Latest compo culture award

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118025603#Comment_118025603

Joe Duffy and RTE should be ashamed of his failure to challenge this woman's claims and of his highly selective readings from the High Court judgement. I feel sorry for Susan because she did suffer a painful injury but she made a terrible mistake when she tried to get compo.

She claims she only wanted to improve safety. Why didn't Joe ask her if she had simply asked the Council to lift the swing? She mentions a letter to the Council to which she got no reply. Was that a solicitor's letter i.e. a precursor to a compo claim? Did she talk to her local Councillor? Joe clarifies nothing. But the fact remains that she went to a solicitor and put in a compo claim. After that, if the Council lifted the swing, they would be admitting liability.

But Joe never challenges her on any point. He seems astonished that the Council didn't simply pay out the Euro 20K after the PIAB award. She goes along with Joe's suggestion the Court didn't know about the PIAB award, as if this would be an injustice. The PIAB award is in no way relevant to the Court. It is a preliminary process for PI claims but it does not influence any later court decision. That is the essential nature of the PIAB. Plaintiffs routinely go to court after the PIAB reject their claim but this in no way disadvantages them in court. Likewise with defendants, including State bodies. Joe deliberately gives the false impression that the High Court overlooked an important point in Susan's favour.

Joe read out in a tone of amazement the judgement's criticism of her decision not to go to the District Court, the normal venue for minor injuries (and yes, Joe, by High Court standards, a broken ankle which heals fully in a few months is a minor injury and does not rank with e.g. the quadriplegic cases that are tragically all to common in our High Court). She says the barrister decided she should to go to the High Court but Joe doesn't clarify that she must have agreed to that. Did the barrister explain about the higher costs or was she told not to worry because no one could come after her even if she lost? She is shocked to discover what impecunious means. But Joe doesn't ask if she will be able to pay the Council's legal costs - that is what the Judge is talking about. Her appeal, if she proceeds, could cost a quarter million Euro altogether.

Then Joe produces a rabbit out to his hat - a report by a group called Play Services Ireland. He makes a big show of the report's five levels of action and the fact that raising the swings is at the second highest level. He doesn't mention that Play Services Ireland is a profit-making firm which offers its services to those involved in legal proceedings. This report seems nothing more than a repetition of assesment by the solicitor's engineer which the court rejected because the swing was in accordance with the existing official standards. But Joe makes it sound as if the Council is ignoring official safety standards, as though this private firm was the Environmental Protection Agency for playgrounds.

And, of course, if the Council raised the swing, there would be more claims because small children would be much more likely to fall and hurt themselves. "Play Services Ireland" don't make this point but no doubt they would readily provide an engineer to any solicitor in a future fall from a raised swing.

I don't doubt that Susan was seriously hurt i.e. broke her ankle, but that was not the Council's fault. Although it looks very suspicious that two women who know each other made claims that are practically identical but I think these were genuine injuries. They are both local child minders so it is not strange that they both went to this playground. The problem is they sought to capitalise on their injuries by blaming the Council and they put themselves into the hands of lawyers who had no interest in remedying the risks to children and every interest in maximising the costs.

Joe Duffy comes very badly out of this. He is shameless in collecting a half-million a year from our public service broadcaster by giving a platform to anyone with a complaint. Come to think of it, in this respect he is similar to our well-paid legal eagles. Sometimes he exposes a genuine issue but he does a great public disservice by never challenging the whiners. His ratings, which are supposed to justify his massive salary, are more important than the truth.

Or are we just fools to pay any attention to him? Sadly, he does have enormous public influence and he must be confronted when he seeks to undermine the integrity of the High Court which is trying to restore the proper limits on liability for personal injuries.

DaveyDave

If she didn't get a reply it was likely a solicitor's letter. I've emailed 2-3 local councillors in my area to get street lights turned on in my part of a new estate and it worked. They're also actively engaged in our estate's Facebook group and they reply to comments, share meeting agendas and so on and we're just one estate in a very large area so if we can get a reply I'm sure others can, they just need to actually try.

