Burglar sues shop owner after he injured his testicles while robbing the premises.

MilesMorales1

A shop owner is being sued by a burglar after he injured himself while robbing a premises in Co Cavan.

"On November 13, I got a letter from his solicitor asking me to take all responsibility for the accident. I talked to my solicitor... and he advised me to wait and see.

On Liveline, Joe Duffy said the solicitor letter reads:

"We are satisfied from our instructions that you are responsible for this accident, therefore liable to compensate our client for this personal image loss and damage. We hearby call upon you to admit liability to our client in an open letter within 10 days from the date thereof."
Kevin said that he contacted the solicitor initially as "it didn't make sense".

"They advised me to contact my insurance.

"My solicitor advised me to hand it over to the insurance company because it's impossible to know what will happen. If I don't hand it over to the insurance company because it could end up in court and if it's settled against you I would be held liable. I just have to wait and see what happens next."

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/burglar-sues-shop-owner-after-he-injured-his-testicles-while-robbing-the-premises-36468641.html


I confess, I never understand liability laws like that, he robbed the shop yet he can claim against the guy he robbed? Boggles my mind.

RossieMan

If the shop owner has set up traps or done something negligible then yes, he can be sure regardless of how the incident occured.

A big one from years ago was some of the older generation set glass on the top of their walls when building them, came back to bite many of them in the arse.

Captain Obvious

The solicitor should be ashamed of themselves.

Claim almost certain to fail, as the Occupiers Liability Act imposes a duty of care in respect of visitors only, and the definitions section refers to those on property as of a right...

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1995/act/10/section/1/enacted/en/html#sec1

Trigger Happy

I would be demanding an inspection of said testicle and would ask Doc Martin to help with the inspection.

Rumpy Pumpy

What a kick in the bollocks.

cantdecide

That's nuts...

arybvtcw0eolkf

Bollox

Hector Bellend

He has a right pair of stones on him.

Ulysses Gaze

He certainly made a balls up of that robbery.

gerrybbadd

Hector Bellend wrote: »

He has a right pair of stones on him.

Relevant username

In all fairness though, yer man has some cheek. I hope he gets nothing

Fiery mutant

Pity they weren’t torn clean off him. Deserves nothing less.

diomed

Was he not wearing trousers?
Surely he would also be claiming for ripped trousers.

Nodster

Sounds like a proper odd ball

Tin Foil Hat

gerrybbadd wrote: »

Relevant username

In all fairness though, yer man has some cheek. I hope he gets nothing

I hope he gets five years.

spurious

Deleted User wrote: »

Claim almost certain to fail, as the Occupiers Liability Act imposes a duty of care in respect of visitors only, and the definitions section refers to those on property as of a right...

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1995/act/10/section/1/enacted/en/html#sec1

In which case, the solicitor should have known this and be fined for wasting tax payer's money, as no doubt the scroteless scrote is on the free legal scheme.

barney 20v

Captain Obvious wrote: »

The solicitor should be ashamed of themselves.

Hahaha....solicitors and shame are like oil and water

spurious

spurious wrote: »

In which case, the solicitor should have known this and be fined for wasting tax payer's money, as no doubt the scroteless scrote is on the free legal scheme.

Um, what's the free legal aid scheme for civil claims?

I don't follow why the Solicitor should be fined, he hasn't committed a crime.

MonsterCookie

If enough damage was done to the testicles, that would be great news for the gene pool at least.

jelutong

Can't wait for the movie, "My Left Knack"

suicide_circus

Deleted User wrote: »

Um, what's the free legal aid scheme for civil claims?

I don't follow why the Solicitor should be fined, he hasn't committed a crime.

Is there no onus on a solicitor not to behave like a complete f*ckwit?

BattleCorp

suicide_circus wrote: »

Is there no onus on a solicitor not to behave like a complete f*ckwit?

The solicitor here stands to lose money. If the thief loses his case, the solicitor doesn't have much of a chance of getting paid.

jmayo

Deleted User wrote: »

Claim almost certain to fail, as the Occupiers Liability Act imposes a duty of care in respect of visitors only, and the definitions section refers to those on property as of a right...

