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

the_syco

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

Meh. Stop laughing, and reload. And then dig a hole somewhere to hide the evidence.

Roger Hassenforder

givyjoe wrote: »

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).

Its an absolute shakedown. The solicitor has nothing to lose, bar the price of a stamp and the time it took to write the letter.

topper75

Kivaro wrote: »

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

If the Law Society and Insurance Ireland don't sit down to hammer these issues out, then yes there will be blood. I don't want it to come to that though. I hope reason prevails. The Oireachtas can facilitate such talks.

Pat Mustard

CrankyHaus wrote: »

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?

The Occupiers Liability Act 1995 limits liability towards trespassers to a duty not to intentionally injure or act with reckless disregard. Therefore, assuming no intentional injury or injury arising out of reckless disregard, one would have to wonder about where such a case would go ultimately, if not to be dismissed at the business end of judge's boot.

The source for this story is a newspaper article in the Independent about a caller named Kevin, telling Joe Duffy that three men broke into his shop on November 20, 2015. Kevin claims that one of the burglars injured his testicles while making a getaway from the shop. Kevin told Liveline that the three men were given a six month sentence suspended for two years. I suppose that I've heard stranger stories than that before but I have no reason to believe that it is a reliable source.

On the assumption that the story is true, look at the timeline. The burglary was said to have taken place on the 20th November 2015 and the claim letter was received on the 13th November 2017. That was almost 2 years after the incident. The statute of limitations is 2 years in personal injury matters. Now, if a solicitor had not received clear instructions from a client as to whether the case is going anywhere or not, it has happened that applications to the Injuries Board have been made so as to avoid the claim becoming statute barred, pending the outcome of instructions from the the client.

That would give the solicitor and client enough additional time to discuss the case further and decide not to proceed, if that's what it was about.

Just guessing at the rationale of a case along the lines of the details described.

suicide_circus

True justice would be for these two scumbags (thief and solicitor) to be pilloried in the town square and have rotten fruit pelted at them by the townsfolk.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Pat Mustard wrote: »

On the assumption that the story is true, look at the timeline. The burglary was said to have taken place on the 20th November 2015 and the claim letter was received on the 13th November 2017. That was almost 2 years after the incident. The statute of limitations is 2 years in personal injury matters. Now, if a solicitor had not received clear instructions from a client as to whether the case is going anywhere or not, it has happened that applications to the Injuries Board have been made so as to avoid the claim becoming statute barred, pending the outcome of instructions from the the client.
.

As you well know, it is a regular tactic for claimants and their solicitors to delay notifying their intention to claim right up to the 2 year limit. That way CCTV is often erased or mislaid, witnesses are no longer available and staff have moved on. End result is that the poor property or business owner has very little to defend his position with.

Vic_08

Pat Mustard wrote: »

The Occupiers Liability Act 1995 limits liability towards trespassers to a duty not to intentionally injure or act with reckless disregard. Therefore, assuming no intentional injury or injury arising out of reckless disregard, one would have to wonder about where such a case would go ultimately, if not to be dismissed at the business end of judge's boot.

The source for this story is a newspaper article in the Independent about a caller named Kevin, telling Joe Duffy that three men broke into his shop on November 20, 2015. Kevin claims that one of the burglars injured his testicles while making a getaway from the shop. Kevin told Liveline that the three men were given a six month sentence suspended for two years. I suppose that I've heard stranger stories than that before but I have no reason to believe that it is a reliable source.

On the assumption that the story is true, look at the timeline. The burglary was said to have taken place on the 20th November 2015 and the claim letter was received on the 13th November 2017. That was almost 2 years after the incident. The statute of limitations is 2 years in personal injury matters. Now, if a solicitor had not received clear instructions from a client as to whether the case is going anywhere or not, it has happened that applications to the Injuries Board have been made so as to avoid the claim becoming statute barred, pending the outcome of instructions from the the client.

That would give the solicitor and client enough additional time to discuss the case further and decide not to proceed, if that's what it was about.

Just guessing at the rationale of a case along the lines of the details described.

I thought my previous post was clear but apparently I have to repeat myself.

The fact that the mark (defendant) has a good chance of winning the case is irrelevant. The win is still a loss as he has to cover the cost of the case. The game is to extort money (settlement) based on this fact with the incentive being the extortion costs the mark less than the public farce (Irish justice system).

