Win Lotto or Slip and fall

riemann

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2019/1030/1087498-kayla-whelan/

Yet another payday for the legal profession and the compo class.

Slip on loose gravel? As opposed to non-loose gravel?

But of course insurance hikes are due to the insurance companies greed and nothing to do with the solicitors and judges of this country milking us all like a bunch of muppets that we are for putting up with this crap.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

In Germany, as it's outside the persons home, the home owner is the one that would get sued (although it's just for ice/snow I believe).

If Irish water have done a botch job of the pavement outside, then they should be held liable. It's not rocket science really. Girl suffered a fractured elbow which could cause her issues down the line.

Overheal

You surely know the difference between loose gravel and packed gravel, typically compacted down by machine. Not hard to figure out loose gravel is a hazard.

Padraig Mor

In fairness, that one doesn't seem too bad. I haven't checked the book of quantum in a while but €43k is likely in and about what's in there for a broken elbow. Presumably loose gravel is gravel that's left....loose....on a hard surface, making it a serious slip hazard. And given the absolute state Irish Water's contractors are leaving roads in my locality at the moment, I wouldn't be surprised if they did a botch job in this case too.

edit: just had a look at the book of quantum, and max payout for a broken elbow is ~€84k so not exactly exorbitant in this case.

Nermal

Overheal wrote: »

Not hard to figure out loose gravel is a hazard.

Don’t walk on it so?

sbsquarepants

Nermal wrote: »

Don’t walk on it so?

I assume you don't know any 6 year olds. Health and safety tends not to be one of their overriding concerns.

It's actually for reasons just like this that you aren't supposed to just dump dangerous obstacles on footpaths and then piss off home without a care in the world for the consequences.

Donnielighto

Padraig Mor wrote: »

In fairness, that one doesn't seem too bad. I haven't checked the book of quantum in a while but €43k is likely in and about what's in there for a broken elbow. Presumably loose gravel is gravel that's left....loose....on a hard surface, making it a serious slip hazard. And given the absolute state Irish Water's contractors are leaving roads in my locality at the moment, I wouldn't be surprised if they did a botch job in this case too.

edit: just had a look at the book of quantum, and max payout for a broken elbow is ~€84k so not exactly exorbitant in this case.

Isn't the book of quantum being questioned as part of the issue in Ireland. Could be wrong but thought it was.

Overheal

Nermal wrote: »

Don’t walk on it so?

Not involved in safety engineering, liability law or insurance I see.

There’s a lot of good reasons that laziness doesn’t cut the mustard.

riemann

Overheal wrote: »

You surely know the difference between loose gravel and packed gravel, typically compacted down by machine. Not hard to figure out loose gravel is a hazard.

I assume it is chippings you refer to as gravel is not used on any finished road surface, due to its propensity to come loose.

In this process not all the chips adhere to the road surface and as you may have noticed with the signage "loose chippings".

Are you saying anywhere I see a sign for loose chippings I can go out, have myself a little fall, and get the CoCo to pay for my new car and a few holidays?

Maybe she could also sue her footwear manafacturer due to a non loose gravel resistant sole. Why stop there, she should sue her parents for allowing her outside where clearly loose gravel is the least of her worries. She could have tripped over some cigarette butts, oh big tobacco have deep pockets definitely worth a solicitors letter at least. The list unfortunately is endless.

riemann

Padraig Mor wrote: »

In fairness, that one doesn't seem too bad. I haven't checked the book of quantum in a while but €43k is likely in and about what's in there for a broken elbow. Presumably loose gravel is gravel that's left....loose....on a hard surface, making it a serious slip hazard. And given the absolute state Irish Water's contractors are leaving roads in my locality at the moment, I wouldn't be surprised if they did a botch job in this case too.

edit: just had a look at the book of quantum, and max payout for a broken elbow is ~€84k so not exactly exorbitant in this case.

Is this all broken elbows? Sounds like handy enough cash.

4x average industrial wage.

Nermal

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's actually for reasons just like this that you aren't supposed to just dump dangerous obstacles on footpaths and then piss off home without a care in the world for the consequences.

If dangerous obstacles are obvious, they're not really dangerous, are they? Parents have a duty to control and educate their children.

This accident didn't cost the child or their family €43K, let alone the completely ludicrous €84K maximum quoted from the book of quantum. It is indeed under review: on the basis of that figure I can do the review myself - move the decimal point on every figure quoted in it one place to the left.

Overheal

riemann wrote: »

I assume it is chippings you refer to as gravel is not used on any finished road surface, due to its propensity to come loose.

In this process not all the chips adhere to the road surface and as you may have noticed with the signage "loose chippings".

Are you saying anywhere I see a sign for loose chippings I can go out, have myself a little fall, and get the CoCo to pay for my new car and a few holidays?

Maybe she could also sue her footwear manafacturer due to a non loose gravel resistant sole. Why stop there, she should sue her parents for allowing her outside where clearly loose gravel is the least of her worries. She could have tripped over some cigarette butts, oh big tobacco have deep pockets definitely worth a solicitors letter at least. The list unfortunately is endless.

You’re making strawmen and slippery slope arguments now. No mention of any hazard signage, no evidence her footwear was not up to required standard. Is there much point to getting triggered over a girl getting recompense for having her elbow smashed up because a 2nd party didn’t adhere to safety standards?

cruizer101

I don't disagree that Irish Water were at fault here but what exactly is the compensation for?
She went to the hospital and got it fixed and she is all better now. Fair enough there is a possibility of requiring physio down the line but why award 43k just because there is a possibility of further treatment required.
The whole whole book of quantum needs to be thrown out and redone based on paying out compensation directly to cover the medical treatment not just here is a load of money.