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1995/act/10/section/1/enacted/en/html#sec1

Right on cue.

barney 20v wrote: »

Hahaha....solicitors and shame are like oil and water

I often wonder if most of them are born or bred to be ethically and morally bankrupt ?
And some wonder why the vast majority of people consider the legal profession to be lower than the pond life they often represent.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Is there no onus on a solicitor not to behave like a complete f*ckwit?

Perhaps one of our legal posters can elucidate?

Roger Hassenforder

Just make sure your firearm is registered before opening up.
Be grand then.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/crime/man-who-shot-thief-raiding-his-fathers-home-warns-homeowners-not-to-confront-intruders-34927774.html

GhostyMcGhost

Fiery mutant wrote: »

Pity they weren’t torn clean off him. Deserves nothing less.

Be nice to know that he can’t raise any little scrotes of his own

Sue Pa Key Pa

Captain Obvious wrote: »

The solicitor should be ashamed of themselves.

Not a chance. They will tell you they are only assisting the claimant and every person deserves to have their rights protected

jbt123

Captain Obvious wrote: »

The solicitor should be ashamed of themselves.

Solicitors here now, just like lawyers in the U.S., are incapable of feeling shame. The majority of them feed of other people's misery.

ScouseMouse

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Not a chance. They will tell you they are only assisting the claimant and every person deserves to have their rights protected

It is still shameless assistance by a solicitor processing this letter.

KERSPLAT!

Far too late for any decent jokes

Roger Hassenforder

Deleted User wrote: »

Um, what's the free legal aid scheme for civil claims?

I don't follow why the Solicitor should be fined, he hasn't committed a crime.

The Occupiers Liability act is somewhat vague on trespassers, and if the injury was intentional, he'd certainly have a case.
While he might not have much hope of success in court, its an effective shakedown by the solicitor hoping the greyness might see them offering a settlement, of which he'd take his cut...

Probable:
Scrote: I wand to sue Mr. Kevin X for ripping my nutsack.
Solicitor: Right so, as an officer of the court, its my duty to ensure you enjoy your full statutory rights and privileges, ensure justice is done bla bla. They'll be down 600 notes for PIAB before we start, might not like the risk of being out of pocket for 15,000 so they might settle for 14,000. Tis worth the price of a stamp anyway, its the max we'll be down. we've nothing to lose.
Scrote: money for jam.
Solicitor: indeed. This is Ireland.

ideal:
Scrote: I wand to sue Mr. X for ripping my nutsack.
Solicitor: Where you lawfully there?
Scrote: No, I was robbing the gaff.
Solicior: fcuk off then. That'll be 250 consult fee.

Sue Pa Key Pa

BattleCorp wrote: »

The solicitor here stands to lose money. If the thief loses his case, the solicitor doesn't have much of a chance of getting paid.

And the insurance company for the property owner has to engage it's own legal representative to answer the allegation. If the claimant persists with legal action, it cannot just be ignored otherwise the case will be found against you. The cost of defending this action adds to the insurers costs, which then get reflected in the premiums everyone pays

kingchess

Pity you cant sue the thief for illegally entering your property,causing distress etc. and for rubbing his ball sack around the property as if it was his property.

Rezident

So he's robbing a shop, the guards actually catch them, and he injures himself running away from the cops so he sues the shop? He'll probably win too with the help of the Law Society and co.

There is no hope for this country anymore. Maybe my mother was right, it's the end times and this world is ****eed. Game over lads, enjoy the last few years, it was good craic for a while there but now we deserve everything this world gets. What an evil world this has become.

brevity

One of these days someone is going to go vigilante - the justice system seems to be all over the place.

Capt'n Midnight

So no Darwin Award then ?

Vic_08

kingchess wrote: »

Pity you cant sue the thief for illegally entering your property,causing distress etc. and for rubbing his ball sack around the property as if it was his property.

Technically you can but as the scumbag (thief) won't have any assets you will have no chance of actually getting any payment no matter the result. That is why the scumbag (solicitor) would tell you to fukk off while he welcomes scumbag (thief) into his practice like a long lost love, business owners and insurance companies have deep pockets.

