The judges are at it again - Compo claims

neris

30K for a broken nose with no long term damage for a kid. The judge approved the offered but didnt think for a sec, hang on lads 30k is an awful lot im not approving this make it smaller

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/girl-3-whose-nose-was-broken-when-table-blew-over-outside-restaurant-awarded-30k-damages-37975158.html

JMNolan

Judiciary in the country don't give a fuck, why would they? What can we do about it? Nothing.

OldMrBrennan83

Another family on the scum list. Is there a public record kept of these leeches?

Fr_Dougal

neris wrote: »

30K for a broken nose with no long term damage for a kid. The judge approved the offered but didnt think for a sec, hang on lads 30k is an awful lot im not approving this make it smaller

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/girl-3-whose-nose-was-broken-when-table-blew-over-outside-restaurant-awarded-30k-damages-37975158.html

OBriens made the offer and the injured party accepted it, it wasn’t really up to the judge to tell the business that they had offered too much.

Mr Daly, who appeared with Spelman Callaghan Solicitors for Lily, said he was recommending the court accept the settlement offer on the part of Adleo Limited.

is_that_so

neris wrote: »

30K for a broken nose with no long term damage for a kid. The judge approved the offered but didnt think for a sec, hang on lads 30k is an awful lot im not approving this make it smaller

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/girl-3-whose-nose-was-broken-when-table-blew-over-outside-restaurant-awarded-30k-damages-37975158.html

The judge approved the settlement they had reached. That's not the same as awarding damages. Real problem is how defendants so readily strike such deals and then we have the lawyers ... There is clearly fault with the restaurant but to this value?

Plopsu

Did anybody even read the article? A three year old child was hit in the face with a table with sufficient force to break her nose. That's a massive degree of negligence from the restaurant owner. The award is perfectly reasonable and anybody with any responsibility should probably be glad they weren't charged.

OldMrBrennan83

Plopsu wrote: »

Did anybody even read the article? A three year old child was hit in the face with a table with sufficient force to break her nose. That's a massive degree of negligence from the restaurant owner. The award is perfectly reasonable and anybody with any responsibility should probably be glad they weren't charged.

No it wasn't. Table blew in wind, no permanent damage. **** happens.

keano_afc

Plopsu wrote: »

Did anybody even read the article? A three year old child was hit in the face with a table with sufficient force to break her nose. That's a massive degree of negligence from the restaurant owner. The award is perfectly reasonable and anybody with any responsibility should probably be glad they weren't charged.

Full recovery made, no lasting damage. What exactly is the €30k for?

Plopsu

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

No it wasn't. Table blew in wind, no permanent damage. **** happens.

Yeah, their table which they were responsible for securing (or, more likely in high winds, bringing in). You do know what the word responsible means?

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

No it wasn't. Table blew in wind, no permanent damage. **** happens.

This lends itself to that old saying

Douglas Adams wrote:

A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

Elemonator

It was a settlement offer. Not a judgment of the Court.

The table hit the child hard enough to break her nose. It should have been anchored. We also must consider that for a child, such an incident may cause mental distress.

That been said 30k is too high.

A bill to limit the payouts on insurance premiums passed the second stage of the Seanad today if anyone is interested.

is_that_so

Plopsu wrote: »

Yeah, their table which they were responsible for securing (or, more likely in high winds, bringing in). You do know what the word responsible means?

Not much dispute on the blame but some people prefer the word greedy here.

Tacklebox

keano_afc wrote: »

Full recovery made, no lasting damage. What exactly is the €30k for?

A few holidays for the parents, upgrade the corolla, tracksuits and wide screen TV..

It won't take long for this money to go back into the system,and around and around it goes.

A lot of people are in high places in the judicial system, have son's daughters father's and uncles who are barristers and solicitors.

I heard there's people coming out of law school and working for shoite money in what you could only describe as a fancy call center...

An absolute money making machine.

There's probably ten times more solicitors now than there was 30 years ago.

Skylinehead

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

No it wasn't. Table blew in wind, no permanent damage. **** happens.

Yeah, classic negligence. Not like someone falling over of their own accord is it?

Plus the judge had nothing to do with this.

is_that_so

Elemonator wrote: »

It was a settlement offer. Not a judgment of the Court.

