If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

The Justice System & Irish Courts..

  • 01-11-2021 10:31pm
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 2,179 ✭✭✭ Raichu

    .. are a bloody piss take. just read this article about a kid who was at a friend's birthday, climbed onto a brick wall, a brick came loose and he fell and broke his leg.

    very unfortunate for him, but the property owners were sued for the tune of €66k. you can read the article to get all the details, but the judge effectively said that the wall shouldn't have had loose bricks (I mean okay sure) but also it was up to the people who owned the gaff to warn the kid not to climb the wall.. isn't that his parents job?

    but sure he couldn't play sports for a few weeks there.

    what brings my piss to a boil in this situation is the fact that CRIMINALS are let away with a stern talking to or a suspend sentence over and over again. yet a kid at someone's house for a party, climbs a wall, falls and breaks a leg and it's somehow not even a little bit his fault? or his parents?

    boggles the mind...



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭ kowloonkev

    I hope this ends up with requiring compulsory insurance for such events.

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,607 ✭✭✭✭ Peregrinus

    There is insurance in place. That's why the action was taken.

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,340 ✭✭✭✭ Potential-Monke

    Comment #4 is why

    (Not having a go at the poster)

  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    How will the homeowners pay for this? Through their home insurance?

    Bit **** of the Mother to do that to her son’s friend’s parents. Let’s face it - her young son didn’t see the euro signs as he was getting his cast on.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,043 ✭✭✭ Jequ0n

    Pity he just broke a leg.

    I feel old now. In my days you would have just gotten a bollocking for being stupid and injuring yourself.

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    It’s not the kids fault a claim was made, it’s his mother’s!

  • Registered Users Posts: 13,888 ✭✭✭✭ whisky_galore

    It's all law and no justice.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,157 ✭✭✭ cruizer101

    What the hell is the basis for 66k, to me 6k would have been excessive.

    There doesn't appear to be any long term issues, just leg broke few months later was grand. What is the 66k for?

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,043 ✭✭✭ Jequ0n

    You can blame her for the ridiculous claim. But the only one who decided to climb the wall is the little ****, who I can only wish a different unjury on him.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,043 ✭✭✭ Jequ0n

    Be so kind to shed a tear on my behalf if it bothers you so much.

  • Registered Users Posts: 516 ✭✭✭ BattleCorp1

    Here's my thinking on how they came up with that figure.

    The accident happened in 2016 so the old Book of Quantum would be in operation. This is basically a price list for injuries and their severity. If it was a minor non-displaced fracture, the book of quantum says it can be worth up to €49,400. Moderate is worth up to €70,400 and moderately severe can be worth up to €91,900. I'm guessing this injury was judged as at the top end of minor. That would put it at about €49,400 because an operation under general anaesthetic was required to fix it. The article also says there was some scarring on the leg so this would attract an extra few quid in the settlement. This would bring it up close to €60k(ish) maybe. This is all a guess by me but I woudn't think I'm too far out.

    There may or may not be costs involved. The article doesn't say if costs were included. So yeah, I can see how it could get up to close to €66k. The insurance company also knew that they would be throwing money away by going to court as they had no chance of winning. They would have gotten caught for their own high court costs and the plaintiff's costs too.

  • Registered Users Posts: 26,233 ✭✭✭✭ Wanderer78

    ...yes, we dont want to truly accept we ve failed many in society with complex needs, we have failed to offer them help and supports for their needs, as their needs are far more complex than the average, instead, we have decided to make their situations far worse, exasperating their issues, so, go us!!!!!

  • Registered Users Posts: 516 ✭✭✭ BattleCorp1

    The judge didn't make the award. It was essentially an out-of-court settlement. The insurance company offered that sum and because the plaintiff is a minor, the award has to be approved by a judge to ensure that the kid isn't short-changed. The judge can't reduce the amount offered. What they can do is say that it isn't enough, but that didn't happen here.

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,182 ✭✭✭✭ Faugheen

    People commenting on the justice system when they know f*ck all about it? Well consider me very surprised.

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,182 ✭✭✭✭ Faugheen

    I won't shed any tears on your behalf. I just think any adult who wishes harm on a child that committed the crime of climbing a wall has a warped way of thinking.

    Did you never climb anything when you were a child?

  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 61,806 Mod ✭✭✭✭ L1011

    When I was a kid - a long time ago now - there was one lad never invited to any parties as his mother was known to have taken a few claims. But that was rare then, rather than really common these days,

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,206 ✭✭✭ source

    The reason for criminals getting off and results like this happen is due to the different levels of burden of proof. Criminal cases require a case to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, whereas a civil court only requires a case to be proven on a balance of probabilities.