The game is playing the cost of defending the case, which as above cannot be claimed back from a broke scumbag (thief), against the cost of settling it.

While a small trader might take the moral stance and refuse to pay out even if it costs more in defending a case, insurance companies more often than not just look at the bottom line. €10k to settle or €15k to fight with the distinct possibility that it may end up before some unaccountable tosspot (judge) who will throw even more of somebody else's hard-earned at the scumbag (thief) and the insurance company just write a cheque, add it to their actuary tables and raise the premiums of all the marks (law abiding citizens).

Who is the real scumbag here, the underclass waster who just sees another source of free money like he has been brought up to believe is his entitlement or the supposedly respectable member of society who knowingly perpetrates a cynical shakedown against a victim of crime?

ScouseMouse

Vic_08 wrote: »

Technically you can but as the scumbag (thief) won't have any assets you will have no chance of actually getting any payment no matter the result. That is why the scumbag (solicitor) would tell you to fukk off while he welcomes scumbag (thief) into his practice like a long lost love, business owners and insurance companies have deep pockets.

The game is playing the cost of defending the case, which as above cannot be claimed back from a broke scumbag (thief), against the cost of settling it.

While a small trader might take the moral stance and refuse to pay out even if it costs more in defending a case, insurance companies more often than not just look at the bottom line. €10k to settle or €15k to fight with the distinct possibility that it may end up before some unaccountable tosspot (judge) who will throw even more of somebody else's hard-earned at the scumbag (thief) and the insurance company just write a cheque, add it to their actuary tables and raise the premiums of all the marks (law abiding citizens).

Who is the real scumbag here, the underclass waster who just sees another source of free money like he has been brought up to believe is his entitlement or the supposedly respectable member of society who knowingly perpetrates a cynical shakedown against a victim of crime?

VERY very well said.

Chevy RV

Who is the real scumbag here, the underclass waster who just sees another source of free money like he has been brought up to believe is his entitlement or the supposedly respectable member of society who knowingly perpetrates a cynical shakedown against a victim of crime?

Touché

Well Said!

Kivaro

Vic_08 wrote: »

Who is the real scumbag here, the underclass waster who just sees another source of free money like he has been brought up to believe is his entitlement or the supposedly respectable member of society who knowingly perpetrates a cynical shakedown against a victim of crime?

brevity wrote: »

One of these days someone is going to go vigilante - the justice system seems to be all over the place.

One of these days I'd like to see the whole country (the tax-paying-law-abiding part) going vigilante.

Hector Savage

Vic_08 wrote: »

Who is the real scumbag here, the underclass waster who just sees another source of free money like he has been brought up to believe is his entitlement or the supposedly respectable member of society who knowingly perpetrates a cynical shakedown against a victim of crime?

Spot on !

Hilly Bill

How can he sue if he's caught by the bollocks?

whisky_galore

Any other country, probably bar the States, wouldn't even think of entertaining this sh!t.

Pat Mustard

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

And the insurance company for the property owner has to engage it's own legal representative to answer the allegation. If the claimant persists with legal action, it cannot just be ignored otherwise the case will be found against you. The cost of defending this action adds to the insurers costs, which then get reflected in the premiums everyone pays

It is a shame when the costs of fraudulent claims get passed on to consumers.

What is also a shame is that the insurance industry is very hard to believe when they say that the cost of claims is the reason for insurance hikes. The reason that they are hard to believe is that they have all of the data/information but they have refused to release it.

In fact, the Cost of Insurance Working Group has stated that there is no basis to that claim.

It has been stated by some stakeholders that legal costs are a significant factor in the rising cost of motor insurance claims. However, there is no statistical basis for the measurement of legal costs either in the economy in general or in relation to the legal costs associated with motor insurance. The courts do not record legal costs.

Some stakeholders advise that they have had to increase reserves to take account of future cost of claims arising from a number of changes in the legislative environment. This includes the change in jurisdictional limits. As outlined in this Chapter, available evidence does not support this assertion in relation to the new limits.

There is no publicly available evidence of the increased costs of claims being the cause of insurance hikes, apart from what the insurance companies insist. The insurance industry has all of the data/information but it has refused to release it, in order to back up what it says.

