Compensation Culture to a new level

Barr

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Might be worth conducting a risk assessment and mitigating the risk then. I dunno I'm no expert but perhaps by moving the fcuking chairs a bit?

A risk assessment look to see if a table has legs ? I would love to hear how that call would go to their Insurer :pac:

Sue Pa Key Pa

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

It's pointless blaming the people making these claims. They are merely exploiting the system along with the legal and insurance industries. Why should the ordinary person not get a share of the spoils?

And you don't see the like between that and 'ordinary people' having to pay for it through increased premiums???

Pinch Flat

That's what I'd be issuing to my customers if I was running a restaurant.

All joking aside, it's only a matter of time before you have to sign a claimer for using a restaurant or bar. A lot of kids play zones, climbing areas with higher risk activities already do this. My local play zone has a kids crazy golf course outside - hurling helmets are obligatory.

Roger Hassenforder

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

It's pointless blaming the people making these claims. They are merely exploiting the system along with the legal and insurance industries. Why should the ordinary person not get a share of the spoils? Why should the ordinary person hold themselves to a higher moral and ethical standard than the legal and insurance industries, who are taking a much larger share of the proceeds?

Part of the problem might be viewing it as "spoils" and a sense one should get their nose into the trough along with the other swine

HeidiHeidi

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Might be worth conducting a risk assessment and mitigating the risk then. I dunno I'm no expert but perhaps by moving the fcuking chairs a bit?

How about the sitter-down does a bit of a risk assessment and check if there's a table-leg in front of them (every table usually has 4) before they pull their chair in?

Is there anything left these days that isn't somehow someone else's fault

Samuel T. Cogley

Barr wrote: »

A risk assessment look to see if a table has legs ? I would love to hear how that call would go to their Insurer :pac:

The obviousness of it is a factor for the plaintiff's side in this situation. If one is aware of table legs, which you'd assume a someone in the trade would be, you ensure you minimise the risk, not get the waiter to specicially direct the person to sit there.

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

How about the sitter-down does a bit of a risk assessment and check if there's a table-leg in front of them (every table usually has 4) before they pull their chair in?

Is there anything left these days that isn't somehow someone else's fault

If they had invited her to do that then the case would probably have failed. Simply saying careful of the table leg would have sufficed. Using shorter table cloths, making sure the chairs were positioned in such away as to avoid this. All things that should have been done, the failure to do resulted in an injiry to someone.

HeidiHeidi

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

The obviousness of it is a factor for the plaintiff's side in this situation. If one is aware of table legs, which you'd assume a someone in the trade would be, you ensure you minimise the risk, not get the waiter to specicially direct the person to sit there.



If they had invited her to do that then the case would probably have failed. Simply saying careful of the table leg would have sufficed. Using shorter table cloths, making sure the chairs were positioned in such away as to avoid this. All things that should have been done, the failure to do resulted in an injiry to someone.

But is there NO responsibility on the person themselves to check these things - 'cos, y'know, every table has legs? Do we all have to be babied through life, having every single risk pointed out to us, or else we're due compo?

Is there no such thing as an accidental bump any more?

Sometimes I despair, I really do. :mad:

Samuel T. Cogley

Pinch Flat wrote: »

That's what I'd be issuing to my customers if I was running a restaurant.

All joking aside, it's only a matter of time before you have to sign a claimer for using a restaurant or bar. A lot of kids play zones, climbing areas with higher risk activities already do this. My local play zone has a kids crazy golf course outside - hurling helmets are obligatory.

You can't contract out of negligence.

Samuel T. Cogley

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

But is there NO responsibility on the person themselves to check these things - 'cos, y'know, every table has legs? Do we all have to be babied through life, having every single risk pointed out to us, or else we're due compo?

Is there no such thing as an accidental bump any more?

Sometimes I despair, I really do. :mad:

Contributory negligence was not only brought up it even made it into the article. It was decided it didn't apply and the reasons were stated.

