nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Compo culture goes to a new level

ayux4rj6zql2ph

What are the chances? Even the judge has said he never heard of it coming before the courts before. I know Tesco offered the settlement, but this has set another new precedent.

https://www.thejournal.ie/payout-unborn-child-4507897-Feb2019/

A FOUR-YEAR-old child, held to have been injured when only at 20 weeks gestation in her mother’s womb, has been awarded €45,000 damages for personal injury resulting from an accident in a Tesco store.

Judge Garavan said the injury of an unborn child in a shopping accident was a most unusual case and one which he had not been aware of having previously come before the court

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

NIMAN

Is it April 1st?

And typical journal, grammatical error on 1st line!

is_that_so

Medical expert it seems said condition was connected to failure of equipment incident and Tesco settled. Never been on a travellator, which suddenly stopped, that posed any risk to me though.

Fr_Dougal

From the same article, same mother, different daughter:

Counsel told the court that Ms Stewart’s daughter Adelaide, who was three at the time and had fallen and injured her head on the travellator, had been offered a settlement by Tescos of €28,000 and he was recommending acceptance of both offers to the court.

Stinks...

ayux4rj6zql2ph

More like Christmas Day than April fools day to them. Yeah the journal have a tendency to make those errors.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

From the same article, same mother, different daughter:

Stinks...

€73k plus legal costs for both sides, someone will ultimately have to pick up that tab.

Vile isn't the word.

NIMAN

Am I being presumptuous thinking what this mother is like, with a daughter names Adelaide?

is_that_so

Marie Aggressive Roaster wrote: »

€73k plus legal costs for both sides, someone will ultimately have to pick up that tab.

Vile isn't the word.

Tesco will. Distasteful as it is, it's small beer to them and the thing did fail.

punisher5112

Next the mother will sue the child for kicking her womb.

NIMAN

This woman sued Tesco twice?
They should have fought the case.

[Deleted User]

I don't get the outrage - the child was born seriously ill, with a condition that can be traced back to a piece of dodgy equiment intended for customers.

There are far more ridiculous civil claims out there, and this one even looks comparatively modest.

Atoms for Peace

They're suing from the womb to the tomb now.

dulpit

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

From the same article, same mother, different daughter:

Stinks...

Same incident though?

I knew a girl who, when small, was on an escalator that cut out suddenly, she smashed her face off the escalator and got a payout as a result. She couldn't claim it until she turned 18 though, which will be the same here.

It's an odd one, but if there was a fault with the equipment that causes injury - why wouldn't they be entitled to compensation? I can't speak for the payout amount though, but the reasoning seems sound.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I don't get the outrage - the child was born seriously ill, with a condition that can be traced back to a piece of dodgy equiment intended for customers.

There are far more ridiculous civil claims out there, and this one even looks comparatively modest.

My mother drank and smoked while pregnant on me, i was born with a number of problems, should I sue her, the drinks company and cigarette company?

klaaaz

NIMAN wrote: »

Am I being presumptuous thinking what this mother is like, with a daughter names Adelaide?

Adelaide is a common name amongst the "well-to-do" fraternity, in other words an entitled wealthy person.

Undividual

Marie Aggressive Roaster wrote: »

My mother drank and smoked while pregnant on me, i was born with a number of problems, should I sue her, the drinks company and cigarette company?

Probably just her.

OldMrBrennan83

Undividual wrote: »

Probably just her.

Almost certainly win too.

caff

Outrage? Faulty equipment stopped suddenly, someone was injured so they claimed.

[Deleted User]

Marie Aggressive Roaster wrote: »

My mother drank and smoked while pregnant on me, i was born with a number of problems, should I sue her, the drinks company and cigarette company?

Is this what it comes down to? I always suspect so - that the people who complain the loudest about so-called compensation culture, for which there is little evidence, are annoyed they aren't getting in on it?

People often forget that this kind of litigation, whilst it's bad for firms, has potential benefits for the community, because it provides an incentive for firms and other occupiers of property to provide a safe, well-maintained environment.

Boggles

Yeah, I don't think this one is for the permanently outraged brigade.

Next.

Irish Guitarist

I'm going to sue The Journal for the mental trauma of having to read the word Tesco's.