Kathnora

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118028558#Comment_118028558

Well said Caquas. Joe Duffy did himself no favours by not challenging Susan. There were so many questions he could have asked her but instead chose to back her by quoting and re-quoting excerpts from the judge's report. He definitely picks who to challenge on Liveline. It actually makes him appear stupid because any rational thinking person listening to Susan would ask her the obvious questions you posed in your post Caquas. He didn't need to be unkind, just ask her why she didn't see the obvious and why she was so influenced by the so called "experts" or help her to see why such an action failed because she definitely had some blind spots herself! Joe failed to be impartial and play devil's advocate. That's his job!! There are times when he is good at putting both sides of an argument forward and he tries to be fair but not this time.

Anyway, Susan shot herself in the foot by trying to justify her claim and though I don't think her story should have been given oxygen yesterday if it makes some people think twice about making a claim perhaps it may be worth it.

Finally, I hope some of Joe's backroom team read boards.ie and pass on these messages 😉

Gaoth Laidir

It boils my blood to see these kinds of cliams being made in the first place, and then to see some people defend them afterwards. It's like that woman in Swords who got paid out €3.5M because she decided to run across a busy dual carriageway instead of using the nearby footbridge. Her stupidity caused the incident, yet the driver that hit her was found partially to blame and so her insurance had to cough up the dough and lead to you and I paying more for our renewals the year after.

People on here defended her to some extent saying *I don't agree with it, but...she did have horrific injuries, so...". The injuries shouldn't come into it. She should have gotten no payout because she started the whole ball rolling. Whether one decision of yours causes a paper cut or losing a finger, it should make no difference. Unless it can be proven that someone held your finger there against your will, or equipment failed, then you should be on your own

I witnessed an horrific suicide recently and have not been the better of it since. If I were like these scumbag leaches I would be going after the family of that person for the trauma their loved one caused me, but all I feel is despair for them. I'm pretty sure, though, that there are people who would go after them, and there would be others who would support them. The whole system is not right.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/106964893#Comment_106964893

Yes people have sued successfully because they were too dumb to know how to drink hot coffee without spilling it on themselves.

And remember the guy a few years ago who climbed a high gate and injured himself. Sued because there wasn’t a warning sign to say don’t climb this 10 foot spiked gate.

Caquas

The Sunday Times reports that the playground concerned has been closed for the past two years due to the legal claims, according to the Council which, it turns out, does not “own, operate or manage” the community playground.

A local Councillor thanks Mr. Justice Twomey for his “common sense” and says the playground will reopen in the coming weeks. A reformed Community group has got €2.5K from the Department of Children.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tipperary-playground-court-case-closed-volunteers-t0fwlt2zq

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118025603#Comment_118025603

I heard that on the radio and just to your point about the 23k award, I understood it was from PIAB or whatever it is called now. Which I understand would be more of a kind of mediation body than a court.

While of course a frivolous case should always be challenged, (and in this case the judge agreed with the position that there was no negligence), there is also a point that Councils and their employees don't appear to face any repercussions or accountability for wastage or overspend.

So we would not want to have a situation where a Council employee can abuse the effectively unlimited resource pot to bully citizens out of making claims where it is a justified claim.

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118031856#Comment_118031856

An important point. Lawyers love to say that personal injury cases provide accountability and help improve standards of care. In fact, the legal system provides no accountability and there little evidence to support the claim of improved care, although there has been an explosion of new standards and procedures (and all those silly "hold the handrail" notices that litter every public facility).

Week in, week out, we read about terrible cases of medical negligence where the unfortunate victims are awarded millions which they can't enjoy because of their devastating injuries. But we never hear about any consequences for the medical staff involved. There is often no incentive for State bodies to settle justified claims but the State Claims Agency has brought some rationality to this decision-making and, in the current case, Tipperary Council was entirely vindicated in proceeding to a full hearing.

A claim to the PIAB is a necessary preliminary to court proceedings in personal injury cases and the PIAB makes an award based on its expert assessment of the injury. It has no power to define the legal issue of liability which is the key question here. In any event, its award is in no sway binding on the courts.