I wonder if it is because what they say is an absolute crock of sh!t?

Interesting also that the response of the insurance industry has been to point to an increased cost of claims in the Circuit Court alone, ignoring the inescapable fact that much of the business that used to be dealt with in the High Court is now dealt with in the Circuit Court - because the max limit of the Circuit Court has increased. A €50,000 case will now be dealt with in the Circuit Court instead of the High Court. This doesn't increase claims, it moves the case from one court to another and it actually decreases the costs! More smoke and mirrors from the insurance industry, showing brass necks here.

In any event, it will be interesting to see what the result will be of the recent investigation by the Competition Authority and European Competition Directorate of the insurance industry for cartel-like behaviour and price-fixing.

Kamili

So by suing the shop owner for something that happened while he was illegally trespassing with the intent to fleece the owner, isn't this pretty much an admission of guilt to trespass and robbing the shop?
if so why is he not being done for that?

I hate this country so much sometimes.

suicide_circus

Vic_08 wrote: »

Technically you can but as the scumbag (thief) won't have any assets you will have no chance of actually getting any payment no matter the result. That is why the scumbag (solicitor) would tell you to fukk off while he welcomes scumbag (thief) into his practice like a long lost love, business owners and insurance companies have deep pockets.

The game is playing the cost of defending the case, which as above cannot be claimed back from a broke scumbag (thief), against the cost of settling it.

While a small trader might take the moral stance and refuse to pay out even if it costs more in defending a case, insurance companies more often than not just look at the bottom line. €10k to settle or €15k to fight with the distinct possibility that it may end up before some unaccountable tosspot (judge) who will throw even more of somebody else's hard-earned at the scumbag (thief) and the insurance company just write a cheque, add it to their actuary tables and raise the premiums of all the marks (law abiding citizens).

Who is the real scumbag here, the underclass waster who just sees another source of free money like he has been brought up to believe is his entitlement or the supposedly respectable member of society who knowingly perpetrates a cynical shakedown against a victim of crime?

Succinct, funny and bang on the money. 10/10.

inforfun

That is why you dont injure burglars but kill them.

Elemonator

Deleted User wrote: »

Claim almost certain to fail, as the Occupiers Liability Act imposes a duty of care in respect of visitors only, and the definitions section refers to those on property as of a right...

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1995/act/10/section/1/enacted/en/html#sec1

If I am remembering my lectures in Tort Law correctly, that isn't quite correct. There is three classes of persons. Invitees, recreational users and trespassers. Invitees should be afforded a duty of reasonable care by the land occupier. The other two classes, recreational users and trespassers who do confer a material benefit on the occupier, should be afforded a duty not to be intentionally or recklessly injured.

I noted a poster above speaking about how the older generation placed glass on the top of walls. That is intentionally or recklessly injuring someone.

Hope this helps, I'm near certain this is correct though if I'm wrong feel free to correct me on the off chance my memory is not as great as I think it is.

'Lem

ando

Such a sad state of affairs this country finds itself in when things like this can happen

Sue Pa Key Pa

Pat Mustard wrote: »

It is a shame when the costs of fraudulent claims get passed on to consumers.

What is also a shame is that the insurance industry is very hard to believe when they say that the cost of claims is the reason for insurance hikes. The reason that they are hard to believe is that they have all of the data/information but they have refused to release it.

.

Still singing the same old tune Pat. The bulk of this thread is about a scumbag having the balls (pardon the pun) to sue somebody he should have no right to and being ably assisted by a fine upstanding member of your profession. You NEVER accept that the legal profession has any part in the problem, you just repeat your mantra that insurance companies are the cause. In this instance the scumbag should not find a legal representative willing to assist him in suing a man trying to run his business, which in turn would mean that his insurers wouldn't incur a cost to defend the matter. Claims and costs end up being passed on to the consumer.

I have often stated that insurers have their part to play in in addressing the dysfunctional system we have in Ireland and it would be refreshing to hear you do the same about yours. Perhaps getting rid of self regulation through the Law Society might be a good start.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Kitty has claws