Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    kingchess
    Registered Users Posts: 795 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    Rezident
    Registered Users Posts: 1,770 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    brevity
    Registered Users Posts: 8,490 ✭✭✭brevity


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


  • Options
    #35
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,760 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    So no Darwin Award then ?


  • Options
    #36
    Vic_08
    Registered Users Posts: 3,041 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    ScouseMouse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,070 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    Chevy RV
    Registered Users Posts: 466 ✭✭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!


  • Options
    #39
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    Hector Savage
    Registered Users Posts: 8,810 ✭✭✭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 !


  • Options
    #41
    Hilly Bill
    Registered Users Posts: 6,039 ✭✭✭Hilly Bill


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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    whisky_galore
    Registered Users Posts: 15,780 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


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


  • Options
    #43
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #44
    Kamili
    Registered Users Posts: 2,479 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    inforfun
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 20,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭inforfun


    That is why you dont injure burglars but kill them.


  • Options
    #47
    Elemonator
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,271 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #48
    ando
    Registered Users Posts: 5,382 ✭✭✭ando


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


  • Options
    #49
    Sue Pa Key Pa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,060 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #50
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #51
    Sue Pa Key Pa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,060 ✭✭✭Sue Pa Key Pa


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Kitty has claws :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.

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

    This makes absolutely no sense. The money that is spent either on legal defense of a case or in insurance payouts comes from somewhere. Where does it come from? It comes from premiums. Unless you have an alternative source for that money?

    You state there is 'no basis to that claim' but what you actually mean is it hasn't been conclusively proved that insurance rates are entirely and solely dependent on the level of claims. The basis for the claim is common sense or occam's razor.

    Insurance companies may well be greedy and incompentent. Indeed all companies are the former by default. But only a fool would attempt to pretend that legal costs and payouts are somehow entirely unrelated to premiums. Otherwise why is it more expensive to insure my car than my house? Can you answer that question?


  • Options
    #53
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »
    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.

    You say that I am repeating my 'mantra', which is supported by the Cost of Insurance Working Group, established by the government.

    Your mantra is more interesting because:
    1. It coincides with the insurance industry interests.
    2. It is contradicted by the Cost of Insurance Working Group.

    I also love the way that the insurance industry has done pretty much nothing to bring its considerable influence to bear to have fraudulent claimants prosecuted. All the while, crocodile tears are shed in the wake of the newspaper article at hand.


  • Options
    #54
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    Deleted User wrote: »
    This makes absolutely no sense. The money that is spent either on legal defense of a case or in insurance payouts comes from somewhere. Where does it come from? It comes from premiums. Unless you have an alternative source for that money?

    You state there is 'no basis to that claim' but what you actually mean is it hasn't been conclusively proved that insurance rates are entirely and solely dependent on the level of claims. The basis for the claim is common sense or occam's razor.

    Insurance companies may well be greedy and incompentent. Indeed all companies are the former by default. But only a fool would attempt to pretend that legal costs and payouts are somehow entirely unrelated to premiums. Otherwise why is it more expensive to insure my car than my house? Can you answer that question?

    Wait a second now and go back to what I was saying.

    Insurance premiums have gone up. Way up. See here re 2016 premium increases:
    it was widely reported that some motorists were seeing their car insurance quotes increase from anything between 50% – 300% in some cases.

    The insurance industry says that this is because the cost of claims has gone way up. The cost of claims has not gone way up. See the report of the Cost of Insurance Working Group, if you don't believe me. The report states that there is no evidence of the cost of claims accounting for the major insurance hikes.

    That is because the insurance industry is scalping people and hiding behind a smokescreen to justify it.


  • Options
    #55
    Sue Pa Key Pa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,060 ✭✭✭Sue Pa Key Pa


    Pat Mustard wrote: »
    You say that I am repeating my 'mantra', which is supported by the Cost of Insurance Working Group, established by the government.

    Your mantra is more interesting because:
    1. It coincides with the insurance industry interests.
    2. It is contradicted by the Cost of Insurance Working Group.

    I also love the way that the insurance industry has done pretty much nothing to bring its considerable influence to bear to have fraudulent claimants prosecuted. All the while, crocodile tears are shed in the wake of the newspaper article at hand.

    Did you just repeat your earlier post?


  • Options
    #56
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Pat Mustard wrote: »
    You say that I am repeating my 'mantra', which is supported by the Cost of Insurance Working Group, established by the government.

    "while the Working Group did not find that legal costs were a major contributory factor in the recent increase in premiums, it found that the proportion of legal costs and non-legal costs attributed to the overall claim settlement amount are relevant. Given the assertions by stakeholders in this regard and the introduction of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, it recommends a number of reviews to take place in relation to legal costs."

    Can you quote the passage in the report that confirms 'scalping' by insurance companies is behind the increase in premiums?


  • Options
    #57
    CrankyHaus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭CrankyHaus


    Pat Mustard wrote: »
    Wait a second now and go back to what I was saying.

    Insurance premiums have gone up. Way up. See here re 2016 premium increases:


    The insurance industry says that this is because the cost of claims has gone way up. The cost of claims has not gone way up. See the report of the Cost of Insurance Working Group, if you don't believe me. The report states that there is no evidence of the cost of claims accounting for the major insurance hikes.

    That is because the insurance industry is scalping people and hiding behind a smokescreen to justify it.


    To stay on topic do you think it's right for a victim of crime to be sued by his own burgler?
    Do you think it's right for a solicitor to represent a repeat offender suing the person he burgled?


  • Options
    #58
    donegaLroad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭donegaLroad


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    The solicitor should be ashamed of themselves.

    You don't normally see the words 'solicitor' and 'shame' appear in the same sentence.


  • Options
    #59
    spaceHopper
    Registered Users Posts: 3,965 ✭✭✭spaceHopper


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    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

    Wouldn't be a problem is he was better shot


  • Options
    #60
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    donegaLroad wrote: »
    You don't normally see the words 'solicitor' and 'shame' appear in the same sentence.

    Its because they're shameless....

    Ill get me coat


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    givyjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 3,287 ✭✭✭givyjoe


    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.

    More like 'no win no fee' fishing for business from the solicitor. Solicitor susses out the likelihood of a win (commission) from the initial free consultation with the scrotebag.. solicitor thinks he can win so takes a punt on the case without charging said scrotebag a penny (until the win comes in).


Advertisement