The table hit the child hard enough to break her nose. It should have been anchored. We also must consider that for a child, such an incident may cause mental distress.

That been said 30k is too high.

A bill to limit the payouts on insurance premiums passed the second stage of the Seanad today if anyone is interested.

It does need to be addressed. One can accept medical awards even if they are sometimes on the high side but it does have a trickle-down effect on everything else.

OldMrBrennan83

Nixonbot wrote: »

Yeah, classic negligence. Not like someone falling over of their own accord is it?

Plus the judge had nothing to do with this.

I mentioned the judge? Try again bub.

Skylinehead

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

I mentioned the judge? Try again bub.

That was for the benefit of OP etc, sorry

spodoinkle

Elemonator wrote: »

A bill to limit the payouts on insurance premiums passed the second stage of the Seanad today if anyone is interested.

Any links to this or more information on it??

Boggles

neris wrote: »

The judge approved the offered but didnt think for a sec, hang on lads 30k is an awful lot im not approving this make it smaller

Does he have the power to do that?

Elemonator

spodoinkle wrote: »

Any links to this or more information on it??

Only this so far, apologies I don't have a more informative source

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/bill-to-cap-insurance-payouts-for-personal-injury-claims-passes-second-stage-in-seanad-37975110.html

Plopsu

keano_afc wrote:

Full recovery made, no lasting damage. What exactly is the €30k for?

So, if someone broke your nose, you'd be okay with them not being sanctioned because it healed?

Plopsu

keano_afc wrote:

Full recovery made, no lasting damage. What exactly is the €30k for?

So, if someone broke your nose, you'd be okay with them not being sanctioned because it healed?

Plopsu

is_that_so wrote:

Not much dispute on the blame but some people prefer the word greedy here.

I'd say the company got away pretty lightly. It's not greedy to demand compensation for your child being injured through somebody else's negligence. The child did nothing wrong and neither did the parents.

ohnonotgmail

Tacklebox wrote: »

A few holidays for the parents, upgrade the corolla, tracksuits and wide screen TV..

It won't take long for this money to go back into the system,and around and around it goes.

A lot of people are in high places in the judicial system, have son's daughters father's and uncles who are barristers and solicitors.

I heard there's people coming out of law school and working for shoite money in what you could only describe as a fancy call center...

An absolute money making machine.

There's probably ten times more solicitors now than there was 30 years ago.

The money will be held by the court in trust for the kid until they are 18.

sbsquarepants

Jesus Christ - people are far too quick to be outraged.

I have a 3 year old daughter and if an unsecured table hit her in the face and broke her nose I'd be fit to kill over it.

30 grand? They got away lightly if you ask me.

Who in the name of god thinks it's an acceptable standard of care, for a restaurant to allow their furniture become airborne ffs! It could have killed that child!

Plopsu

Tacklebox wrote:

A few holidays for the parents, upgrade the corolla, tracksuits and wide screen TV..

Do you know the parents? I could be wrong but I don't recall any mention of their social status in the article. Your insinuations are pretty despicable (though not quite as bad as the poster who called them scum).
I doubt they'll just be handed a cheque. The money will likely be held until the girl's 18. If they need to draw on the funds before then, they'll have to petition the solicitors holding them.

mikemac2

I'm not feeling the outrage on this one, sorry

There has been some ridiculous awards but I don't think this is one of them

suicide_circus

ye know whats great for a broken nose?

30 grand.

Mad_maxx

suicide_circus wrote: »

ye know whats great for a broken nose?

30 grand.

Could leave you mutilated for life, kids bodies are fragile, 30 k is modest

OldMrBrennan83

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Could leave you mutilated for life, kids bodies are fragile, 30 k is modest

Could, but didn't. Fully recovered it said.

Everything 'could' do something, so someone give me 30 grand quick.

Hal3000

30 G's for a broken schnoz... Son, it's time to take one for the team!!

Edgware

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Could leave you mutilated for life, kids bodies are fragile, 30 k is modest

That poor kid will grow up afraid to visit any sunny countries because of a fear of being hit by a street parasol

Irish Guitarist

These threads are getting as bad as dole threads now.

If you're ever walking past this restaurant on a windy day you'll have these people to thank for the fact that you're not getting a faceful of table.

suicide_circus

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

These threads are getting as bad as dole threads now.