The Council was right not to pay out because it was not liable i.e. it was not negligent in respect of this swing. I know, many Irish people can't get their heads around the idea the someone could be injured without some few bob being handed over. The claimant in this case now claims she only wanted the swings made safe but she also seems to think she was entitled to Euro 23K. for her troubles.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118032137#Comment_118032137

Actually we don't know whether your last sentence is correct or not. It was the PIAB which calculated that she was entitled to 23k. She said she would have accepted this but the council did not accept it. The PIAB came up with that figure. It was not mentioned how much she asked for. I don't know whether a claimant actually has to ask for a figure when they go to PIAB or whether they just provide information and the PIAB determines the amount unilaterally.

Mad_maxx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118028206#Comment_118028206

So all claimants are cnuts?

AckwelFoley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118033992#Comment_118033992

No. Did i say that?

Christ.

cj maxx

What does the new legislation mean for legitimate claims?

seagull

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118030958#Comment_118030958

If you're referring to the McDonalds case, that was actually remarkably good press management by McD. The woman suffered serious injuries, and McD had already been told to serve their coffee at a lower temperature. That is part of the reason for the large payout in that case. They knew they were serving coffee at a temperature that made it unsafe, and continued to do so.

seagull

PIAB just assign a value to the injury. They don't assign any liability. It's a case of this injury is worth this much. It's up to the courts to determine who is liable, and whether a payment should be made.

DaveyDave

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118036806#Comment_118036806

I'm not familiar with the case, but has there been any compo claims in the last year since we've had to put our own lids on coffee due to Covid? (Starbucks and Insomnia were leaving lids off anyway).

I'm always reminded about the boy on the Aer Lingus flight who took the lid off, didn't put it back on properly and spilled on himself. He got the correct first aid immediately from staff. Settled outside of court, of course, but the family got a load of cash for some teenagers simple mistake that they don't deserve.

Gaoth Laidir

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118036806#Comment_118036806

The stupid bitch was driving a car and put the cup between her legs to hold it. How stupid can people get (and be rewarded for it?). Should McDonald's also go out to the car with you and hold the cup for you in case you spill it while drinking from it?

melekalikimaka

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/106964498#Comment_106964498

where ya get that figure for a judge?

dudley72

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118025603#Comment_118025603

Susan is trying to save face after she got kicked out of court. It came to attention and I expected she wouldn't give a c**p if she had 100k or so sitting in the bank.

I heard her story as well, its a bunch of lies to put on the "poor me" act. She is an adult, the swing is made for a child. Her weight alone meant she shouldn't be on it.

Susan and her kind won't be happy till every playground in the country is closed because of money grabber like her.

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118025167#Comment_118025167

What you could do is sue the lotto when your numbers don’t come up and you don’t win... the disappointment of building up your hopes of being a millionaire through advertising then you not winning has negatively impacted your mintal health...

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118037079#Comment_118037079

Some people sneer at lawyers, trying to make them look ridiculous. But lawyers are way ahead of their critics and laughing all the way from court. You just need to frame your argument in the correct legal manner and find suitable clients.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-settles-gambling-addiction-lawsuit-1.933143

Rket4000

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118036918#Comment_118036918

Yes, and in court (in the USA) she got a multi million payout because the lawyer framed it in the context of McDonald's annual profits. The argument being that irrespective of the nature of the injuries, McDonald's needed to be "hurt" by the amount of the payout

Gaoth Laidir

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118038991#Comment_118038991

I was talking about the one in the Drive-thru in Clondalkin who got 33 grand. Didn't know about the USA one.

Rket4000

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

I didn't know about the one in Clondalkin... Wonder if the woman in Clondalkin was aware of the USA case?

Potential-Monke

Can't wait to see the cases of people falling at home while WFH and successfully suing their employer for not providing general cop on and common sense training.

Large bottle small glass

https://www.ckt.ie/news/court-of-appeal-personal-injuries-action/

There's the Court of Appeal overturning decision of the case in OP

Noonan's judgement here

https://www.courts.ie/view/judgments/945d8a35-9701-4575-8447-5f85bbaa824f/4cc3389e-2a25-411b-bf6e-88db0f7b41d0/2021_IECA_29_Noonan%20J..pdf/pdf

Collins(who sat with Noonan on COA) had some follow up observations which make interesting reading into how case was vaguely pleaded

https://www.courts.ie/view/judgments/833d6df9-891c-4922-a69e-b5a6556af639/4cc3389e-2a25-411b-bf6e-88db0f7b41d0/2021_IECA_29%20(Collins%20J.).pdf/pdf

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118040264#Comment_118040264

An important judgment, scathing about plaintiffs pleading vaguely in the hope that the court will find some grounds for liability.

