One eyed Jack wrote: » Children being injured on a premises where there is an expectation that children will not be injured means of course that the person or persons providing the service are negligent.
meeeeh wrote: » They are genuine businesses although they are reporting very good profits this year. Anyway there is a comparison on average award for the same type of injuries in this link.https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/964391/ Often insurance companies don't like to fight claims in court because legal cost are so high in Ireland. Troika actually asked for Irish legal cost to be lowered because they are currently prohibitive for anyone who can't get legal aid. Maybe all reports about high amount pay outs in comparison to EU are wrong, maybe all statistical data about claim increase is wrong, maybe all reports about high legal costs are wrong and your assessment is right.
Of course your assessment is based on nothing but visiting couple of play centres with your child and deciding that they are all negligent.
an arrangement by which a company or the state undertakes to provide a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a specified premium.
Vienna Angry Professor wrote: » I laughed at the line about kids needing these centres to play in. As a child these didn't exist. We were able to play and have fun without them. Why have the become indispensable?
One eyed Jack wrote: » I have no issue at all with business owners who are trying to provide a service and make an honest living, as many business owners do. It’s the business owners who are providing an inadequate service to the public which puts people’s health at risk I have massive problems with, especially when they’re cribbing that their insurance costs are rising as a result of the services they are providing to the public being regarded by insurance companies as an increased risk to provide insurance for. Are insurance companies too not genuine business owners who are trying to provide a service and make an honest living?
irelandrover wrote: » I actually dont see how i took you up wrong. You said children are being injured and its because owners arent interested in adequate health and safety. Children being injured does not mean that the business is negligent. I asked for proof that children are being injured due to this.
One eyed Jack wrote: » You even cited me word for word, and still tried to twist what I actually said, to try and imply I was saying something I didn’t. Well done.
Rennaws wrote: » Yes they do. So what do they do when the their child gets injured at home.. Or maybe in your home ? Will you be ok with being sued because you didn't cover every possible eventuality ? Where does this nonsense end. You and all the greedy people like you are the problem with this country. Not the genuine business owners who are trying to provide a service and make an honest living.
irelandrover wrote: » No, proof that children are being injured due to owners cutting costs. What you ssaid is quite clear,The evidence is that children are being injured in these play centres, and these injuries could have been prevented if the owners of the business were interested enough in children’s safety to implement adequate health and safety standards You said children are being injured and its due to owners cutting costs.
One eyed Jack wrote: » In other businesses where they have adequate health and safety standards in place to prevent injuries to children, children don’t get injured.
One eyed Jack wrote: » they’ve paid the business to ensure their child is able to play in an environment where they are safe. When that doesn’t happen, it may or may not have been as a result of the business owner being negligent, and if it is shown that the injury could have been prevented by the business owner, then the claim against them is likely to be successful.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Some proof of what, that with adequate health and safety standards in place, the risk to children’s health and safety is mitigated? In other businesses where they have adequate health and safety standards in place to prevent injuries to children, children don’t get injured. Very simple really.
irelandrover wrote: » Can you show some proof of this?
bucketybuck wrote: » No, you are not. Have you read the article yet?
whisky_galore wrote: » Why should they be? Otherwise we are raising a generation of entitled little cotton-wool wrapped sh1ts with zero personal responsibility.Bogus claim seekers should be named and shamed.
One eyed Jack wrote: » What’s this “we” business? Let’s keep things in perspective at least. The people who will claim against a business in the event that their child is injured are in a minority. Like every other patron, they’ve paid the business to ensure their child is able to play in an environment where they are safe. When that doesn’t happen, it may or may not have been as a result of the business owner being negligent, and if it is shown that the injury could have been prevented by the business owner, then the claim against them is likely to be successful.
whisky_galore wrote: » Why should they be? Otherwise we are raising a generation of entitled little cotton-wool wrapped sh1ts with zero personal responsibility. Bogus claim seekers should be named and shamed.
One eyed Jack wrote: » The evidence is that children are being injured in these play centres, and these injuries could have been prevented if the owners of the business were interested enough in children’s safety to implement adequate health and safety standards. Implementing adequate health and safety standards costs an absolute fortune, and will eat into the profits of any business, but in the long run, they’ll save a fortune on their insurance costs. If there are 10 play centres and one of those play centres is costing their insurance company their profits, then the insurance company is going to raise the cost of their premiums for that industry as a whole, because the risks of providing insurance for that industry have increased, exponentially it would seem, in the last couple of years.
bucketybuck wrote: » You stated without evidence that the businesses were putting children at risk, and now that they are doing so by cost cutting. Both claims pulled from your ass.
One eyed Jack wrote: » The days of picking the child up, kissing their scuffed knee or cut finger and telling them run along, are long gone
Wheeliebin30 wrote: We like to think we’re a great nation. But we’re full of scammers, chancers, thieves, and in general very selfish people.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I’m posting in good faith.
bucketybuck wrote: » More rubbish pulled from your ass, you have no evidence of any of this. Clearly you are not posting in good faith.
One eyed Jack wrote: » You understand how insurance is calculated and applied to an industry? Whether or not an individual business had no history of insurance claims is only one factor in how their insurance costs are calculated. It’s insurance against claims, not insurance against members of the public being injured on the premises.
One eyed Jack wrote: » If reducing costs means putting children’s safety at risk
due to their own prioritising cutting costs and increasing profits over their patrons safety
bucketybuck wrote: » Cite? You say that a rise in insurance claims is evidence that children are at risk, but that logic is nonsense. That logic would be faulty even if the number of claims were increasing, yet the businesses linked in the article have had none or minimal claims over 10/15 year periods. Their insurance costs have skyrocketed despite a low number of claims, not because of a high number. If you are going to state that children are at risk in these places, that they are not safe, please provide some evidence for this opinion or I'll assume you are taking a contrary position just for the sake of it.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b605825002726fa398519aca553ff0db.svg)