The delay until the last minute is intentional, the longer the gap the less evidence and fuzzier memories are the more obfuscation can be thrown at the story, it allows the scumbag (solicitor) much more opportunity to pervert the truth (represent his client).

endacl

Trigger Happy wrote: »

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

Pat Mustard

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

As you well know, it is a regular tactic for claimants and their solicitors to delay notifying their intention to claim right up to the 2 year limit. That way CCTV is often erased or mislaid, witnesses are no longer available and staff have moved on. End result is that the poor property or business owner has very little to defend his position with.

Although I agree that cases which are brought at a late stage can disadvantage the defendant, this lateness can also disadvantage the other party.

Solicitors who are involved in personal injury litigation earn fees from settling cases and winning awards for their clients, thereby bringing in their costs.

With genuine cases, an effective business model is to advise the client at the outset, to gather the evidence as quickly as possible, to enter the claim with the Injuries Board, advise the client on the injuries board assessment (if any), issue proceedings for court as soon as possible, advising the client on the pros and cons of settling or going to hearing and and then settle or proceed to hearing as soon as possible, getting a settlement or award for the client and getting paid as soon as possible thereafter.

What you suggest is that weak or even fraudulent cases are dragged out to the two year mark. This is is huge risk for the solicitor because of several reasons. First, if the statute date is missed, the case will be statute barred. This will result in the solicitor being negligent and having to pay out to the client, even though it may have been a very weak case, initially. Thus, a weak case against some motorist (for example) becomes a strong case by a plaintiff against his own solicitor, resulting in a payout to a plaintiff who might never have succeeded in his personal injury action, in the first place.

Secondly, a court may take a view that a case had not been progressed adequately by the plaintiff, which can adversely affect that case in a number of ways.

Thirdly, if a case was not a weak case, if it was a good case, then waiting can mean that evidence to assist it becomes lost or unavailable. You use the example of CCTV but this could also refer to witnesses, medical evidence, etc.

Leaving cases to the last minute is fraught with risk for the plaintiff. Ultimately, it is the solicitor who will be liable in negligence to his own client, if matters go awry.

Therefore, what you suggest is not a clever but cynical strategy often employed by unscrupulous solicitors. It's too risky.

It seems most unlikely that there are many solicitors who deliberately run their businesses in the manner in which you suggest because not only is it a dangerous way to run a business but it would also necessarily mean that the solicitor could not get paid for years afterwards. That's not good for the cashflow. It would also mean that certain other expenses would have to be carried by the solicitor or at his expense on his overdraft, incurring additional interest/cost to be borne by him.

What you suggest doesn't make sense as a business model and I don't accept your blasé statement that it is a "regular tactic", as you put it.

Roger Hassenforder

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Although I agree that cases which are brought at a late stage can disadvantage the defendant, this lateness can also disadvantage the other party.

Solicitors who are involved in personal injury litigation earn fees from settling cases and winning awards for their clients, thereby bringing in their costs.

With genuine cases, an effective business model is to advise the client at the outset, to gather the evidence as quickly as possible, to enter the claim with the Injuries Board, advise the client on the injuries board assessment (if any), issue proceedings for court as soon as possible, advising the client on the pros and cons of settling or going to hearing and and then settle or proceed to hearing as soon as possible, getting a settlement or award for the client and getting paid as soon as possible thereafter.

What you suggest is that weak or even fraudulent cases are dragged out to the two year mark. This is is huge risk for the solicitor because of several reasons. First, if the statute date is missed, the case will be statute barred. This will result in the solicitor being negligent and having to pay out to the client, even though it may have been a very weak case, initially. Thus, a weak case against some motorist (for example) becomes a strong case by a plaintiff against his own solicitor, resulting in a payout to a plaintiff who might never have succeeded in his personal injury action, in the first place.

Secondly, a court may take a view that a case had not been progressed adequately by the plaintiff, which can adversely affect that case in a number of ways.

Thirdly, if a case was not a weak case, if it was a good case, then waiting can mean that evidence to assist it becomes lost or unavailable. You use the example of CCTV but this could also refer to witnesses, medical evidence, etc.

Leaving cases to the last minute is fraught with risk for the plaintiff. Ultimately, it is the solicitor who will be liable in negligence to his own client, if matters go awry.

