Personal injury claims closing Playcentres

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

It's nice to see that in this changing world, nostalgia, at least, is still what it always was.

Being of the female persuasion I did Irish dancing not rugby or GAA but I remember we paid every week, so it certainly wasn't free. And why should it be? The teacher had to pay for a room and heating and made a living out of it.

Now maybe your rugby coaches were all unpaid volunteers, and maybe the field was provided for free by the county council, and maybe the grass cut itself or someone else paid, but very few of those things are actually free. Someone pays somewhere.

Earlier on you were comparing soft play centres to the construction industry, and now you want to compare them to volunteer-run sports that are generally heavily grant aided. You don't see a problem there?

Cienciano wrote: »

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

The Judge in that case didn't pay out anything.

He approved it.

You'll find in the vast majority of those cases either the insurance company or the business offered the settlement.

volchitsa wrote: »

It's nice to see that in this changing world, nostalgia, at least, is still what it always was.

Being of the female persuasion I did Irish dancing not rugby or GAA but I remember we paid every week, so it certainly wasn't free. And why should it be? The teacher had to pay for a room and heating and made a living out of it.

Now maybe your rugby coaches were all unpaid volunteers, and maybe the field was provided for free by the county council, and maybe the grass cut itself or someone else paid, but very few of those things are actually free. Someone pays somewhere.

Earlier on you were comparing soft play centres to the construction industry, and now you want to compare them to volunteer-run sports that are generally heavily grant aided. You don't see a problem there?

I’m clearly not of the female persuasion, but that didn’t prohibit me from participating in Irish dancing in my youth either, it was common that all children were taught Irish dancing in primary school, and my mother still has the medals and trophies I won which she displays proudly (much to my embarrassment ). That didn’t cost my parents a cent either as then I was bunged into the front of the dancing teachers Ford Fiesta and prayed she wouldn’t have to reach for the handbrake for any reason as I was sitting on it :pac:

But you’re right, someone does have to pay somewhere, and nowadays the costs of participating in any sort of extracurricular activity has to be borne by the parents. I know in some schools the teachers are so passionate about the children’s well-being that they pay for things out of their own pockets in the full knowledge that they aren’t likely to see it covered by the annual voluntary contribution (which seems to rise exponentially every year and very few parents feel obligated to pay it due to the word “voluntary”), and in the case of play centres - the obvious thing to do would be for the business to pass the increasing costs on to their customers - the parents. I don’t know how much they charge now, but when I used bring my child to play centres, the average cost was about €8 an hour. I didn’t bring him very often as I didn’t feel it was great value for money. The same principle applies to any business.

The only reason I made the comparison at all is because it evolved from a point made about children participating in GAA where the poster hadn’t heard of parents seeking compensation from sports clubs for injuries caused to their children, which, simply isn’t true. Even in an age where children are prohibited from participating in the sports unless they have the minimum protective wear, and still injuries are caused, which is why sports clubs have to raise their subscription costs to meet the hefty insurance costs.

meeeeh wrote: »

Yes because it's cheaper to settle than pay for a case to be heard in court.

I was responding to a poster who was blaming the Judge in that case.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m clearly not of the female persuasion, but that didn’t prohibit me from participating in Irish dancing in my youth either, it was common that all children were taught Irish dancing in primary school, and my mother still has the medals and trophies I won which she displays proudly (much to my embarrassment ). That didn’t cost my parents a cent either as then I was bunged into the front of the dancing teachers Ford Fiesta and prayed she wouldn’t have to reach for the handbrake for any reason as I was sitting on it :pac:

But you’re right, someone does have to pay somewhere, and nowadays the costs of participating in any sort of extracurricular activity has to be borne by the parents. I know in some schools the teachers are so passionate about the children’s well-being that they pay for things out of their own pockets in the full knowledge that they aren’t likely to see it covered by the annual voluntary contribution (which seems to rise exponentially every year and very few parents feel obligated to pay it due to the word “voluntary”), and in the case of play centres - the obvious thing to do would be for the business to pass the increasing costs on to their customers - the parents. I don’t know how much they charge now, but when I used bring my child to play centres, the average cost was about €8 an hour. I didn’t bring him very often as I didn’t feel it was great value for money. The same principle applies to any business.

The only reason I made the comparison at all is because it evolved from a point made about children participating in GAA where the poster hadn’t heard of parents seeking compensation from sports clubs for injuries caused to their children, which, simply isn’t true. Even in an age where children are prohibited from participating in the sports unless they have the minimum protective wear, and still injuries are caused, which is why sports clubs have to raise their subscription costs to meet the hefty insurance costs.

I don't understand your claim here : you didn't pay for Irish dancing?
We did. And everyone I know did. That's how it worked.

Now maybe you belong to famous line of scammers (I seem to remember something equally entitled from you in the past, about all the childminding and feeding your neighbours did for your family for free IIRC) but for most people having to pay for these things isn't just "nowadays", it was always the case except for grandparents.

And Irish dancing teachers made a living out of teaching, they did in Derry anyway. Pulling the brake if needed is neither here nor there.

Anyway. You seem to live in the most rose-tinted of rose-tinted pasts, so I'll leave you to it.

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't understand your claim here : you didn't pay for Irish dancing?
We did. And everyone I know did. That's how it worked.

Now maybe you belong to famous line of scammers (I seem to remember something equally entitled from you in the past, about all the childminding and feeding your neighbours did for your family for free IIRC) but for most people having to pay for these things isn't just "nowadays", it was always the case except for grandparents.

