Personal injury claims closing Playcentres

One eyed Jack · 28-03-2019 10:38AM

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.

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.

uck51js9zml2yt · 28-03-2019 10:39AM

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 · 28-03-2019 10:41AM

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?

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 but nothing was done. 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.

meeeeh · 28-03-2019 10:48AM

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?

It's not just play centres. We are in completely different industry, we had no claims for years and suddenly it was almost impossible to get insurance.

The question is how many services you want curtailed because of excessive claims and huge insurance costs. It's not funny, we employ 15 people, wast majority would be primary earner in the family. It's not just about business profits.

One eyed Jack · 28-03-2019 10:51AM

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.

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!

Of course your assessment is based on nothing but visiting couple of play centres with your child and deciding that they are all negligent.

That’s not what my assessment is based upon, it’s based upon having a clue how insurance actually works -

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.

28-03-2019 10:55AM

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.

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.

meeeeh · 28-03-2019 10:56AM

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 -

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.

Edit: just to ad that among the posts in this thread I can see an ad from a company who process personal injury claims.

The Bishop Basher · 28-03-2019 10:57AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Are insurance companies too not genuine business owners who are trying to provide a service and make an honest living?

Insurance companies making an honest living

You have to be on a wind up.

One eyed Jack · 28-03-2019 11:05AM

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.

On that basis I agree, I’m not sure why you bothered getting involved either.

High payouts and high legal costs are of course the primary reason for high insurance costs in an industry where there is a higher risk of an insurance company having to cover higher legal costs and higher payouts, and insurance companies are still entitled to maximise their profits on top of that - the goal of every business should be to maximise their profits, and Play centres are no different - they are a business, not a charity, as the proprietors in that article are trying to portray themselves as.

One eyed Jack · 28-03-2019 11:11AM

[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.

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.

28-03-2019 11:17AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Here’s a novel idea

Not novel at all and is in fact implied in what I just wrote that rebutted your point.

My point is an injury does not automatically imply negligence. It only would imply negligence if we assume 100% ability on their behalf to prevent and forsee all injuries. That is a ridiculous nonsense expectation.

Negligence should be established. And that should be established by seeing if they met the minimum standards of care that we as a society put on their industry. And that very much already includes - as you suggest in this post - constantly reviewing and renewing and improving those policies - standards - and expectations in an informed and realistic way.

100% is the ideal not the reality though. And your "of course" implication that injury implies automatic negligence is a complete nonsense assertion.

For example many children die of accident and injury under the care of their parents all the time. It happens alas. We do not prosecute or pursue justice on all those parents under the assumption they must have been negligent however. Nor should we.

No - we realize accidents will happen and injury and death will occur - even under the purview of the most caring and helicoptering of parents. So what we do is _establish_ was negligence the cause. We do not assume it like you so readily do. Innocent until proven guilty is the core here. And if it is established to be the cause - then yes by all means bring justice down on those parents. Or those service providers.

But let us never assume it as some kind of knee jerk "of course" mantra like you did above.

killanena · 28-03-2019 11:17AM

One eyed Jack wrote:

Hereâ€™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 donâ€™t see why industries which provide their services for childrenâ€™s entertainment should be exempt from that expectation.

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.

The Bishop Basher · 28-03-2019 11:22AM

killanena wrote: »

you dont see parents claiming against GAA clubs when their child gets an injury.

Some have tried to sue for injuries while playing sport and thankfully they lost.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/south-dublin-student-loses-claim-over-hockey-injury-1.2908645

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/student-16-loses-action-over-fracture-sustained-doing-jump-in-pe-class-37747592.html

One thing I can never understand is why costs aren't routinely awarded against these greedy people.

They should be financially ruined for trying to scam us all out of money.

Cienciano · 28-03-2019 11:28AM

I think a lot of the blame is on judges paying out tens of thousands for any little bruise or bump.

