Reason for court awards?

animaal

I've always had the suspicion that where somebody experiences a loss/injury, there's a couscious attempt to find somebody with insurance to pay for it, regardless of where the fault lies.

The description of this case appears unremarkable until the last paragraph:

Judge O’Kelly, who consulted a plastic surgeon’s medical report, said the scar was a prominent one on the centre of the boy’s forehead and he was gravely concerned that were the case to run to full trial, particularly in circumstances where a full defence had been entered and the boy was so young as to have no recollection of the incident, it could be lost.

Presumably if the case was "lost", it would be due to the hotel not having a case to answer. The full text of the article includes a forensic engineer's report that the hotel complied with regulations. In this case, why would it be a bad outcome for the hotel to be found not to be at fault? The implication seems to be that the hotel should be held responsible, regardless of whether or not they're actually at fault.

It makes more sense to me now why businesses offer large settlements in cases where they appear to have no responsibility for injuries/loss. They have the insurance, and in a court case this is seen as the answer to all problems. While I don't doubt the little lad's distress and injury, sometimes stuff happens. It doesn't always have to be somebody else's fault.

Or am I reading too much into it?

ohnonotgmail

The hotel offered a settlement. The judge accepted it because they are expected to act in the best interests of a minor.

animaal

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The hotel offered a settlement. The judge accepted it because they are expected to act in the best interests of a minor.

Fair enough, but the judge was "gravely concerned" that the case "could be lost". Surely he should be concerned that the outcome is a fair one, not that a particular side wins?

ohnonotgmail

animaal wrote: »

Fair enough, but the judge was "gravely concerned" that the case "could be lost". Surely he should be concerned that the outcome is a fair one, not that a particular side wins?

the hotel offered a settlement. they had already conceded.

ProfessorPlum

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the hotel offered a settlement. they had already conceded.

They offered a settlement but they certainly didn’t concede any liability (according to the article). In fact it seems they were ready to mount a full defence. Presumably the reason for the offer was that it was seen as the financially more prudent route.

animaal

What interested me is *why* such a settlement offer was made. Maybe not all the relevant facts are in the article, but it does say the kid doesn't have a memory of the incident, a forensic engineer found the hotel in compliance with all regulations, and there were no witnesses to the incident.

Add to this the judge's fear that if there was to be a court case, the hotel might not be found responsible.

It doesn't look like an even playing field.

Edit: I suppose unless the judge viewed the settlement offer as meaning the hotel would be happiest with that outcome, and in that context, forcing a court case would be a risk for both sides.

Still seems tough on the hotel though, given what the article says about the evidence.

Bio Mech

animaal wrote: »

What interested me is *why* such a settlement offer was made. Maybe not all the relevant facts are in the article, but it does say the kid doesn't have a memory of the incident, a forensic engineer found the hotel in compliance with all regulations, and there were no witnesses to the incident.

Add to this the judge's fear that if there was to be a court case, the hotel might not be found responsible.

It doesn't look like an even playing field.

Edit: I suppose unless the judge viewed the settlement offer as meaning the hotel would be happiest with that outcome, and in that context, forcing a court case would be a risk for both sides.

Still seems tough on the hotel though, given what the article says about the evidence.

The offer was made, without liability, as it would have been cheaper than mounting a full defence in court.

When cases like this go to court it’s the solicitors (wallets) that always win.

orourkeda1977

It's all like legal sh1t "n" all.

Know mean

pgj2015

Barrister Roger Cross told Judge Eugene O’Kelly that no-one saw the then toddler, Gabriel Jakuska, fall and strike his head against a metal stairs hand rail outside the hotel in July 2013 and for that reason he was recommending the court’s approval of a €25,000 settlement offer.


why wasn't his mother or father watching him when it happened? a 2 year old.

ah sure why would you do that when you can get a nice handy 25,000 euro through someone else's insurance.