Personal injury claims closing Playcentres

One eyed Jack wrote: »

and it’s because these places aren’t safe for children that their insurance is skyrocketing in recent years

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Iwhich arise out of the fact that children are increasingly at risk, a fact borne out by the rise in insurance claims.

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.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If they don’t want to face high insurance costs as a result of insurance claims, the onus is on the owners of the business or the management of the school to ensure the safety of the children in their care.

You haven't even read the article, have you?

"We've ran this business for five years and have only had one claim in that time, which involved an adult, not a child," she said.

"My insurance went from €8,500 a few years ago to €47,000 and I've endured months of stress over all this, it has tormented me.

"Maybe the government will care when thousands are unemployed and everyone has to sign-on. There is no future for people in the play centre business at the moment.

"I've had two claims in 15 years so why would my insurance go up so high?

Other play centre owners who have had no claims against them say they are "living in fear" as "it can be the difference in getting a quote and not getting a quote."

Elaine Mullally opened Clown Around in Portarlington, Co Offaly in 2008 and has had no claims in 11 years of business, yet her insurance increased from €3,500 to €14,500.

King of Kings wrote: »

You are talking out your hole.
It cant be profitable as you given they are closing due to costs. Your statment makes no sense.

Any business increases their profits by reducing costs. If reducing costs means putting children’s safety at risk, then accidents won’t just happen, they will be caused by negligence on the part of the business owner. Therefore, it is the business owner who wants to increase their profits is ultimately responsible for rising insurance costs being applied to the industry as a whole.

Granted I cant vouch for all play centres but the ones ive been in were fine. I've been in quite a few.

Any I’ve been in were fine too, primarily because at least my child didn’t injure themselves on any of the equipment. However that simply means my child wasn’t injured, it doesn’t mean they weren’t at risk of injury, and they could have been injured as I was able to observe plenty that would give a health and safety inspector cause for concern.

The issue here is that accidents happen esp with kids but for some reason a lot of accidents seem to result in not just finiancial rewards but significants rewards.

Sure these places are businesses but they offer great services to the community.

If you cant see that there is something wrong with the current situation...then you are either blind or just a crank on a wind-up.

The issue here is really that accidents are caused, as a result of negligence on the part of the business owner, in circumstances which often could have been foreseen (that’s why these claims are often successful and result in significant financial rewards) and prevented. I’m not denying that these places offer a great service to the community, but I’m not forgetting the fact that they also have an obligation to the public when they’re offering their services, to ensure the safety of their patrons.

I can see that there’s plenty wrong with the situation alright - business owners cribbing that they’re facing the same issues every business owner faces when they’re not making the same profits they were able to previously due to their own prioritising cutting costs and increasing profits over their patrons safety, and then cribbing when the inevitable rise in their insurance costs happens. The people who are actually to blame are themselves and the members of their own lobby group.

Parents will have to bring their kids out to parks now, no more throwing them into play centres. It’s outrageous!

Feel sorry for the owners of these centres, their customers are looking for easy money.

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.

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: »

I’m posting in good faith.

No, you are not.

Have you read the article yet?

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

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.

Can you show some proof of this?

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.

Is that you, End of the Road?

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.

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: »

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.

What do you reasonably expect a business to do in cases like the below?
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/girl-who-injured-lip-in-dublin-creche-awarded-30-000-1.3649064


Or Donegal County Council in the case below?
https://www.personalinjuryireland.ie/news/category/child-injuries-ireland/
In fact the above has a long list of personal injury claims, I honestly dont think all of them were caused by a lack of health and safety do you?
That site look like complete vultures BTW, literally advertising an opportunity for free money for anyone with any kind of accident.

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.

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.

I think you’re taking me up all wrong on this one. Neither they nor I am offering our services to the public, and are therefore not required to have insurance to cover any potential liability for injuries to people in our own homes.

This nonsense ends when people offering their services to the public ensure that the services they offer to the public are not a risk to their health. To that end they should implement adequate health and safety standards to reduce their potential liability which could end up in seeing them have to close down their business.

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?

While politicans have huffed and puffed on this issue for far to long with no action taken the judiciary should not be exempt from blame. I have seen PI claims where the amounts given out by judges is absolutely farcial and this only adds to the problems. Remember the number of proven bogus claims is only a small fraction of the sucessful bogus claims and herein lies the problem.

I was involved in cases that were settled simply because the judge was known to be 'Plaintiff friendly'! Justice how are ya. Many cases are settled simply because the risk of fighting them is financially to high.

And then throw in "the 1% rule" - if a claimant takes a case and can prove that the defendant was at least 1% liable then the defendant pays all costs. Another incredible deterrent to fighting cases. Even when insurers win cases they typically have no chance of ever recovering their fees and judges will often award liability of 10% against the insurer just to be certain all the legal people get paid. When insurers loose they loose and when they win they loose.

I don't work for or have any connection to any insurer and never have but having worked in a related industry I have huge sympathy for insurers, they are in a loose/loose situation. The main cause of the vibrant claims culture is a judiciary out of touch with the tax payers that support them and fully in touch with supporting their own legal industry.