Overheal

I mean I’ve never heard of it that an Irish thing? I assume more goes into than just divining rods and severed chicken heads, surely this entails some historical data about long term injuries observed on previous cases.

And there are damages beyond the medical expenses, not excluding lost time for medical emergency and litigation with associated expenses, but if the girl was to ever take up a sport she’s excluded from many now, like Hurling.

I have an old colleague who injured herself skiing, through no fault of anyone else it was a well regulated place. So she has nobody but herself to blame that she lost her early sponsorship deals for pro surfing which she was up and coming into; had the ski resort been found negligent I imagine a sum would be quantified for her loss.

Duane Dibbley

Why is 43,000 awarded.

I dont understand these settlements.

ohnonotgmail

Duane Dibbley wrote: »

Why is 43,000 awarded.

I dont understand these settlements.

Because that is the amount that dublin city council/irish water offered to her.

cruizer101

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Because that is the amount that dublin city council/irish water offered to her.

Its more nuanced than that though. They offer an amount which they think will be accepted without having to go through a full case, the amount reflects what would be awarded by the courts.
That figure is based on the book of quantum.
The figures in that are based on historical figures awarded by judges.

riemann

Overheal wrote: »

I mean I’ve never heard of it that an Irish thing? I assume more goes into than just divining rods and severed chicken heads, surely this entails some historical data about long term injuries observed on previous cases.

And there are damages beyond the medical expenses, not excluding lost time for medical emergency and litigation with associated expenses, but if the girl was to ever take up a sport she’s excluded from many now, like Hurling.

I have an old colleague who injured herself skiing, through no fault of anyone else it was a well regulated place. So she has nobody but herself to blame that she lost her early sponsorship deals for pro surfing which she was up and coming into; had the ski resort been found negligent I imagine a sum would be quantified for her loss.

Sad to see someone like you to be so wrapped up in compo culture that 40k for a child who slipped on a footpath seems a tad lenient.

Just shows how ingrained the whole system is.

Eggs For Dinner

riemann wrote:

Sad to see someone like you to be so wrapped up in compo culture that 40k for a child who slipped on a footpath seems a tad lenient.

They honestly don't see it and therein lies the crux of the problem

ohnonotgmail

riemann wrote: »

Sad to see someone like you to be so wrapped up in compo culture that 40k for a child who slipped on a footpath seems a tad lenient.

Just shows how ingrained the whole system is.

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

They honestly don't see it and therein lies the crux of the problem

can either of ye point out where the word "lenient" has been used?

riemann

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

can either of ye point out where the word "lenient" has been used?

Read back a few posts yourself.

Be careful though.

ohnonotgmail

riemann wrote: »

Read back a few posts yourself.

Be careful though.

would you mind quoting the post(s) in question?

Overheal

riemann wrote: »

Sad to see someone like you to be so wrapped up in compo culture that 40k for a child who slipped on a footpath seems a tad lenient.

Just shows how ingrained the whole system is.

Begging your pardon please quote chapter and verse where I said the amount was “lenient” much less where I expressed whether or not the amount was too low or too high. I discussed what factors may go into these decisions, I offered no opinion or conclusion on the magnitude of the settlement. So if anyone is wrapped up in something go look in the ****ing mirror.

riemann

Overheal wrote: »

Begging your pardon please quote chapter and verse where I said the amount was “lenient” much less where I expressed whether or not the amount was too low or too high. I discussed what factors may go into these decisions, I offered no opinion or conclusion on the magnitude of the settlement. So if anyone is wrapped up in something go look in the ****ing mirror.

Calm down, you might break something.

ohnonotgmail

riemann wrote: »

Calm down, you might break something.

any chance you might quote the post(s?) that mentioned "lenient"?

Fr_Dougal

If it snows again these foreva home occupants will make out like bandits.

Geuze

Padraig Mor wrote: »

In fairness, that one doesn't seem too bad. I haven't checked the book of quantum in a while but €43k is likely in and about what's in there for a broken elbow. Presumably loose gravel is gravel that's left....loose....on a hard surface, making it a serious slip hazard. And given the absolute state Irish Water's contractors are leaving roads in my locality at the moment, I wouldn't be surprised if they did a botch job in this case too.

edit: just had a look at the book of quantum, and max payout for a broken elbow is ~€84k so not exactly exorbitant in this case.

These figure should be cut 90%.

Geuze

cruizer101 wrote: »

Its more nuanced than that though. They offer an amount which they think will be accepted without having to go through a full case, the amount reflects what would be awarded by the courts.
That figure is based on the book of quantum.
The figures in that are based on historical figures awarded by judges.

Why don't the Govt write a new Book of Quantum, and distribute to all Judges next week?

With values 90% less than the current figures.

Jurgen The German

Not untypical unfortunately and part of the reason why many play centres and other similar places have had to close their doors as they cannot get or afford insurance. No issue with IW / coco paying the childs medical expenses, physio as required and a couple of grand token gesture but €43k for that is obscene. Accidents happen, kids trip and fall all the time. Nowadays the primary concern from parents doesn't appear to be their kids wellbeing, it appears to be how much money can they get. Its not as if they left a manhole uncovered or anything.

When it comes to large awards to minors, the bulk of it should be locked away until they turn 25 as for cases like this it's the parents that are the beneficiaries rather than the injured party which is completely at odds with the notion of insurable interest.

Its not as if a 6 year old will suffer loss of earnings or anything of that nature, another victory for the law society and its disciples.

Overheal

You’re not considering loss of income for her caretakers though?

Jurgen The German

Overheal wrote: »

You’re not considering loss of income for her caretakers though?

What loss of income for her caretakers? The incident occurred early august so she would have been on school holidays. If her caretakers did not work then there is no LOE, if they did they would have had child care arrangements in place anyway. A cast on the arm is not exactly something that requires special medical care.