Claims Culture in Tort Law

nailforhammer

I'm trying to find opinions and evidence of the idea of a claims culture affecting how tort law has developed and changed in recent years, in Ireland. There are a number of examples in UK cases, journals etc., with many denying the existence of a compensation/claims culture in the Britain. I can't, however, find much on this topic in Ireland. Does anyone know of any cases, articles or legislation in Ireland that proves/disproves the idea that a claims culture is affecting the development of Irish tort law?

Pat Mustard

Check out the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 (as amended by the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (amendment) Act 2007).

An anti-claimant system if there ever was one.

johnnyskeleton

What is a "claims culture"? Is it a culture where people are prepared to stand over their rights as opposed to people who just let other people get away wih civil wrongs? If so, the development of claims culture is about 90% responsible for the development of tort law, the remaining 10% being statute law, usually designed to curb civil remedies for the benefit of certain interest groups eg insurance companies, farmers etc

Mr. Incognito

Email insurance companies for claims numbers they have received annually and track the variances

Steve456

PIAB Annual Reports will have annual figures for awards PIAB have made, which is at least an indication of what claims are being made.

nailforhammer

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What is a "claims culture"? Is it a culture where people arenprepared to stand over their rights as opposed to people who just let other people get away wih civil wrongs? If so, he development of claims culture is about 90% responsible for the development of tort law, the remaining 10% being statute law, usually designed to curb civil remedies for the benefit of certain interest groups eg insurance companies, farmers etc

A claims culture implies that a significant number of claims are unjustified and fraudulent, that society has become obsessed with a need for compensation.
An example (though the plaintiff was unsuccessful) is Duffy v Rooney and Dunnes Stores where a woman tried to sue Dunnes Stores for not having a warning label "KEEP AWAY FROM FIRE", when her daughter's coat went up in flames.

Mr. Incognito

nailforhammer wrote: »

A claims culture implies that a significant number of claims are unjustified and fraudulent, that society has become obsessed with a need for compensation.
An example (though the plaintiff was unsuccessful) is Duffy v Rooney and Dunnes Stores where a woman tried to sue Dunnes Stores for not having a warning label "KEEP AWAY FROM FIRE", when her daughter's coat went up in flames.

Um, with her daughter in it who was horrifically burned you forgot to mention. Hardly a frivolous case. On the facts her grandfather who was supposed to be watching her was held negligent.

nailforhammer

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Um, with her daughter in it who was horrifically burned you forgot to mention. Hardly a frivolous case. On the facts her grandfather who was supposed to be watching her was held negligent.

Yes the grandfather was negligent, he should have been watching his grandfather. Whether there was a warning label or not is irrelevant, was what I was trying to say. The grandfather wasn't watching the child and so even the coat was flammable she could still managed to burn herself being so close to the fire. Dunne Stores shouldn't have had anything to do with the case.

Steve456

nailforhammer wrote: »

Yes the grandfather was negligent, he should have been watching his grandfather. Whether there was a warning label or not is irrelevant, was what I was trying to say. The grandfather wasn't watching the child and so even the coat was flammable she could still managed to burn herself being so close to the fire. Dunne Stores shouldn't have had anything to do with the case.

So basically what you are saying is that the judge got it right. But how are you saying that the case is an example of claims that are "fraudulent", or shows "that society has become obsessed with a need for compensation"? The judge didn't seem to think so, why do you?

MarkAnthony

A couple of points.

-Mr Justice Clarke has given a few guest lectures I've been too and this question almost always comes up; he's of the opinion that Ireland isn't any where near the most litigious country in Europe, and not particularly litigious in general.

-People miss the point of tort law that it's essentially a loss distribution system. It puts the burden of paying for things on those most able to pay. Taking Duffy v Rooney who is best able to pay? Dunnes or the parents of the burnt girl? Furthermore you're missing a fairly massive development in negligence that contributory negligence is not a bar to recovery.

Incidentally, a massive simplification of a case if ever there was one.

-Finally tort law is a great deal more than the tort of negligence, which appears (correct me if I'm wrong) to be your focus.