As for the woman I don't get the big deal. She was injured because of faulty equipment so she sued. Does every case of someone suing a company need a thread here?

meeeeh

Anyone who is currently in business is dreading insurance renewal. It's more and more expensive and harder to get. We had serious issues this year to get liability insurance despite not having any claims in last 5 years. If the aim is to get as many service providers as possible out of business they are going at it the right way.

There was no indication of any consequences for the girls after they were treated. It's ridiculous money.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Is this what it comes down to? I always suspect so - that the people who complain the loudest about so-called compensation culture, for which there is little evidence, are annoyed they aren't getting in on it?

People often forget that this kind of litigation, whilst it's bad for firms, has potential benefits for the community, because it provides an incentive for firms and other occupiers of property to provide a safe, well-maintained environment.

It's worth bearing in mind that one reason why we have such poorer roads and pavements in comparison to the UK, is that our laws don't allow a compensation claim is you have an accident over roads that the councils have neglected to maintain.

I couldn’t care less about getting in on it. I have my problems but must take the cards I was dealt.

Councils are sued for vehicular damage alright but it’s not as common as personal injury cases.

eagle eye

I think it's ridiculous but gotta say I like the Judge. He is a relatively new appointment to the bench but he is very good.

Franz Von Peppercorn

I suppose the judge couldn’t do much because of the medical judgement.

Franz Von Peppercorn

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Is this what it comes down to? I always suspect so - that the people who complain the loudest about so-called compensation culture, for which there is little evidence, are annoyed they aren't getting in on it?

We could all get in on it. That’s the thing.

meeeeh

I think judge here just accepted the agreement that was already made. Unfortunately legal cost are also so high that it's often cheaper to settle.

During the recession troika did single out legal profession as way too expensive and nothing was done to change that.

Old Rudge

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I suppose the judge couldn’t do much because of the medical judgement.

His job was to approve settlements as they were both infants; A layer of protection for vulnerable plaintiffs so their own lawyers don't stiff them.

It's not his job to tell Tescos "ye are mad to pay that kinda money lads".

No medical expert but I'd wonder was there a blood conflict between mother and unborn. The impact might have precipitated a premature mixing of blood.

[Deleted User]

Marie Aggressive Roaster wrote: »

Councils are sued for vehicular damage alright but it’s not as common as personal injury cases.

Only if the road was badly built to begin with.

It's not possible, in Ireland, to sue a Local Authority for neglecting roads and pavements. It is possible in the UK.

I'm not saying this is the ONLY reason why they have better roads, but it's definitely part of it. Which goes to show that if you start withdrawing incentives, organisations often will sink back into doing the bare minimum.

Potential-Monke

Hang on a sec, from t'internet:

Hemolytic disease of the newborn, also known as hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn, HDN, HDFN, or erythroblastosis fetalis,[1] is an alloimmune condition that develops in a peripartum fetus, when the IgG molecules (one of the five main types of antibodies) produced by the mother pass through the placenta. Among these antibodies are some which attack antigens on the red blood cells in the fetal circulation, breaking down and destroying the cells (hemolysis). The fetus can develop reticulocytosis and anemia. This fetal disease ranges from mild to very severe, and fetal death from heart failure (hydrops fetalis) can occur. When the disease is moderate or severe, many erythroblasts (immature red blood cells) are present in the fetal blood, and so these forms of the disease can be called erythroblastosis fetalis (or erythroblastosis foetalis).

I then Googled what can cause it:

What causes hemolytic disease of the newborn (HDN)? HDN most frequently occurs when an Rh negative mother has a baby with an Rh positive father. When the baby's Rh factor is positive, like the father's, problems can develop if the baby's red blood cells cross to the Rh negative mother.

I've searched a few places, and not one of them mentions that bumping into something causes this. I thought correlation doesn't prove causation? Apparently not when it comes to compo claims. Also, she said it stopped, but was it not a case of the trolleys lock up on travelators and she walked into the stopped trolley? Something doesn't add up here.

blanch152

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Is this what it comes down to? I always suspect so - that the people who complain the loudest about so-called compensation culture, for which there is little evidence, are annoyed they aren't getting in on it?

People often forget that this kind of litigation, whilst it's bad for firms, has potential benefits for the community, because it provides an incentive for firms and other occupiers of property to provide a safe, well-maintained environment.

It's worth bearing in mind that one reason why we have such poorer roads and pavements in comparison to the UK, is that our laws don't allow a compensation claim is you have an accident over roads that the councils have neglected to maintain.

Do you have a link to back this up?