Personal injury claims closing Playcentres

xckjoo · 28-03-2019 06:05PM

Kayleigh Tart Tonsillectomy wrote: »

No running? Come on how can kids play if they can’t run. I’ve never heard of a school in Ireland banning running in the play ground, it’s a crazy concept.

He's right about the banning running in schools unfortunately

. But not why it's banned.

Ush1 · 28-03-2019 06:12PM

Even if you ban running, it's not like a kid has ever broken any rules ever so yeah, 100% risk free.

volchitsa · 28-03-2019 06:18PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Even if you ban running, it's not like a kid has ever broken any rules ever so yeah, 100% risk free.

We're all bad parents, I gather, for not having taken up that remote control button that was offered before you leave the maternity. :O

kildare lad · 28-03-2019 06:28PM

I watched a programme on compo culture in England a few years ago. A primary school have to cancel their sports day because they held an adults egg and spoon race and some scrubber fell during the race, broke their wrist and sued the school. no more sports day for the kids. Irelands payout are way higher than anywhere in Europe, id blame the judges and the parasitic lawyers for the problem. Didnt a women sue and win her case a few weeks ago cos she cut herself with glass . Then she sued for the emotional damage that her 18month old child seen her covered in blood after it. She won that too.

jmreire · 28-03-2019 06:28PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

"We're a vital resource for the area and it's a safe environment for kids to come and have fun in.

...

People rely on play centres and the government just doesn't seem to care."

One would be forgiven for thinking from the way she’s talking that they’re running a non-profit charity, not a business. They’re running a business, and an incredibly profitable one at that, and it’s because these places aren’t safe for children that their insurance is skyrocketing in recent years - precisely because they’re considered a greater risk to provide insurance for than before, because of the number of incidents that happen on their premises.

Rising insurance costs would be an issue for any business, not just the play centre industry, which if they all closed down in the morning, parents would simply find some other way to occupy and entertain their children.

Play centres are made as safe as it's humanly possible to make them....I'm pretty sure that you can't suddenly decide some morning that you will convert a room in your house and open a play school..... It's a little bit more complicated than that. ALL kids pick up scrapes and scratches, it's a normal part of growing up....what's not normal now though is the level of claims. And it's not just play school's... lot's of business's closing down due to insurance issues. Jobs lost, more people on social welfare, so in the end we all pay. On the one hand, we have the Government encouraging SMEs' startups, and on the other had, we have insurance claims closing them down. It's way past the time the liability law's were changed, or else we will find ourselves having to sign a disclaimer every time drop the kids off at playschool.

AudreyHepburn · 28-03-2019 06:28PM

I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again - we are a nation of greedy chancers and it’s slowly sucking the good out of life. You’d honestly be afraid to look at someone twice these days for fear of being sued.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Is it really that hard to accept that sometimes things go wrong through your own fault or through no one’s fault?

Do people actually enjoying destroying people’s lives and livelihoods?

ceadaoin. · 28-03-2019 06:31PM

There is nothing that is 100% safe, kids need to play and be active. Are people actually suggesting these type of places shouldn't exist?

I take my daughter to a trampoline place and a bouncy castle place regularly. To use it we sign a waiver which acknowledges the chance of injury and that the company are not liable, unless they have been negligent in the upkeep of equipment or whatever. Why can't something like that be implemented in Ireland?

She still gets to have fun, I keep an eye on her to make sure she isnt doing anything too dangerous and there are staff members doing the same. I accept there is a small chance of injury but the benefit of her having fun and getting exercise outweighs that for me. What's the alternative? Keeping kids at home in front of a screen all day? Even traditional parks and playgrounds carry some risk, should they be done away with too? Of course kids are going to fall and get scrapes and cuts, it's bizarre that people would try to hold others financially responsible for what is a normal part of life

jmreire · 28-03-2019 06:42PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again - we are a nation of greedy chancers and sucking it’s slowly the good out of life. You’d honestly be afraid to look at someone twice these days for fear of being sued.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Is it really that hard to accept that sometimes things go wrong through your own fault or through no one’s fault?