In this case, there was a total conflict about the basic facts I.e. were the steps wet and if so, why? The High Court decided the plaintiff was credible but didn’t say other witnesses were not credible so that doesn’t resolve anything.

The Appeal Court also reversed the High Court which had followed the Supreme Court on “supermarket cases” I.e. if a supermarket floor is wet, negligence is to be presumed. That could greatly lessen the number of slip cases. And plaintiffs’ solicitors will now have be far more specific in pleadings.

Potential-Monke

Guess there are some with common sense in the judiciary.

corks finest

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118045186#Comment_118045186

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118025523#Comment_118025523

vv few

Nermal

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-awarded-105000-for-porch-fall-after-drinking-five-pints-of-guinness-told-to-repay-money-41272571.html

€105,000 nonsense award finally overturned.

However, prior to this, this chap was gifted €30,000 of taxpayer's funds by Mr Justice Anthony Barr, who also saw fit to give his ambulance-chasing accomplices €20,000 at the same time.

I don't fancy Sligo County Council's chance of reimbursement.

Perhaps Mr Barr might feel like doing the decent thing, and making good the error from his own amply-supplied pockets?

Gregor Samsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118526599#Comment_118526599

Mr Keegan said he intended to contact his lawyers to find out more about the judgement.

He added: "You might give me a few pounds for the story, will you?"

We replied that we couldn't pay him for the story.

🤣

washman3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118526640#Comment_118526640

Hard to know who is the bigger leech here, Keegan or the judge that awarded him the compo in the first place.

AckwelFoley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118528049#Comment_118528049

That would be Keegan, and the ambulance chasing scum that brought the case

corks finest

Country is destroyed my compo culture

solicitors and gardai to blame for a lot of it

solicitors practically begging scammers to contact them and gardai not bothering their arses for years investigating, I mean ffs how many Eastern European guys entered the country for night or 2,

2 groups, mysteriously crashed within hours of renting 2 cars, na ne na- ambulance- hospital- solicitor- back home

court - Irish pay out

only recently have the insurance companies actually bothered their holes to contest most of the blatantly scam crashes

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118537744#Comment_118537744

Insurance claims are civil matters and Gardai don't normally get involved in civil claims. Yes, it's their job to investigate road crashes if they are serious enough, but they don't have the resources to forensically investigate the vast majority of road accidents and follow up if they suspect insurance fraud.

There are more claims than just motor incidents too. Do we expect the Gardai to investigate civil claims such as someone possibly telling lies that they hurt their back lifting something heavy in work. How can they investigate and make a report with 100% certainty regarding an incident on a rural road where one guy says the other guy ran into the back of him and there's no witnesses? They might be able to determine that someone was only in the country a day or that they had just rented the car but that's not evidence of fraud.

I'd agree with you that the legal profession are somewhat to blame. As are the medical profession. It's very easy to get a doctor to write a favourable report based on what you tell the doctor. It's easy to exaggerate symptoms etc. And don't forget the people who are lodging spurious claims. I'd be blaming them too.

The system is poor for sure and it's easy enough to get a few bob when you aren't very deserving of it. But like I said, I'd be blaming the legal profession, doctors and spurious claimers before I'd be casting an eye towards the Gardai.

corks finest

Wasn’t just highlighting gardai it’s the whole lot-

within tbe last year many repeat insurance scammers caught out thankfully ie court costs etc against them but how the hell did we get into this situation-

insurance companies need to up their games in conjunction with gardai

boardlady

It often costs more to actually fight a claim to the extent that you can actually PROVE fraud in court. Not an easy thing to prove. It is generally cheaper to settle the claim and that is why it happens so often. The problem is the claim being brought in the first place.

enricoh

The government hasn't included a bill to reform public liability in this year's bills to be voted on.