This one sticks in my mind.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/dublin-girl-5-awarded-50-000-after-tripping-over-ikea-trolley-1.2967090

A 7mm cut. Check out 7mm on your ruler.

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.

Have anyone in the courtroom ever been in a shop? Obviously now.

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.

Jesus wept. It's no wonder these claims keep coming in.

28-03-2019 11:29AM

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.

There is an expectation that children won’t get seriously injured there is no expectation that children won’t pick up small injuries as part of their play and it’s is 100% impossible for any one or any business to prevent these so to be honest you are talking nonsense.

The issue is scum parents and compo culture.

meeeeh · 28-03-2019 11:31AM

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.

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...

tigerboon · 28-03-2019 11:32AM

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.

Are parents entitled to the expectation their child can run riot, risk free, for an hour along with a load of other kids in these places? If the equipment is manufactured to a safety standard and installed and laid out correctly there should be an acceptance of a certain risk.

irelandrover · 28-03-2019 11:33AM

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.

Fair enough if thats your opinion. I disagree.

One eyed Jack · 28-03-2019 11:36AM

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.

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.

Cienciano · 28-03-2019 11:42AM

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.

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 · 28-03-2019 11:45AM

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.

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 · 28-03-2019 11:50AM

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...

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

meeeeh · 28-03-2019 11:51AM

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.

It's often very little difference between responsible and irresponsible owners. And very often more dependent on who their customers are. I posted a link in one of previous posts to comparatively high pay outs in Ireland and increase in claims. Maybe businesses suddenly became a lot more negligent or maybe there is a snowball effect, people read about huge compensation someone got for scratching their toe and lodge their own claims. The whole industry needs to be reformed.

SAMTALK · 28-03-2019 11:51AM

A few years ago one of my kids got a bang on the head in one of these centres.
The covering over the bars had come away and exposed the bar, resulting in a whopper of a lump and a trip to A and E.

Thankfully all was ok and when we went back to the others in the centre the manager came over to us. I can tell you I could see the sweat rolling down his face in front of me.
I told him bar was exposed and he should recify this.

Did I contact a solicitor? No

Kids fall, kids get hurt.
Obviously there are extreme cases where a solicitor needs to be contacted but in our society it has gone beyond a joke where personal responsibility doesn't seem to come in to it

meeeeh · 28-03-2019 11:55AM

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.

And my point is that it's not just play centers who have issue getting insurance, but they will have a lot less chance of increasing turnover and operating profits to pay for high insurance cost. While engineering and building sector is growing at the moment. Just because the article is about play centers don't for a moment think that other sectors are not affected.

monkeybutter · 28-03-2019 11:55AM

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

Are you talking about the safepass is it?

Seriously?

if so you are talking out your hole

The issue is that Sports Centers and Play Zones and the like are already as safe as they should be, and yet they are still getting higher and higher insurance costs.

if you had spent any time with your imaginary kids there, you'd already know this

Ush1 · 28-03-2019 11:58AM

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

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

I'm sure the two kids will be delighted when I bring them to the park in cold weather with lashing rain and wind.:)

Elemonator · 28-03-2019 11:58AM

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.

Jesus, all of these happened to me. I could have retired early a wealthy man...

One eyed Jack · 28-03-2019 12:01PM

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

And when I played rugby and hurling in my youth, it didn’t cost my parents a cent, well, apart from the cost of diesel when my parents would bung myself, five brothers and anyone else who could fit, into the back of the Hiace to travel to matches around the country. We’d all tog out on the field with no protection and knock seven bells out of each other (well, the opposition at least, though fights breaking out in the dressing room weren’t uncommon if someone snapped a towel on your ass :pac:), and then we’d all go for taytos and orange in a smoke filled pub.

Nowadays, it’s quite different, and while €100 is great value and I wouldn’t consider it high either, it’s still more than it cost when sports and sporting bodies were a lot less concerned with children’s health and safety than they are obligated to be now by law.

volchitsa · 28-03-2019 12:01PM

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.

Personal injury claims closing Playcentres

Comments