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?
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?
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.
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.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Are they as a business not entitled to make a profit, or is there something else I’m missing? Play centres are entitled to make a profit too, and if they can cut costs by reducing the amount they have to pay in insurance costs by making their services safer for the people they are offering their services to and therefore reduce their potential liability, then that’s a win-win all round for everyone! That’s not what my assessment is based upon, it’s based upon having a clue how insurance actually works -
One eyed Jack wrote: » Are insurance companies too not genuine business owners who are trying to provide a service and make an honest living?
meeeeh wrote: » With respect you haven't got a clue what you are actually talking about. I said high payouts and legal cost are primary cause for high premiums. You claim insurances are entitled to a profit. I'm actually sorry I replied because there is no point arguing whith someone who has very strong opinions but very little knowledge of the subject they are talking about.
[Deleted User] wrote: » That "of course" does not hold at all. No environment can guarantee 100% freedom from injury short of a padded cell in an asylum and even then I would not say it is 100% guaranteed. Statistically injuries are going to happen no matter how much thought and planning goes into care. I think the failing in your rhetoric here centres therefore around the word "expectation". It sounds like your expectations are off. And consumers having unwarranted expectations is not a failing of a service provider.Anyone using any facility should go in with the expectation that someone somewhere will eventually be injured and it can be anyone at any time. If negligence can be shown to have been the cause of an injury - then by all means put that on the service provider. But the assertion that an injury automatically implies negligence as some kind of "of course" is as much unwarranted nonsense as your previous complete misuse of statistics above. Negligence should be established not assumed.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Here’s a novel idea
One eyed Jack wrote: Here’s a novel idea - how about reducing the potential risk to people who use the service by increasing health and safety standards, as has been done in many industries such as the construction industry? I don’t see why industries which provide their services for children’s entertainment should be exempt from that expectation.
killanena wrote: » you dont see parents claiming against GAA clubs when their child gets an injury.
It was further claimed there was an alleged failure to maintain clear access along the aisles for customers using the premises and an alleged failure to properly supervise and control the location of trolleys and stock.
Approving a total award of €50,800, Mr Justice Kevin Cross said €200 could be paid out immediately for the little girl who celebrated her fifth birthday Tuesday.
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. The question when it comes before a Court of Law is whether or not the business can be held liable for their negligence. In cases where the business are judged to have been liable for the injury caused to the child, then the business is forced to pay compensation. This means the cost of providing insurance to that type of industry, rises, to provide for the increased risk of claims against business owners in that particular industry.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Here’s a novel idea - how about reducing the potential risk to people who use the service by increasing health and safety standards, as has been done in many industries such as the construction industry? I don’t see why industries which provide their services for children’s entertainment should be exempt from that expectation.
killanena wrote: » Anything that involves physical activity has a risk for personal injury.. Sports for example, you dont see parents claiming against GAA clubs when their child gets an injury. As long as these play centres adhere to the required safety measures set out for them, they shouldn't have to fear injury claims against them.
One eyed Jack wrote: » You might not, but I have certainly seen parents seeking compensation from sports clubs liable for injuries to their children from playing sports, it’s one of the reasons the costs of involving their children in sports is so high for parents nowadays, because insurance costs are high for the clubs. It’s also why clubs will insist that children are not permitted to participate in the sport without the required safety and protective equipment, and why the rules of sports have changed to prevent injuries that would have occurred in the past, from occurring now, such as insisting that children wear protective headgear to prevent head injuries. I disagree that as long as play centres adhere to the required safety standards set out for them, they shouldn’t have to fear injury claims made against them. That’s complacency. Any industry or business should always be aware of any potential risks to both their employees and their customers health and safety. Health and safety standards are a minimum requirement by law of operating their business.
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.
meeeeh wrote: » We are not in construction industry but we do work in similar type of industry and have to work to same safety standards. We had issues getting insurance because insurers stopped offering cover. Even better we were informed by our insurer about that 3 days before cover was out despite sending out application a month in advance. I process the applications for covers, I know how much more information and certs I have to provide, I can see how much excess increased and how much more we pay for premiums.So tell me what exactly safety standards play centers don't have that construction has? Or is it again just a case of empty vessel...
volchitsa wrote: » Neverthless, properly calculated insurance should ensure that the dangerous businesses cannot afford insurance without penalising the careful ones to an unaffordable extent. The only reason that a respectable business owner should find their insurance has multiplied several times over in a short period would be if past rates has been unsustainably low, because the activities themselves were so dangerous. I wonder how much it costs to run a diving centre? Now that's a dangerous activity. Soft play areas? Not so much.
One eyed Jack wrote: » My point was that the construction industry has had to improve health and safety standards due to the increasing risk of injuries caused by poor health and safety standards. It’s the same for any business whether it’s providing entertainment centres for children, or serving coffee in McDonalds. Different minimum health and safety standards will apply depending upon the risk factors involved, but they are a minimum standard, and meeting them doesn’t entirely mitigate a businesses potential liability against compensation claims due to injuries caused to members of the public as a result of availing of their service.
One eyed Jack wrote: » My point was that the construction industry has had to improve health and safety standards due to the increasing risk of injuries caused by poor health and safety standards. It’s the same for any business whether it’s providing entertainment centres for children, or serving coffee in McDonalds. Different minimum health and safety standards will apply depending upon the risk factors involved, but they are a minimum standard, and meeting them doesn’t entirely mitigate a businesses potential liability against compensation claims due to injuries caused to members of the public as a result of availing of their service. Curiously enough the origins of insurance came about as a result of compensating shipping owners as a result of losses of their cargo when their ships were emptied by pirates. In a sense, insurance developed as a result of empty vessels that made no noise :pac:History of Insurance
Fr_Dougal wrote: » Parents will have to bring their kids out to parks now, no more throwing them into play centres. It’s outrageous!
Rennaws wrote: » You are having a laugh.. I know of 2 cases where the parents received massive payouts. In one case the child put his arm through a window and lacerated it. His fault. Not the school or the window. In the second case the child fell while running at playtime and chipped a baby tooth as many of us did when we were children. Both received very significant payouts and one family has recently returned from their "trip of a lifetime to Florida" on the proceeds. Very proud about it they were too. We can't rely on the government or the legal and insurance industries to sort this because they won't bite off the hand that feeds them. The less greedy among us do need to start treating these people like the social pariah's they are though. They're just leeches feeding off the rest of us. Greedy Scum.
Cienciano wrote: » The costs of playing sports is not high for parents. I have 2 kids in a rugby club. €60 for a year for the 2 of them. Not sure about other clubs, but most in my area are under €100 for a year for 2 which is great value and I definitely wouldn't consider that high
volchitsa wrote: » I suspect (no evidence except the mentions above that companies with very few claims being hit by absolutely massive rises) about it's as much about abuses by the insurance companies as the alleged abuses by parents. To borrow from the words of Mandy Rice Davies, (the insurance companies) would say that wouldn't they.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b605825002726fa398519aca553ff0db.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b1975299c8e5d4897a60061c4f145b7.svg)