They had to reform car whiplash as there was a big public outcry. Every week of the year businesses are going wallop over huge premiums due to excessive payouts. The scammers will simply migrate from car crashes to trips n slips as the big payouts are still there.

AckwelFoley

The father in law rear ended a car with his van. He didnt damage the van, and the only damage to the car was a cracked tail light. Not broken, cracked.

The vermin that he hit were in the hospital within an hour claiming Whiplash. The were duly informed they're known for it. They had to go to Dublin to find a tow rag solicitor to take the case on.

It's a disgrace.

The insurance seem to be fighting it, as its going on nearly 8 years now

corks finest

Hopefully the scrotes will get major costs against them

AckwelFoley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118547715#Comment_118547715

That they may. But selling the caravan won't cover much costs

corks finest

Same oul family names cropping up continually

DaveyDave

Any time I read these compo claim articles they have a long list of successful claims. They make a career out of it. Courts should be throwing the cases out when someone comes in with a case about tripping at work, who just so happened to get a big payout for being the passenger in a car accident the year before, who slipped in a cafe the year before, who spilled coffee on themselves in the McDonald's drive through the year before that...

I'm sorry but how does Mary need €60k because she hurt her wrist and was off work as a part time cashier for Dunnes for 3 months? (Made up scenario but that's usually the story)

cj maxx

There are genuine cases too that get mixed up with them scammers

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118031621#Comment_118031621

We’re back! The Court of Appeal (you voted for it!) is hearing an appeal by the two ladies from Clonmel who hurt themselves on a swing. The High Court, which found that adults should know this was a child’s swing, did not have the “benefit” of “three independent reports” which said the swing was too low.

These are probably the reports we read about in the media. Independent? How about “vested interest” - this private company will find things wrong with your playground but if you hire them as consultants, all will be well. Except that if this swing was raised as they suggest, it would be in breach of the official British standards.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/council-told-swing-at-centre-of-personal-injuries-cases-was-too-low-court-hears-1.4841425

Caquas

How sad to see suffering endured without the palliative of monetary compensation. An exploding kettle was the source of this lady's injuries but Judge Simons had the utmost difficulty in seeing the resulting scar and dismissed her claim

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-who-claimed-she-was-scalded-by-explosion-of-water-from-hotel-room-kettle-loses-injury-claim-41530814.html

Many people who read this report will never again plug in a kettle. Only by the grace of God was the claimant spared even more tragic injury. A thought which must leave her severely traumatised. This judgement adds metaphorical salt to that mental wound.

Regrettable also that the media do not give full credit to the legal professionals who presented this claim to court and must have been stung by the Judge's comments regarding its 60K jurisdiction.

https://obm.ie/personal-injury/

Not to mention his comment about their key witness whose evidence was "inconsistent with any plausible version of events” (I memorised that - next time I want to call someone a bare-faced liar).

Any time you believe you have been injured, this firm will represent the full extent of your claim. I wonder did they get an order as to costs for all their troubles? If not, Ms Kolton will surely pay their full fees in appreciation of their sterling, though ultimately futile, efforts.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118547042#Comment_118547042

That would mean 8 years stuck with the same insurers who can name their price then?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118864256#Comment_118864256

It should be clear to everyone at this point, once everyone gets paid this will keep happening.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118906459#Comment_118906459

I'm sure they're all super worried about a judge giving out to them with absolutely zero consequences.

Caquas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118906489#Comment_118906489

There would be consequences if the Judge failed to make an order for costs i.e. left the plaintiff's lawyers chasing her for payment.

That should be an automatic consequence of losing the case but, among the many wonders of our legal system, lawyers often get their costs off the winning side i.e. the other side's insurers.

riclad

It's ridiculous it rains steps get wet it's common sense to be careful and not carry mail in both hands while walking up steps or stairs .

AckwelFoley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118906489#Comment_118906489

I'm not sure. In this instance it was a motorhome he was driving which there's only one or two options of insurers anyway and usually a fixed rate. A broker that specialises in it. I'd say 90% of the motorhomes in the country are insured. Tends to be a fixed rate. He sold the motorhome probably 2 years after. I don't think premium went up.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118909421#Comment_118909421

Fair enough. Have heard some absolute jokeshop numbers when someone gets stuck with an insurance company.