And Irish dancing teachers made a living out of teaching, they did in Derry anyway. Pulling the brake if needed is neither here nor there.

Anyway. You seem to live in the most rose tinted of rose-tinted pasts, so I'll leave you to it.

The quip about the handbrake was a demonstration of how child safety has changed since we were children. You wouldn’t see three people sitting abreast in the front of a car nowadays, again for safety reasons, because safety standards have improved, which means there is less chance of a child being ejected from the vehicle through the windscreen in the event of the car being suddenly impacted by another vehicle on the road.

It’s not that I belong to a famous line of scammers, in spite all indications to the contrary of coming from what would nowadays be considered a large family (and people here arguing that people should stop at two children, max three) and my parents ownership of a Hiace van, but yes, of course our neighbours paid for the food they fed us, and my parents didn’t pay them for child minding, and there was no scam. It wasn’t that bloody unusual then, and it’s still not unusual today that neighbours would mind their neighbours children while their parents were working.

irelandrover wrote: »

How could the playcenter in the article address the rising costs of their insurance? They had 1 accident to an adult in 5 years. They meet th eminimum standards as thats the standards that exist.

On their own, they could exceed the minimum standards that already exist, that would reduce their risk considerably. As part of this “lobby group”, the industry as a whole could reduce their insurance costs considerably by raising their health and safety standards that must be met in order to operate a business in that industry.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

On their own, they could exceed the minimum standards that already exist, that would reduce their risk considerably. As part of this “lobby group”, the industry as a whole could reduce their insurance costs considerably by raising their health and safety standards that must be met in order to operate a business in that industry.

So can we get some concrete suggestions. Should they require all children going in to have safe pass? You are operating with completely vague therms, you didn't provide one bit of factual information or one concrete solution.

Dubh Geannain wrote: »

You need to open your other eye Jack :pac:

People and kids need to learn they are responsible themselves sometimes, be thankful it wasn't worse and not go straight with one hand out pointing blame elsewhere and the other hand looking for a payout.

Insurance has Acts of God, there needs to be an Acts of clumsiness.

Not sure what difference that would make as I’m still blind in that eye regardless, and that still doesn’t prevent me from observing potential risks to children’s health and safety in places like play centres.

That being said, I completely agree with you that some people and children do need to learn to be responsible for themselves, but that doesn’t apply here where compensation is predicated upon proving that the play centre is found to be liable for the injuries caused to patrons of their services. It does apply of course in cases where an injury is the responsibility of either the child themselves, or the parent, but generally we don’t regard children as negligent, and so they aren’t generally held responsible for injuries to themselves when they are in the care of adults who are expected to know better.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What factual information do you want? Lower risks means lower costs to insure against potential liability. That’s not vague, it’s explicit.

How to lower risks. According to you they are risky and negligent. so how do they lower the risk? Does that mean no climbing frames, no big slides? what are your solutions. You claim expertise in the area. Offer us some.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not sure what difference that would make as I’m still blind in that eye regardless, and that still doesn’t prevent me from observing potential risks to children’s health and safety in places like play centres.

That being said, I completely agree with you that some people and children do need to learn to be responsible for themselves, but that doesn’t apply here where compensation is predicated upon proving that the play centre is found to be liable for the injuries caused to patrons of their services. It does apply of course in cases where an injury is the responsibility of either the child themselves, or the parent, but generally we don’t regard children as negligent, and so they aren’t generally held responsible for injuries to themselves when they are in the care of adults who are expected to know better.

I was thinking as I posted, that's not a literal name surely... Fair play though for seeing it in good jest.

Back on topic though, if the playcentre is found to be negligent the payouts and premiums are still not justified to the extents that they are.

Where the the responsibility lies for the current mess I'd say arbitrarily could be something like this for example -
Facilities 10 %
Genuine cases 10 %
Insurance industry and legal profession 60 % (merging together as they both like to blame each other)
Compo Culture Chancers 20 %

Most posters here instinctively know where the majority of the problems lie and the more inflated payouts occur and get publicised the more the culture gets reinforced.

You're picking on a small proportion of the bigger issue which I think people are taking umbrage with.

When the Troika reported on Ireland it recommend a swathe of changes to the legal profession. These got obliterated and nothing material became of it.
https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/lawyers-win-again-as-troika-admits-defeat-31221017.html

It is legally perilous and expensive to go after the puppeteers of the law.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What factual information do you want? Lower risks means lower costs to insure against potential liability. That’s not vague, it’s explicit.

Not when it comes to children, no.

So these children being minded for free, what level of risk is acceptable there?
Is the level lower because the parents aren't paying for it? Shouldn't careful parents insist on inspecting the houses where they are going to leave their children for zero Euros while out earning money for the next holiday to Florida themselves?

Personally I'd prefer to pay and be sure my kids were safe. But maybe that's just me.

Or could it be that you know well that this soft play thing isn't about actual safety really, and that the children are as safe as active children can be when not sat in front of a computer - and certainly as safe or safer than they would be when left in the care of random neighbours who will let them out to play in the street because you know, they're not being paid to provide an officially inspected play area or anything?

Kayleigh Tart Tonsillectomy wrote: »

You must be living in a cave if you think payouts are only given in reasonable cases. The vast majority of payouts are a joke and shouldn’t be paid, it’s rare you hear of a deserved payout.

It’s not living in a cave at all, it’s acknowledging that the Courts will determine liability and award costs accordingly in civil cases where the burden of proving liability is substantially lower than proving criminal liability.