Do people actually enjoying destroying people’s lives and livelihoods?

The problem is, for the claimant, there is no downside.....false litigants will not or rarely face any penalty for making spurious claims... no matter how crazy or improbable their claim might be. Until such time that legal profession face serious risk of not being paid, will they become more selective in the cases that they take on. Same for the medical side....losing a few days off work because they have to attend a claims case, where they may be challenged might make them more selective too in their assessments. But while the law remains as it is.. the compo gravy train will stay running.

retro:electro · 28-03-2019 06:44PM

I was injured at a local carnival a when I was a child, not badly or anything but enough for there to be blood drawn and a visit to the doctor. The guy running the carnival visited me afterwards and gave me a blanket and a cheque for €100. Me and my mam couldn’t get over how nice he was lol, little did we know he was probably out in a sweat thinking we would sue, but the thought never even entered our heads.

Personally a minor accident in a play centre is not something I could ever sue over. Kids by their very nature are accident prone and unless we all go around in padded hazmat suits, minor injuries are to be expected. I would be thanking my lucky stars that I have a healthy child to begin with who is sprightly and has the ability to run around in the first place, instead of being a massive drain on the industry and the reason we have to pay through the nose. Not to mention that not every accident that happens is through the fault of another.

I think there’s definetly a cohort of people who feel somewhat “entitled” to claim because “sure ament I paying through the nose for insurance myself. I’m getting back what I’m owed”, mentality. Not realising that it’s this standard of thinking exactly that has insurance through the roof and the rest of us who aren’t chancers screwed over year after year when renewal comes around.

One eyed Jack · 28-03-2019 07:19PM

xckjoo wrote: »

It's actually to reduce the risk of litigation, not protect the child, and it potentially has the opposite effect. There's increasing evidence that kids are missing out on learning how to fall while young and bouncy and then sustaining more serious injuries in later life. And that's before you get into issues like missing out on play learning and burning off the excess energy before they have to sit in a class again. Oh and obesity. Far greater risk of that having long term effects on a persons safety. Harder to be sued for though.

That would be a lovely theory, if it didn’t completely miss the point of insurance. It didn’t miss my attention either that you suggested such childcare protection policies could potentially have the opposite effect while talking about the reasons why people take out insurance in the first place, and why schools offer parents the opportunity to take out insurance for their children for the princely sum of €8 for the school year.

As for the idea that children are missing out on learning how to fall while young and bouncy, as many times as I’ve witnessed a child fall in the school yard, I’ve yet to see one that could bounce on tarmacadam. If they were unfortunately coordinated, falling on tarmacadam wasn’t going to toughen them up. See my earlier example of children who thought it was a good idea at the time to play chicken with oncoming traffic - it’s a good lesson in physics though, particularly in the laws of motion and density - the child comes off the worst of it each and every single time.

Potential issues such as burning off excess energy and the potential risks of obesity would generally be addressed in PE if there were the funds to afford PE equipment, which in many schools there isn’t, let alone room in the timetable to have them run in a uniform fashion around a field. The simple fact is that due to their sedentary lifestyles which are outside the control of the school, it’s more difficult for the school to implement PE when most of the children are coming in with notes from their parents to excuse them from PE. Not a whole lot the school can do in those circumstances when the teachers would only love the children to have the opportunity to burn off the excess energy they have in the classroom. Some teachers are able to handle the more energetic students, and some teachers aren’t. It’s ultimately the responsibility of their parents in those circumstances to decide what decisions they feel are in their children’s best interests, not the school.

jmreire · 28-03-2019 07:35PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

"why schools offer parents the opportunity to take out insurance for their children for the princely sum of €8 for the school year."