There are genuine accidents where no one is legally at fault and they're pretty common, they're not reported on. This was negligence.

HeidiHeidi

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Contributory negligence was not only brought up it even made it into the article. It was decided it didn't apply and the reasons were stated.

There are genuine accidents where no one is legally at fault and they're pretty common, they're not reported on. This was negligence.

And as a layman (in legal terms) I would beg to disagree. I think that's completely and absolutely ridiculous. I know the law says different (clearly) before you feel the need to point that out to me.

This was my point earlier about how the law has become completely divorced from reality and common sense.

Samuel T. Cogley

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

And as a layman (in legal terms) I would beg to disagree. I think that's completely and absolutely ridiculous. I know the law says different (clearly) before you feel the need to point that out to me.

This was my point earlier about how the law has become completely divorced from reality and common sense.

It hasn't. People have become divorced from common sense and relaity becuase at best they read a single article. It's more specifically an issue in Ireland becuase of the sense of begrudary, the papers play into that.

90% of the people commenting in this thread aren't the slightest bit interested in looking to this in any detail. They see fat woman, banged knee, and €20K that's it. The law on this is entirely sensible and must have general application. It's not 'common sense' or 'reality' to say, you know what I think this sounds a bit silly, therefore I'm not allowing the award.

BPKS

Tea-a-Maria wrote: »

Nice rant there. Just one small problem: The charging of fees as a percentage of the overall award is prohibited by the Solicitors Acts (excepting for debt recovery). Any action to recover the fees would be unenforceable.

I know but your looking at an average of 1/4 of the award being legal fees. You agree?

Samuel T. Cogley

BPKS wrote: »

I know but your looking at an average of 1/4 of the award being legal fees. You agree?

My plumer charges for his time as well as his materials, the bastard!

please helpThank YOU

What is New here Nothing Compensation Culture to a New Level? This is going on ever day of the week in Civil Law Courts, Criminal Law Courts, Family Law Courts,.

Fian

These reports can be very misleading.

You could have a headline:

"€120,000 for lorry driver who got a splinter in his hand from a pallet."

Queue torches and pitchforks right - I mean that could not possibly be justified!!!!

Or could it?

Let's imagine the pallets were colour coded. Imagine that the Dye used was toxic, imagine the splinter introduced this toxin and that since the splinter couldn't be easily extracted it was just left in place, or part of it broke off. The Dye caused permanent discolouration of the right hand and worse yet the toxins in it caused nerve damage resulting in permanent numbness (or paralysis/restricted movement or whatever). Let's say he lost his job because he can no longer grip the steering wheel with his right hand.

Which would sell more papers - a headline (and article) designed to generate outrage by reporting €120k for a splinter or one that said "€120k award for permanent nerve damage and discolouration caused by toxic dye". So which one is the indo more likely to publish?

the €20k is based on the injuries sustained, not the cause of the accident. We are all assuming that a bang on the knee results in very minor injuries. Normally it does, maybe this time the injuries were more severe. Since we were not in court we are probably not best placed to know.

HeidiHeidi

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It hasn't. People have become divorced from common sense and relaity becuase at best they read a single article. It's more specifically an issue in Ireland becuase of the sense of begrudary, the papers play into that.

90% of the people commenting in this thread aren't the slightest bit interested in looking to this in any detail. They see fat woman, banged knee, and €20K that's it. The law on this is entirely sensible and must have general application. It's not 'common sense' or 'reality' to say, you know what I think this sounds a bit silly, therefore I'm not allowing the award.

I most certainly have an interest in finding out more about this case - but unfortunately all I have to go on at the moment is press reports - which I agree can be notoriously unreliable and biased.

And I didn't know she was fat. I see banged knee and 20K and yes, I do think that's ridiculous, actually.

Standing back and looking at it as something that can (and probably has) happened to any of us, I think it's laughable (except it's not funny really) that you can blame someone for it happening and get compensated.