Therefore, what you suggest is not a clever but cynical strategy often employed by unscrupulous solicitors. It's too risky.

It seems most unlikely that there are many solicitors who deliberately run their businesses in the manner in which you suggest because not only is it a dangerous way to run a business but it would also necessarily mean that the solicitor could not get paid for years afterwards. That's not good for the cashflow. It would also mean that certain other expenses would have to be carried by the solicitor or at his expense on his overdraft, incurring additional interest/cost to be borne by him.

What you suggest doesn't make sense as a business model and I don't accept your blasé statement that it is a "regular tactic", as you put it.

slight flaw in your reasoning in this instance!
I accept its a regular tactic in dodgy claims rather than legit cases; equity aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights etc.

Cee-Jay-Cee

I can’t decide whose the bigger cùnt, the burglar or scumbag solicitor that’s representing him.

Probably the solicitor.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Pat Mustard wrote:

What you suggest doesn't make sense as a business model and I don't accept your blasé statement that it is a "regular tactic", as you put it.

I regularly get notifications very close to the 2 year limit for it not to be tactical. Nothing blasé about it. Unfortunately, I'm not permitted to cite examples. It would be refreshing for you to admit there are practitioners in your profession who do not uphold the highest ethical standards, as with every other sector.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

tonycascarino

inforfun wrote: »

That is why you dont injure burglars but kill them.

That's what Padraig Nally tried to do and look what happened. Ireland is a burglars paradise.

Pat Mustard

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

I regularly get notifications very close to the 2 year limit for it not to be tactical. Nothing blasé about it. Unfortunately, I'm not permitted to cite examples. It would be refreshing for you to admit there are practitioners in your profession who do not uphold the highest ethical standards, as with every other sector.

Yeah, it's the old chestnut of take my word for it but I could not possibly release such information. I believe you though. You have an honest face.

It would be refreshing for you to admit that insurance companies are robbing people blind with car insurance premiums/premia on a breathtaking scale. I note that they don't try it with other types of insurance, where people will tell the insurance companies to bugger off and they'll do without, instead.

Robbo

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Again?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Robbo

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Correct. Having been 6 for a number of decades.

I can't see any further reduction being Constitutional.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Pat Mustard wrote:

It would be refreshing for you to admit that insurance companies are robbing people blind with car insurance premiums/premia on a breathtaking scale. I note that they don't try it with other types of insurance, where people will tell the insurance companies to bugger off and they'll do without, instead.

Go on Pat, just hint that there MIGHT be some scummy solicitors out there. Deep breath and just go for it

Sue Pa Key Pa

Fred Swanson wrote:

Why don't the insurance companies lobby government to reduce the limitation period to a shorter period of time?

The statute of limitations refers to the legal rights we all have and is not solely an insurance issue. You can decide to take an action against somebody up to 2 years whether they have insurance or not.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Liam McPoyle

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Yeah, it's the old chestnut of take my word for it but I could not possibly release such information. I believe you though. You have an honest face.

It would be refreshing for you to admit that insurance companies are robbing people blind with car insurance premiums/premia on a breathtaking scale. I note that they don't try it with other types of insurance, where people will tell the insurance companies to bugger off and they'll do without, instead.

False.

The cost of public and employers liability has spiked over the last few years too.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/construction-industry-issues-warning-over-liability-insurance-1.3164354?mode=amp

https://www.google.ie/amp/amp.irishexaminer.com/business/cost-of-public-liability-claims-is-under-review-444726.html

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/business/irish/supermacs-pat-mcdonagh-to-spearhead-insurance-group-battling-for-reforms-36459450.html


https://www.fiannafail.ie/mayo-businesses-under-threat-as-insurance-costs-continue-to-escalate-calleary/

If insurers are screwing consumers over then how come there hasn't been any major increases in home insurance premiums over the last number of years?

For most people with a mortgage it is a legal requirement they have the house insured so there is a captive audience of millions.

If insurers are in the business of gouging because they can, surely they would gouge home owners too? There has been a couple of storms over the last while, perfect cover to get some of that sweet sweet lucre.

So there has been a big increase in premia where there is a risk to the populace in general ie third parties but no real increase where there is little to no risk to third parties despite having a captive market.

Why is that do you think?

I'll tell you why.