That's the first that I have heard about this kind of insurance..which is not any reflection on the poster...genuinely, I was unaware of it. But assuming its available, how does it impact the " compulsory" insurance?

volchitsa · 28-03-2019 07:38PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That would be a lovely theory, if it didn’t completely miss the point of insurance. It didn’t miss my attention either that you suggested such childcare protection policies could potentially have the opposite effect while talking about the reasons why people take out insurance in the first place, and why schools offer parents the opportunity to take out insurance for their children for the princely sum of €8 for the school year.

As for the idea that children are missing out on learning how to fall while young and bouncy, as many times as I’ve witnessed a child fall in the school yard, I’ve yet to see one that could bounce on tarmacadam. If they were unfortunately coordinated, falling on tarmacadam wasn’t going to toughen them up. See my earlier example of children who thought it was a good idea at the time to play chicken with oncoming traffic - it’s a good lesson in physics though, particularly in the laws of motion and density - the child comes off the worst of it each and every single time.

Potential issues such as burning off excess energy and the potential risks of obesity would generally be addressed in PE if there were the funds to afford PE equipment, which in many schools there isn’t, let alone room in the timetable to have them run in a uniform fashion around a field. The simple fact is that due to their sedentary lifestyles which are outside the control of the school, it’s more difficult for the school to implement PE when most of the children are coming in with notes from their parents to excuse them from PE. Not a whole lot the school can do in those circumstances when the teachers would only love the children to have the opportunity to burn off the excess energy they have in the classroom. Some teachers are able to handle the more energetic students, and some teachers aren’t. It’s ultimately the responsibility of their parents in those circumstances to decide what decisions they feel are in their children’s best interests, not the school.

Lol. Cos nobody ever got injured in a PE class? And how many hrs would they need to spend "running around a field in a uniform fashion" (my own will to live drains away when I think of that being kids' only or main experience of physical activity)

And as I suggested above, sports classes like athletes or PE class can't ever replace free play which is essential for children's mental as well as physical well being.

BTW, I don't agree that obesity is a potential problem, it's a very real one in Ireland.

ceadaoin. · 28-03-2019 07:41PM

I'm not quoting that whole thing just to question one point but "most" children are coming in with notes to not do PE? Really?

Also is PE still only once a week? How is that in any way adequate to meet the exercise needs of children? There obviously is a need for places that parents can take their kids to for unstructured physical activity, previously known as "playing"

SEPT 23 1989 · 28-03-2019 07:47PM

If kids don't have a tumble and get hurt how are they meant to learn?

B.A._Baracus · 28-03-2019 07:50PM

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

We like to think we’re a great nation.

But we’re full of scammers, chancers, thieves, and in general very selfish people.

I would go as far and say it's people in general and all over. From Dublin to Dubai.

People are closet assholes. That being on the surface you will hear about morals, being decent etc. All lies. When it comes down to it, people are Dicks.
The gas thing is tho "it" (when it comes down to) can be something as trivial as wanting that last loaf of bread on the shelf. Plenty of more else where. But no. They want it over you.

Took me many years to realise that people are selfish and all about what they get. Me me me. But the real messed up thing is you have to be the same yourself. Nice guys finish last.

Trigger Happy · 28-03-2019 07:50PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

If kids don't have a tumble and get hurt how are they meant to learn?

They learn how to sue and be selfish instead.

One eyed Jack · 28-03-2019 07:56PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I'm not quoting that whole thing just to question one point but "most" children are coming in with notes to not do PE? Really?

Also is PE still only once a week? How is that in any way adequate to meet the exercise needs of children? There obviously is a need for places that parents can take their kids to for unstructured physical activity, previously known as "playing"

True, I should have been more specific - some children’s parents don’t even bother with a note, and the teachers are reluctant to force the children to participate when they don’t want to, generally for fear of the wrath of an aggrieved parent.

PE would generally be once a week (only in a minority of schools really is there no opportunity made for the children to do PE), and you’re right, it’s completely inadequate for healthy active children. The other issue though as volchista does point out is that a free exercise such as running around a field in a uniform fashion can be incredibly boring for some children, and given that swimming can cost the school €1,400 a year, with parents who aren’t willing to make any contribution towards costs, activities like swimming are a non-runner (no pun intended). There have also been issues with boys being conscious about their bodies, and girls not so much... if you catch my drift? Girls wanted to wear bikinis, boys wanted to wear tee-shirts.