That's not a legal interpretation - clearly the law does not agree. That's just as a punter looking at the bigger picture.

If there are other facts that make this somehow a reasonable award, maybe you could make us aware of them?

please helpThank YOU

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

What is New here Nothing Compensation Culture to a New Level? This is going on ever day of the week in Civil Law Courts, Criminal Law Courts, Family Law Courts,.

This Is Not a New Level a Compensation Culture this is the Norms .

ash23

Just to point out (and I don't agree with the claim amount paid) that there were tables pushed together. So not four legs on either end of the table but also legs in the middle where the tables were pushed together. This was covered by a table cloth and she was directed as to where to sit by the staff and not advised that there was something there that she should watch out for.

I'd imagine if she was sat at the end of the table and hit her knee she wouldn't have been able to claim. She was told to sit in a place where there was a hidden obstruction and not warned about it......therefore they're liable. It wasn't unreasonable of her to assume it was one long table and there were no legs along the length of the table.

Samuel T. Cogley

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

I most certainly have an interest in finding out more about this case - but unfortunately all I have to go on at the moment is press reports - which I agree can be notoriously unreliable and biased.

You can google negligence and look at the elements. Once the elements are satisfied it's negligence - the damages don't enter into it at this stage. Becuase this situation is so mundane it's a great one to apply the priciples too and a little imagination to see how with some very minor changes, it would have been different.

One has to bear in mind Barristers are professional advocates. The situation would have been picked to peices, and the rules of evidence require everything is proven. This requires doctors, engineers and other witnesses. I'm not saying you're sating this but people seem to be suggesting that all this was pulled out of the judges arse. It's not, they would have fought like cat and dog over it.

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

And I didn't know she was fat. I see banged knee and 20K and yes, I do think that's ridiculous, actually.

Did you examine her, do you have advanced medical degrees. I'm sorry to be so blunt there but you're trying to refute the findings of a doctor on the basis of not even spotting that she's clearly a 'buffet enthusiast' from the pictures.

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Standing back and looking at it as something that can (and probably has) happened to any of us, I think it's laughable (except it's not funny really) that you can blame someone for it happening and get compensated.

That's not a legal interpretation - clearly the law does not agree. That's just as a punter looking at the bigger picture.

If there are other facts that make this somehow a reasonable award, maybe you could make us aware of them?

This is tabloid logic. Fian makes the point very well above. As for the award, as I've pointed out the issues here. It's for you to show why is's unreasonable I'm afraid.

Pinch Flat

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You can't contract out of negligence.

Fair point. I've though about this. All the chair legs will also be bubble wrapped, as will as the sharp corners formed by walls and furniture. Knives and forks will be banned, as will hot food in case we scald someone. In fact, I'll be hiring people to feed the customers themselves. :rolleyes:

Samuel T. Cogley

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Fair point. I've though about this. All the chair legs will also be bubble wrapped, as will as the sharp corners formed by walls and furniture. Knives and forks will be banned, as will hot food in case we scald someone. In fact, I'll be hiring people to feed the customers themselves. :rolleyes:

Or you could just use shorter table cloths.

The reality is that it's a major downside of Ireland. I'm from a country where these lawsuits wouldn't exist.

My other half recently had an incident with another person where she was clearly in the wrong, but the other party wasn't injured, thankfully. Even so, she is expecting a lawsuit to come from the other person, and there have been several sleepless nights. It's just not right.

Omackeral

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

What is New here Nothing Compensation Culture to a New Level? This is going on ever day of the week in Civil Law Courts, Criminal Law Courts, Family Law Courts,.

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

This Is Not a New Level a Compensation Culture this is the Norms .

Did you just reply to your own post?!

HeidiHeidi

Omackeral wrote: »

Did you just reply to your own post?!