It's because the vast majority of claims under home insurance come from property damage which is relatively easy to quantify and reserve against.

The vast majority of claims under PL and EL are for injuries and with incompetent judiciary it is impossible to correctly reserve against so insurers, due to central bank and ECB requirements are erring on the side of caution and are probably over reserving for fear of being in breach of Solvency II.

Insurers are not blameless in all this, certainly myself or SPKP have never put forward such a narrative but your dogged insistence that the blame lies solely at insurers feet despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is laughable.

The fact of the matter is there is an underlying element in the legal fraternity that is as odious and untrustworthy as the people they represent.

They are not some bastion of the people, they're a business and the more compo their clients get the fatter their slice is.

To imply they have no interest other than "justice" is as deluded as saying the moon is made of cheese.

Just because you cannot admit that does not make it any less true.

Wibbs

High insurance costs is the bastard child of a few fathers, but the main culprits are historical insurance industry mistakes, a legal system in dire need of an overhaul and a percentage of the population who are happy to exploit that.

Captain Obvious

Wibbs wrote: »

High insurance costs is the bastard child of a few fathers, but the main culprits are historical insurance industry mistakes, a legal system in dire need of an overhaul and a percentage of the population who are happy to exploit that.

The current hikes appear to be more related to cartel-like behaviour. Even if it could be shown that legal costs and payouts were rising it would be unlikely these would be rising across the board at the same time. They would be hitting insurance companies at different levels. Yet prices seem to be going up uniformly across the sector.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Captain Obvious wrote: »

The current hikes appear to be more related to cartel-like behaviour. .

So you think all the major players such as AXA, Aviva, Liberty, RSA, Allianz, Zurich etc have come together to operate a cartel in a tiny, tiny market like Ireland, yet they are heroes to the public in every other European jurisdiction they trade in?

Sue Pa Key Pa

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

So you think all the major players such as AXA, Aviva, Liberty, RSA, Allianz, Zurich etc have come together to operate a cartel in a tiny, tiny market like Ireland...

Gross insurance premium income for life and non life insurance in this "tiny, tiny market" was €13,439 million in 2015.

And obviously your argument makes more sense the other way..."so you think these huge global brands (AXA has almost €1,000 billion in assets and almost 200,000 employees) are so affected by legal costs in this tiny, tiny market, that it drives their premiums through the roof"

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Gross insurance premium income for life and non life insurance in this "tiny, tiny market" was €13,439 million in 2015.

And obviously your argument makes more sense the other way..."so you think these huge global brands (AXA has almost €1,000 billion in assets and almost 200,000 employees) are so affected by legal costs in this tiny, tiny market, that it drives their premiums through the roof"

No it doesn't make more sense. These global brands make money by selling insurance. The price they charge for insurance will be directly related to the cost of offering that type of insurance in the specific market they collect the premiums (plus their margin of course).

Are you suggesting that AXA and co take money from premiums in Sweden and Spain to subsidise their Irish business?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you suggesting that AXA and co take money from premiums in Sweden and Spain to subsidise their Irish business?

And yet multinationals and international businesses seem so much less than...fixed...when it comes to call centres in Asia and tax havens in the Caribbean.

I'm simply saying a business that has €1,000 billion in assets (and that is just one player) is not exactly struggling so much with legal costs in one tiny tiny market that that alone justifies their premiums.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

And yet multinationals and international businesses seem so much less than...fixed...when it comes to call centres in Asia and tax havens in the Caribbean.

I'm simply saying a business that has €1,000 billion in assets (and that is just one player) is not exactly struggling so much with legal costs in one tiny tiny market that that alone justifies their premiums.

What on earth are you talking about?

A global insurance company has a range of products that are offered in territories.

The products are priced according to the cost of delivering them in the relevant territory, plus margin. They don't randomly decide to make insurance in Ireland, or specific products, a little cheaper by subsidising them with revenue from other products or territories.

If they did that they would then be charging too much in those other territories, or for those other products, and would lose that business due to competitive pressures.

I think you should stick to the law because you appear seriously out of your depth when it comes to how business works.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The products are priced according to the cost of delivering them in the relevant territory, plus margin...

We can agree on that much.

It also helps if all the rival businesses (the ones you talk of as exerting competitive pressures), want to maintain huge margins.