I know, I was surprised it wasn’t the reverse either, but again of course the cost of insurance is what it comes down to as to what activities can or cannot be offered by the school. The DOE covers some of the funding, but there is often still a shortfall unless it’s made up for by the parents who are generally unwilling to invest in their children’s education.

ron jambo · 28-03-2019 08:10PM

Imagine god forbid your kid played Hurling.:eek:

freshpopcorn · 28-03-2019 08:14PM

Schools are doing more exercise than ever before between the active flag/active week, water flag, RSA doing cycling, there's also a lot more sports being played apart from GAA.

.

freshpopcorn · 28-03-2019 08:14PM

They are always parents out there trying to make a quick buck when a child a minor accident.
They'd nearly go to the solicitors office before a doctor.
Business owners know they are screwed in advance with certain families. Same goes with clubs, schools,etc. Places dread taking a booking off some people.
They'll probably eventually turn on there solicitors and sue them when there little cashmachines falls in the solicitors office.

irishgeo · 28-03-2019 08:15PM

the difference between us and the yanks in regards to compo is we dont have the lawyers on billboards or tv.

volchitsa · 28-03-2019 08:20PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

True, I should have been more specific - some children’s parents don’t even bother with a note, and the teachers are reluctant to force the children to participate when they don’t want to, generally for fear of the wrath of an aggrieved parent.

PE would generally be once a week (only in a minority of schools really is there no opportunity made for the children to do PE), and you’re right, it’s completely inadequate for healthy active children. The other issue though as volchista does point out is that a free exercise such as running around a field in a uniform fashion can be incredibly boring for some children, and given that swimming can cost the school €1,400 a year, with parents who aren’t willing to make any contribution towards costs, activities like swimming are a non-runner (no pun intended). There have also been issues with boys being conscious about their bodies, and girls not so much... if you catch my drift? Girls wanted to wear bikinis, boys wanted to wear tee-shirts.

I know, I was surprised it wasn’t the reverse either, but again of course the cost of insurance is what it comes down to as to what activities can or cannot be offered by the school. The DOE covers some of the funding, but there is often still a shortfall unless it’s made up for by the parents who are generally unwilling to invest in their children’s education.

That's not what I said at all. It's not spending more money that is needed, quite the opposite. It's free unstructured play that they need, and hours of it.

And the equivalent number of hours "of running uniformly round a field" needed for playing out in the street or even a couple of hours of climbing frame and running around in an age-appropriate play centre would mean extending the school day and paying more teachers to supervise - all stuff that has to be paid for, even though you seem to think they should all do it for free.

And most importantly in this context, children will still be injured. So what do you do then? Take the school to court for that too?

SEPT 23 1989 · 28-03-2019 08:21PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

They are always parents out there trying to make a quick buck when a child a minor accident.
They'd nearly go to the solicitors office before a doctor.
Business owners know they are screwed in advance with certain families. Same goes with clubs, schools,etc. Places dread taking a booking off some people.
They'll probably eventually turn on there solicitors and sue them when there little cashmachines falls in the solicitors office.

Bad money bad luck

suicide_circus · 28-03-2019 08:35PM

the people who take this cases, the ambulance chasers who represent them and the judges who perpetuate this greed with obscene payouts t are scum. There is no other word for them, pure scum.

but sometimes there is a good news story

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/men-behind-failed-60000-injury-claims-concocted-plan-to-win-the-lotto-37961429.html

meeeeh · 28-03-2019 08:36PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

True, I should have been more specific - some children’s parents don’t even bother with a note, and the teachers are reluctant to force the children to participate when they don’t want to, generally for fear of the wrath of an aggrieved parent.