If you're ever walking past this restaurant on a windy day you'll have these people to thank for the fact that you're not getting a faceful of table.

not all heros wear capes

is_that_so

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

These threads are getting as bad as dole threads now.

If you're ever walking past this restaurant on a windy day you'll have these people to thank for the fact that you're not getting a faceful of table.

Again there is no dispute about liability here but until such time as the costs of awards are addressed and not seen as some form of Winning Streak they'll be around. This random nature of awards filters into many kinds of insurance premiums.

ohnonotgmail

is_that_so wrote: »

Again there is no dispute about liability here but until such time as the costs of awards are addressed and not seen as some form of Winning Streak they'll be around. This random nature of awards filters into many kinds of insurance premiums.

this was not an award. the defendants admitted liability and offered the 30,000 in settlement.

imme

Plopsu wrote: »

Did anybody even read the article? A three year old child was hit in the face with a table with sufficient force to break her nose. That's a massive degree of negligence from the restaurant owner. The award is perfectly reasonable and anybody with any responsibility should probably be glad they weren't charged.

Which came first the call to the lawyer or the call for the ambulance.

Why do so many of these type of cases go to law and not be resolved.

Thank you legal profession and unscrupulous people

McCrack

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

this was not an award. the defendants admitted liability and offered the 30,000 in settlement.

Correct. It was a ruling as all settlements involving children must be ruled or approved by a court

There's a lot of people posting on this thread misinformed

is_that_so

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

this was not an award. the defendants admitted liability and offered the 30,000 in settlement.

Yeah as I said in my first post in this thread. Still a huge problem in this area and this type of value does encourage people to go to court for a payday.

is_that_so

McCrack wrote: »

Correct. It was a ruling as all settlements involving children must be ruled or approved by a court

There's a lot of people posting on this thread misinformed

There are also a lot of people joining the end of the thread and not reading that this question has been addressed on the first page.

McCrack

is_that_so wrote: »

Yeah as I said in my first post in this thread. Still a huge problem in this area and this type of value does encourage people to go to court for a payday.

So long as defendants continue to be negligent causing people injury they will be sued

is_that_so

McCrack wrote: »

So long as defendants continue to be negligent causing people injury they will be sued

And that's their right but there is a problem with what courts award and especially how the legal people clean up.

Wheeliebin30

Next time a child falls and breaks their nose due to their own negligence they should sue themselves for 30k.

fonecrusher1

neris wrote: »

30K for a broken nose with no long term damage for a kid. The judge approved the offered but didnt think for a sec, hang on lads 30k is an awful lot im not approving this make it smaller

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/girl-3-whose-nose-was-broken-when-table-blew-over-outside-restaurant-awarded-30k-damages-37975158.html

Parents: Yippeeee Disneyland here we come! Yaaaay!

ohnonotgmail

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Parents: Yippeeee Disneyland here we come! Yaaaay!

the parents dont get the money.

BBFAN

There are so many cases where the payout was extortionate and the claim obviously spurious, why on earth would you choose this one???

30k is **** all.

I was knocked down when I was 15 crossing a road and the total payout was 5k, 2300 to me and 2700 to the solicitor and that was mainly because the surgeon said the scar on my knee would heal in two years, I still have that scar, so things work both ways.

Gryffindor

From the article: "Judge Groarke said he considered the offer to be a very good one."

This was not the doing of the judge, and the above is a nice way of saying that it was probably too generous an offer.

That said, there is an issue with the fact that the decision to settle was probably based on the fact that 30k might well have been cheaper than High Court costs if they fought it. But again, this is something which is completely outside the competence of any judge to do anything about.

fonecrusher1

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the parents dont get the money.

So it goes where?

ohnonotgmail

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

So it goes where?

It is held in trust by the court until the child is 18

fonecrusher1

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is held in trust by the court until the child is 18

Ok.

Parents: We're all going to Disneyland when the child turns 18. Yaaaaay!! Free money!!

ohnonotgmail

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Ok.

Parents: We're all going to Disneyland when the child turns 18. Yaaaaay!! Free money!!

If the kid wants to bring his parents to disneyland when he turns 18 he is entirely free to do so