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?

monkeybutter wrote: »

Are you talking about the safepass is it?

Seriously?

if so you are talking out your hole

No I’m not just talking about the safepass which is about as useful as Garda vetting, I’m talking about a whole range of health and safety measures which were introduced in the industry as a result of the injuries and fatalities caused by negligence in the industry on the part of employers who made significant profits directly as a result of their negligence.

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

They’re not though if children are still being injured, and one of the reasons why there are more children being injured in play centres is because there are more play centres where they receive injuries in, which leads to insurance companies revising the cost of providing insurance for that particular industry. I’ve spent time in them with my child and I’ve been able to see potential risks, where it wouldn’t cost the business anything to rectify the issue by simply changing procedures, they wouldn’t even have to employ extra staff to provide greater supervision, just implement procedures to reduce the risk of injuries caused to children who are there to enjoy their time, without their parents being stung with medical bills they weren’t expecting to have to pay for as a result of negligence on the part of the business owner.

Boggles

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.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They’re not though if children are still being injured.

But do you not understand that it’s it’s impossible to eliminate all injury risk?

It’s like trying to guarantee a child won’t get injured playing football. It’s impossible and by your assessment football and hurling clubs should be shut down as they can’t guarantee kids won’t get injured.

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.

Boggles wrote: »

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.

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

Boggles

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.

Kayleigh Tart Tonsillectomy wrote: »

But do you not understand that it’s it’s impossible to eliminate all injury risk?

It’s like trying to guarantee a child won’t get injured playing football. It’s impossible and by your assessment football and hurling clubs should be shut down as they can’t guarantee kids won’t get injured.

I do understand that it’s impossible to eliminate all injury risk, that’s why insurance exists - to cover the cost of liability caused by unexpected or unforeseen injury.

I’m not arguing that football or hurling clubs or even play centres should be shut down, I think they’re great to keep children healthy and active. I’m saying that play centre owners aren’t immune from the rising cost of providing insurance, and one of the ways in which they can address this, is to make play centres safer for children. When they can’t, or they refuse to, or they are unwilling to bear the cost of ensuring children’s safety, then I really don’t have an issue with them being unable to continue to operate as they always have done.

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.

is_that_so

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do understand that it’s impossible to eliminate all injury risk, that’s why insurance exists - to cover the cost of liability caused by unexpected or unforeseen injury.

I’m not arguing that football or hurling clubs or even play centres should be shut down, I think they’re great to keep children healthy and active. I’m saying that play centre owners aren’t immune from the rising cost of providing insurance, and one of the ways in which they can address this, is to make play centres safer for children. When they can’t, or they refuse to, or they are unwilling to bear the cost of ensuring children’s safety, then I really don’t have an issue with them being unable to continue to operate as they always have done.

That sounds like a combination of properly enforced Health and Safety regulations and insurance costs.
Insurance companies factor in risk and the risk of inordinately high payouts for very minor incidents in Ireland is very real. From such claims come high premiums no matter how well you run things.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do understand that it’s impossible to eliminate all injury risk, that’s why insurance exists - to cover the cost of liability caused by unexpected or unforeseen injury.

I’m not arguing that football or hurling clubs or even play centres should be shut down, I think they’re great to keep children healthy and active. I’m saying that play centre owners aren’t immune from the rising cost of providing insurance, and one of the ways in which they can address this, is to make play centres safer for children. When they can’t, or they refuse to, or they are unwilling to bear the cost of ensuring children’s safety, then I really don’t have an issue with them being unable to continue to operate as they always have done.

The simple fact is that people should not be making insurance claims for small injuries this alone would stop insurance costs rising and stop putting people out of business. Insurance companies are scum, but the people claiming for minor injuries are just as bad as the insurance companies.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/caveat-emptor-the-soaring-cost-of-legal-services-36222383.html

Boggles wrote: »

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

Yeah I know. My point is that there are huge issues around legal profession. Because it's so expensive to challenge claims people are getting away fleecing businesses or other motorists involved in accidents for ridiculous amounts.

The MPS also said it had been involved in cases where the award made was dwarfed by the legal fees charged.

"For example, in a recent case relating to a misdiagnosis of malignant sarcoma where damages settled at €100,000, legal costs of €268,885 were sought," said MPS director of claims policy Emma Hallinan. "In another case relating to a delayed diagnosis of osteoarthritis where damages settled at €17,500, legal costs of €46,159 were sought. This is simply not right."

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

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do understand that it’s impossible to eliminate all injury risk, that’s why insurance exists - to cover the cost of liability caused by unexpected or unforeseen injury.

I’m not arguing that football or hurling clubs or even play centres should be shut down, I think they’re great to keep children healthy and active. I’m saying that play centre owners aren’t immune from the rising cost of providing insurance, and one of the ways in which they can address this, is to make play centres safer for children. When they can’t, or they refuse to, or they are unwilling to bear the cost of ensuring children’s safety, then I really don’t have an issue with them being unable to continue to operate as they always have done.

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.

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.

Dubh Geannain

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.

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.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They’re not though if children are still being injured

Is there any acceptable level of risk in your world?

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.

meeeeh wrote: »

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.

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

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Is there any acceptable level of risk in your world?

Not when it comes to children, no.

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.

meeeeh wrote: »

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 bi slides? what are your solutions. You claim expertise in the area. Offer us some.

I never claimed expertise in the area? You claimed something about me in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, while suggesting that I had no evidence for my claims, in spite of the fact that children being injured in play centres is evidence that play centres can be a potential risk to children’s health and safety.

They lower their risks by observing and eliminating potential hazards before a child is injured. The reason compensation claims are paid out is because it is determined that whatever caused the child’s injury could have been foreseen and prevented. Compensation is unlikely to be paid out in circumstances where the risk of injury couldn’t have even reasonably been foreseen. It’s predicated on the fact that the risk of injury caused could have reasonably been foreseen and prevented if the hazard had been rectified so it didn’t present as a potential risk to a child’s safety.

Dubh Geannain

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: »

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.

And if a child gets injured while these neighbours are minding them for free, the parents will of course be looking for compensation?

Or what if the child breaks the neighbour's window while he's being minded by the neighbour? Or he injures one of their kids? Compensation?

You're all over the place here. I assume through sheer contrarianism, though a complete lack of self awareness is not to be entirely ruled out either.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They lower their risks by observing and eliminating potential hazards before a child is injured. The reason compensation claims are paid out is because it is determined that whatever caused the child’s injury could have been foreseen and prevented. Compensation is unlikely to be paid out in circumstances where the risk of injury couldn’t have even reasonably been foreseen. It’s predicated on the fact that the risk of injury caused could have reasonably been foreseen and prevented if the hazard had been rectified so it didn’t present as a potential risk to a child’s safety.

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.

volchitsa wrote: »

And if a child gets injured while these neighbours are minding them for free, the parents will of course be looking for compensation?

Or what if the child breaks the neighbour's window while he's being minded by the neighbour? Or he injures one of their kids? Compensation?

You're all over the place here. I assume through sheer contrarianism, though a complete lack of self awareness is not to be entirely ruled out either.

It would be more likely due to your attempt to conflate a businesses public liability with parental responsibility, but don’t let that stop you.

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?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It would be more likely due to your attempt to conflate a businesses public liability with parental responsibility, but don’t let that stop you.

You're the one who brought in free GAA matches as comparison.

And why should children's safety be less important in activities the parents are not paying for?

Either it's genuinely about children's safety or it's about scamming the businesses.

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.