PE would generally be once a week (only in a minority of schools really is there no opportunity made for the children to do PE), and you’re right, it’s completely inadequate for healthy active children. The other issue though as volchista does point out is that a free exercise such as running around a field in a uniform fashion can be incredibly boring for some children, and given that swimming can cost the school €1,400 a year, with parents who aren’t willing to make any contribution towards costs, activities like swimming are a non-runner (no pun intended). There have also been issues with boys being conscious about their bodies, and girls not so much... if you catch my drift? Girls wanted to wear bikinis, boys wanted to wear tee-shirts.

I know, I was surprised it wasn’t the reverse either, but again of course the cost of insurance is what it comes down to as to what activities can or cannot be offered by the school. The DOE covers some of the funding, but there is often still a shortfall unless it’s made up for by the parents who are generally unwilling to invest in their children’s education.

Well then my kids are lucky. They have pe twice per week and nobody in class skips it. A bit more boisterous younger kids also run off their energy for 15 minutes in the morning so they are less disruptive in the class. Swimming lessons are organised and most of the kids go to them. We have dd organised by the school and you sign up for the payment when you confirm the attendance. School also allows running in the yard. And so they should.

One eyed Jack · 28-03-2019 08:44PM

volchitsa wrote: »

That's not what I said at all. It's not spending more money that is needed, quite the opposite. It's free unstructured play that they need, and hours of it.

I seem to have misinterpreted what you meant by this then, wasn’t my intention -

volchitsa wrote: »

And how many hrs would they need to spend "running around a field in a uniform fashion" (my own will to live drains away when I think of that being kids' only or main experience of physical activity)

I disagree that spending more money isn’t needed. The funding for an appropriate standard of PE just isn’t coming from the DOE, much less the ability for teachers to schedule PE during the school day and so they often have no choice but to encourage the children to engage in sports outside of school hours for which the teachers themselves aren’t getting paid. It is literally entirely voluntary on their part as the DOE won’t pay for it, and the parents are often reluctant to pay for it or help out in any way (and if a parent wants to volunteer, they often have to be Garda vetted and a lot of parents simply see that as an insult).

And the equivalent number of hours "of running uniformly round a field" needed for playing out in the street or even a couple of hours of climbing frame and running around in an age-appropriate play centre would mean extending the school day and paying more teachers to supervise - all stuff that has to be paid for, even though you seem to think they should all do it for free.

See above.

And most importantly in this context, children will still be injured. So what do you do then? Take the school to court for that too?

It’s not a question of what I personally would or wouldn’t do in those circumstances, that’s why it benefits the school to have insurance - in case a child is injured and the parent hasn’t availed of the insurance I mentioned earlier, then the school could be liable for the medical costs incurred by the child’s injury. There’s often no need to take the Board of Management of the school to Court as most parents, including myself, will of course be relieved that the child makes a full recovery, but if it were circumstances where the medical and legal expenses were costs that I couldn’t cover, and the Board of Management could be found liable for costs, then I might just be more inclined to seek compensation for my child’s injuries to cover the medical and legal costs incurred. Any Board of Management is grateful in those circumstances that they are required by law to be insured.

volchitsa · 28-03-2019 08:45PM

meeeeh wrote: »

Well then my kids are lucky. They have pe twice per week and nobody in class skips it. A bit more boisterous younger kids also run off their energy for 15 minutes in the morning so they are less disruptive in the class. Swimming lessons are organised and most of the kids go to them. We have dd organised by the school and you sign up for the payment when you confirm the attendance. School also allows running in the yard. And so they should.

None of Jack's claims are backed up by anything apparently. I think it's just about him not backing down, he's contradicted himself several times about childcare and safety requirements. Despite wanting nothing less than a literally impossible zero risk for play centres it's still fine to have neighbours mind your children for no payment at all, because you know them well enough apparently.

Of course lots of people thought they "knew" people very well who turned out to be actual child abusers, so I'm not sure how good a measure that is as to whether they have the same obsession about allowing kids zero risk as Jack appears to!

