear what people thought about it made me just throw such a thread together myself.


So pretty much, what I'm wondering is, what are your views on financial compensation?

A couple of years back, a mate of mine got a payout. Without giving too many details, he was employed to work on the loading and unloading of articulated lorries. He slipped from the top of a trailer on one of the lorries, fell to the ground, and was brought to hospital.

He was injured, but healed and returned to work (elsewhere).

I'm not 100% sure of the exact specifics of the claim, but I am lead to believe that he was given a payment that covered loss of earnings, medical costs, etc. (so he wasn't out of pocket at all) and also gave him ~€18,000 in his back pocket for the inconvenience.

Friend is a fairly honest bloke, and didn't want to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. I'm sure if he tried to 'fiddle the system' he could have potentially gotten a bigger payout.


I've also heard of other stories where people get decent payouts for incidents (some of which I know exact specifics on, and people have pocketed up to €9,000 for minor falls).


My question is; do you agree with this?

Personally, I do understand that a person should get something, but at the same time, I can't help but think a holiday from work, all bills paid for and retain your weekly wage while you're out seems pretty fair.

I do find it odd, though, that the payouts for these events are so high in general. Running into the thousands of euro for cosmetic scrapes and scratches, generally due to an honest mistake, is crazy stuff.

I can't help but feel it's people hearing of the high payouts that spur on the 'compo culture'.

In my own life, I've had a few minor slips and falls here and there. Thankfully all I've ever bruised is my ego. However, even though I'd consider myself an honest person, if I did slip and hurt myself in a commercial premises, and had to be taken to hospital, these over the top payouts would have to be in the back of my mind. I'm sure they'd be in everyone's..?


Just curious to hear other people's thoughts. It's a half-baked thread, I admit, as I'm probably wording it terribly, but you get the gist of the debate I'm bringing up... I hope...

Interesting topic.... I'd have viewpoints myself but interested to tease our your context.

1) Am I right to assume (from your post) that you have not been injured (at least seriously) through the fault of someone else?
2) What alternative would you propose?
3) If there was no financial compensation for the fault of others how do you feel society would be? improved/dis improved.... if for example employers just had to keep paying your wages if they are getting maimed by poorly maintained equipment? no training provided etc.? Interested to get your thoughts here on how you think society would become....

BTW - Completely agree with you on the other thread that spurred you to post this. I personally feel the thread is poorly worded and portrays the "do I have a payday" stereotype. I partly blame the media for feeding these public opinions.

The cases that make the general widespread media will be the anomalies. The most recent one with regards to the girl who tried to climb 12 foot high fences at slane in the pitch black of night with spikes on them and ending up with a serious flesh injury who got €75 compensation if memory serves. Its one of those cases where common sense was left at the bottom when she began her climb. Either way you get the idea, it evokes emotion in the reader.

You never hear about the cases where people have been genuinely seriously injured and suffered considerable pain/issues/long term problems through 100% fault of third parties. The general public then ultimately form their opinions based on publicly reported fringe cases rather than the actual body of claims.

For example a friend of my brothers.... a number of years ago he was struck over the head with a bottle outside a pub and fell and hit his head off a kerb. He was left with very serious brain damage and requires around the clock care for the rest of his life. At this point he'd be in his early 40's. He's not married and his parents are incredibly concerned about who'll looked after him when they pass away. He was awarded, what some would see considerable, amount of compensation (And this is what made headlines)..... do you think they'd give back every single penny for that event not to have happened in the first place? Absolutely!!! and you can probably say the same for the vast majority of claimants.

234

Well New Zealand have abolished tortious liability for personal injuries and replaced it with a kind of national insurance fund. I'm not sure how the detail works, but there are alternative approaches.

Carawaystick

Last week there were reports of a case of a man who slipped on seaweed coated steps at a pier where he went swimming.
the pier owners argued that it was a fishing pier not a swimming pier, but there was evidence that there was swimming there for long enough to make the owners aware.
There was also a defence raised that the injured man contributed to the slipping by recklessness. The court ruled this was not the case.
(unsure of the exact wording)

Now, I've seen enough seaweed and algae to know they're a slippy as ice to step on. It's hard to see how a grown man couldn't have been partially at blame for stepping on seaweed and slipping.

Would a judge determine an adult slipping on a path the landowner had cleared before, was in no way reckless for stepping on it ?

thepieman12345

For me it depends on the situation. Quite frankly with the other thread (from what I have read, I wasnt there so I cant be 100%) to me seems ridiculous to get compensation. ive broken bones and been injured once or twice quite severely from various sports and once when I was in school but they werent caused by anyones negligence, so why would I have deserved compensation?

if the injury was due to an estabishments negligence, like wet floors with no warnings or working in an unstable area that isnt being repaired, then yeah I would agree with some compensation. but unfortunately as with most things the few who fiddle the system to their advantage make it almost impossible or stigmatised to actually claim when its deserved.

234

thepieman12345 wrote: »

ive broken bones and been injured once or twice quite severely from various sports and once when I was in school but they werent caused by anyones negligence, so why would I have deserved compensation?

Well, for the most part, that is the test: negligence. Unless there is negligence youa aren't entitled to compensation.