I've been trying to decide whether he just contradicted himself, or agreed with his own post

RoYoBo

ash23 wrote: »

Just to point out (and I don't agree with the claim amount paid) that there were tables pushed together. So not four legs on either end of the table but also legs in the middle where the tables were pushed together. This was covered by a table cloth and she was directed as to where to sit by the staff and not advised that there was something there that she should watch out for.

I'd imagine if she was sat at the end of the table and hit her knee she wouldn't have been able to claim. She was told to sit in a place where there was a hidden obstruction and not warned about it......therefore they're liable. It wasn't unreasonable of her to assume it was one long table and there were no legs along the length of the table.

This is exactly what I was thinking. If you're directed to your seat in the centre of what appears to be one long table, you might not expect there to be a solid object hidden under the tablecloth. If you you pull in your chair quickly and forcefully, you could give your knee a right wallop, enough to cause significant damage, I'm sure.

I've been in restaurants with a large group where I've been warned about the presence of a table leg (often actually 2 legs from both tables together) and taken appropriate care as a result. Having said all that, the award seems high, but who knows how much real damage she sustained? She must have had enough proof to win not once but twice on appeal.

BPKS

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

My plumer charges for his time as well as his materials, the bastard!

If the plumber called to your house, suggested that in order to make an insurance claim you should damage the inlet pipe going into the water tank in your attic and then called to your door a few hours later offering his services to fix the pipe after the damage had been done- he would still charge for his time as well and the materials. The b@stard.

See what I did there?

Samuel T. Cogley

BPKS wrote: »

If the plumber called to your house, suggested that in order to make an insurance claim you should damage the inlet pipe going into the water tank in your attic and then called to your door a few hours later offering his services to fix the pipe after the damage had been done- he would still charge for his time as well and the materials. The b@stard.

See what I did there?

Not really, I think what you're suggesting is solicitors are jumping out of the bushes and going "Pssst. Pssst. Wanna claim?". They're not.

Samuel T. Cogley

RoYoBo wrote: »

Having said all that, the award seems high, but who knows how much real damage she sustained? She must have had enough proof to win not once but twice on appeal.

The award is made up for an award for the actual injury 'pain and suffering if you will' the medical expenses and time off work etc. Now there is definate argument what perhaps the damages for the injury in of itself, are to quote the other famous Samuel, too damn high.

rob316

ash23 wrote: »

Just to point out (and I don't agree with the claim amount paid) that there were tables pushed together. So not four legs on either end of the table but also legs in the middle where the tables were pushed together. This was covered by a table cloth and she was directed as to where to sit by the staff and not advised that there was something there that she should watch out for.

I'd imagine if she was sat at the end of the table and hit her knee she wouldn't have been able to claim. She was told to sit in a place where there was a hidden obstruction and not warned about it......therefore they're liable. It wasn't unreasonable of her to assume it was one long table and there were no legs along the length of the table.

I know and I have to agree by the letter of the law and the way its laid out who was liable she is right but there has to be level of common sense with these claims. How hard and fast did her knee meet the leg of the table? what could she have been 2 feet away tops, I can't imagine it was that painful and if it was just for a few moments.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Fian wrote: »

Or could it?

Let's imagine the pallets were colour coded. Imagine that the Dye used was toxic, imagine the splinter introduced this toxin and that since the splinter couldn't be easily extracted it was just left in place, or part of it broke off. The Dye caused permanent discolouration of the right hand and worse yet the toxins in it caused nerve damage resulting in permanent numbness (or paralysis/restricted movement or whatever). Let's say he lost his job because he can no longer grip the steering wheel with his right hand.

.

Or could it be?

Let's just say that your example happened, but the employer had provided appropriate safety gloves, adequate training an provided written warning to the employee that failure to comply with these procedures will result in disciplinary action. However, the employee goes ahead and does his own thing anyway.

It is likely that a court will find him liable for contributory negligence and reduce his award by (perhaps) 50%. That still leaves a €60k claim against the employer. How is he supposed to avoid that unless he jockeys his employee doing every aspect of his duties