And he still hasn't explained what any of his proposals about school sports have to do with excessive insurance costs for play centres. He seems to imagine PE is a zero risk activity. One of my sons injured his neck very badly doing gymnastics at school. Should I have sued? I didn't.

2011abc · 28-03-2019 08:46PM

What the heck is with all the ‘Oh sure we’re awful chances / compo culture ‘ etc posts ?!Clearly the greedy insurance companies are behind this ( ably abetted by lawyers )

One eyed Jack · 28-03-2019 08:53PM

volchitsa wrote: »

None of Jack's claims are backed up by anything apparently. I think it's just about him not backing down, he's contradicted himself several times about childcare and safety requirements. Despite wanting nothing less than a literally impossible zero risk for play centres it's still fine to have neighbours mind your children for no payment at all, because you know them well enough apparently.

Of course lots of people thought they "knew" people very well who turned out to be actual child abusers, so I'm not sure how good a measure that is as to whether they have the same obsession about allowing kids zero risk as Jack appears to!

And he still hasn't explained what any of his proposals about school sports have to do with excessive insurance costs for play centres. He seems to imagine PE is a zero risk activity. One of my sons injured his neck very badly doing gymnastics at school. Should I have sued? I didn't.

How the hell is it a contradiction to say that different factors apply in different circumstances? I’ve already pointed out to you that business owners do not have the same responsibilities as as parents, and vice versa, and same goes for any potential liability!

You didn’t sue the for your child’s injury, but so what? What’s that got to do with anyone else’s decision in their circumstances? They shouldn’t sue because you didn’t sue? Erm, I’m not sure what you’re looking for if I’m being honest, it’s not something I think is worthy of any congratulations. It’s entirely your own business. In the same way it would be another person’s business and entirely their responsibility if they decided to sue in the same circumstances.

volchitsa · 28-03-2019 08:53PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I seem to have misinterpreted what you meant by this then, wasn’t my intention -

Yeah you missed where I said that the idea that that was their only or main experience of it. What's hard to get about that?

Also that i mentioned that they needed free play, not regimented running.
And indeed I didn't say, but since you then assumed I was saying they needed more expensive activities, that you a mistake if you think school PE is free. It isn't. Teachers are well paid. School sports fields are expensive for a school to own and maintain. The time needed from the school day to do sports in school time means extra hours when the school is opened, more heating, more cleaning etc etc. And you still haven't mentioned what should happen differently when kids get injured doing sports in school rather than in a play centre - since that's where this began.

I disagree that spending more money isn’t needed.

That's not what I said either. We weren't discussing whether schools needed more money as an absolute so do try not to wander off down other paths just because you've made an eejit of yourself, there a good chap.

On topic, the only question is, do you think that schools have (or could have) a zero risk policy for school sports activities? How would you see that working?

The funding for an appropriate standard of PE just isn’t coming from the DOE, much less the ability for teachers to schedule PE during the school day and so they often have no choice but to encourage the children to engage in sports outside of school hours for which the teachers themselves aren’t getting paid. It is literally entirely voluntary on their part as the DOE won’t pay for it, and the parents are often reluctant to pay for it or help out in any way (and if a parent wants to volunteer, they often have to be Garda vetted and a lot of parents simply see that as an insult).

See above.

It’s not a question of what I personally would or wouldn’t do in those circumstances, that’s why it benefits the school to have insurance - in case a child is injured and the parent hasn’t availed of the insurance I mentioned earlier, then the school could be liable for the medical costs incurred by the child’s injury. There’s often no need to take the Board of Management of the school to Court as most parents, including myself, will of course be relieved that the child makes a full recovery, but if it were circumstances where the medical and legal expenses were costs that I couldn’t cover, and the Board of Management could be found liable for costs, then I might just be more inclined to seek compensation for my child’s injuries to cover the medical and legal costs incurred. Any Board of Management is grateful in those circumstances that they are required by law to be insured.

Spoofing. Because all irrelevant to the actual issue in the thread which is about whether insurance rates due to personal injury claims closing private companies down.

Personal injury claims closing Playcentres

Comments