234

But bear in mind that tort is only one side of the loss distribution coin. The other is insurance. Tort is more than just loss distribution. It is fault based and has a substantial commutative justice component.

johnnyskeleton

nailforhammer wrote: »

A claims culture implies that a significant number of claims are unjustified and fraudulent, that society has become obsessed with a need for compensation.
An example (though the plaintiff was unsuccessful) is Duffy v Rooney and Dunnes Stores where a woman tried to sue Dunnes Stores for not having a warning label "KEEP AWAY FROM FIRE", when her daughter's coat went up in flames.

Again this is very vague - what is significant. It seems to me that the number of unmeritorious or fraudulent claims is quite low. Bear in mind that the cases that get in the papers are fully fought and so there is a greater chance of being unsuccessful compared to the tens of thousands of genuine claims processed by PIAB and settled out of court. I dont think the numbers of unmeritorious claims is significant, havibg regard to the fact that there will always be some.

To my mind, the phrase claims culture implies a general distaste for personal injuries cases regardless of the merits, and/or a desire for insurance companies to charge large premiums but not pay out any compensation. We should call the opposite a "highly profitable insurance racket culture".

Pixie Chief

I agree that the phrase 'claim culture' is a derogatory one designed to shame people who consider suing for any reason regardless of the facts of the case. I have often heard the supposed increase in people making claims to be related to the 'americanisation' of the Irish culture. I'm not sure that is isn't part and parcel of any developing culture - as in "you stole my sheep so I kidnapped your daughter' gradually turns into "you stole my sheep so I informed the guards and brought a suit to recover their value". Isn't it what civilised people are supposed to do rather than go to physical war with someone who you feel has wronged you in some way? I would also mention that the Irish court system has been very quick to embrace the process of mediation, not to discourage the righting of wrongs but to gain more holistic and relationship preserving solutions to them. I can't speak as to the current day tort law but historically it developed to allow wrongs done to be corrected and the scope just increased over time. Can't see any huge sudden influx of available torts in the last few decades that would account for a 'claim culture' significantly impacting it - most are enlargements, clarifications or widening of laws that go back centuries to reflect current day activities from what I can see?

nuac

Some of the banks have been adding to the claims culture in recent years.

Many have lent unwisely and too well during the recent boom, and have had difficulties in collecting on those loans.

In cases of default or possible default they have had teams of lawyers examining the security documentation in detail - title, solicitors' undertakings etc. Often cases have been taken by banks against borrowers' solicitors for alleged breaches of undertaking as a roundabout way of collecting the debt.

A new form of claims culture?

nailforhammer

Steve456 wrote: »

So basically what you are saying is that the judge got it right. But how are you saying that the case is an example of claims that are "fraudulent", or shows "that society has become obsessed with a need for compensation"? The judge didn't seem to think so, why do you?

What I was saying is Duffy shouldn't have involved Dunnes Stores. She was just seeing if she could make a claim against Dunnes because they have money but the judges rightly saw through this. I'm saying that if she had one against Dunnes Stores that would have been unjust.

MarkAnthony

nailforhammer wrote: »

What I was saying is Duffy shouldn't have involved Dunnes Stores. She was just seeing if she could make a claim against Dunnes because they have money but the judges rightly saw through this. I'm saying that if she had one against Dunnes Stores that would have been unjust.

Similar cases had been won. Shell suits while being an offence to fashion were also inherently unsafe as were various other garments. This case turned on it's own facts and that was decided in the correct forum, the courts.

The very first child that made a claim after having their arm ripped off by a cotton machine in a mill would have set the chattering classes off about how scandalous it was after they'd done so much in employing an 8 year old, only worked them for 16 hours a day any paid them a penny a month. Just because someone makes a claim doesn't mean that it's going to succeed or that they are after a windfall. Our damages policies are pretty restrictive.

The_Minister

It's important to remember that a 'claims culture' stops accidents and tragedies from happening - ever since I've been practising, whenever I'm on holidays in a country without a 'claims culture' I notice how dangerous everything is.

My fondest memory was being put at a table and chairs on a broad windowsill in a restaurant - had my chair moved an inch and a half across, I would have gone flying onto the nearest couple, and probably taken the table with me - absolute madness.