    Basically, a solicitor/barrister only has to present a stronger argument in a civil case than that of their opponent to win their case, whereas in a criminal case the prosecution has to prove with almost 100% certainty that a person committed the crime before securing a conviction.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,043 ✭✭✭ Jequ0n

    I couldn't care less whether or not you consider my thinking warped.

    Of course I climbed things, and of course I hurt myself. But when I was stupid enough to visibly hurt myself (or got caught causing damage) I certainly paid an added price on top the injury. How else do you learn?

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,182 ✭✭✭✭ Faugheen

    How was the child to know the wall wasn’t constructed properly?

    The problem with this is with the parents who brought this matter to court, not for a child doing what a child normally does.

    Yet you, for some bizarre reason, want to hurt the child. Completely unusual behaviour.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,157 ✭✭✭ cruizer101

    Yeah but there is issues with awards/settlements this high.

    Firstly the settlement is based on the fact the insurance expected to pay a figure that high otherwise they would have fought it. That is so long as the legal costs of fighting it plus the expected award were less than the settlement which leads on to the second issue then amount spent on legals for frivolous crap like this must be millions.

    Then the book of quantum itself, from what I can tell the figures in it were derived from awards made by judges and whilst the judges may have originally had some basis for the figures they awarded which then lead to the figures in the book of quantum there doesn't seem to have been any actual review of what is actually a reasonable compensation for an injury based on potential treatment cost etc.

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,182 ✭✭✭✭ Faugheen

    Look I absolutely understand all of that, but a lot of people here would want judges hung when a good chunk of the awards are out-of-court settlements which are only approved by a judge.

    The discussion of high settlements for what appear to be frivolous cases isn't one that's lost on me, because it does impact my pocket when insurance companies hike everything in response (which is just as frivolous), however the judges have a law to follow but yet many here think they should just make the law themselves.

    As for this case, a child was left in the care of two people and ended up with a broken leg. Did they tell the kids not to climb the wall? Did they know he was climbing the wall? Did they know if a child did climb the wall that there would be a fear this would happen? Did they pay the bills for the child or did the parents? Was it paid for by the parents' insurance? Did they even offer to pay his bills?

    If that was my child, you can guarantee I'd be pissed off too, especially if they didn't pay for his treatment because liability is on them.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,974 ✭✭✭ Fandymo

    The reason companies settle out of court is because if the judge rules, god knows how much he'll award. That is the issue.

  • Registered Users Posts: 516 ✭✭✭ BattleCorp1

    I think companies settle out of court because:

    a. They know they are unlikely to win.

    b. They know roughly what the injury is worth.

    c. They know that the judge's figure probably won't be too far away from their figure.

    d. They know that they'll have to pay costs on top of a settlement if they lose.

    e. Because of all of the above, it's more cost effective to settle out-of-court.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,043 ✭✭✭ Jequ0n

    So what? Child fell, broke his leg. Normally I'd say he learned his lesson, but in this case the child will simply have learned that it's health and safety are entirely down to others. It's bizarre how some people can't even accept the fact that their children are not always the faultless little angels they believe them to be.

    You have not considered the emotional trauma he will have endured as a consequence, or the the self esteem issues because he now has a scar on his leg.

  • Registered Users Posts: 516 ✭✭✭ BattleCorp1

    The child will have learned that it's sore if you fall off a wall or if the wall falls on you.

    The parents of the child will have learned that there is easy money to be made.

    The homeowners will have learned that they need to keep their property in good condition if they are having guests over.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,182 ✭✭✭✭ Faugheen

    It was a 7 year old child and you're expecting him to be able to carry out a health and safety assessment.

    How was the child to know the slab was going to fall on him? Like I said, where were the adults in all of this? Where were they to tell him to not to climb the wall? Where were they when he was climbing the wall?

    You might think that the child should be able to assess everything for himself but it takes the grown-ups in the room to set things straight to avoid situations like a child in their care falling off a wall (or a slab falling on them) because they didn't consider that children, which like to climb things, might actually climb it.

    Any adult that wishes harm on a 7-year-old child for climbing a wall is scum. And calling it a little sh*t? Children climb walls and trees. Lord knows I did it plenty of times and I was told very quickly that I shouldn't be when it was unsafe if my parents or any adult I was left in the care of were actually paying attention.

    You're saying a 7-year-old child should be harmed further for climbing a wall all because of proceedings brought by his mother. That's f*cked up.

    EDIT: Also, your sarcastic remark about 'emotional trauma' - there is nothing about any of that in any article I have read, so you're literally talking out of your hole.