Personal injury claims closing Playcentres

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

It's relevant because you claimed that schools were preferable places for children to do sport in, and I'm asking why you think that. Do you think they're perfectly safe? They aren't, but that's because there is no such thing as zero risk for physical activity, contrary to your claim.

And no, why would I need praise from you or anyone here. The point is it happened, that's all. Because gymnastics is a dangerous sport. By your logic, it should not even be possible, or else you are applying different rules to schools as to private play centres. Why?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I misinterpreted what you meant the first time, but that time, it’s exactly what you said!

No clue what you mean here. You went off on some weird personal rant about parents not being willing to pay for swimming classes for children, and I have no idea how that related to my points. Now you're trying to tell me I'm wrong and that it was somehow relevant, but it wasn't. Can we keep at least vaguely on the topic here?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Second paragraph contradicts the first. This is clearly going nowhere when you’re telling me not to wander down other paths, then wander off down another path yourself, then tell me your own wandering down another path is irrelevant. How the fcuk is anyone supposed to keep up with that? I’m done trying tbh.

No it doesn't. You brought in schools as being suitable places for children to do sports in, but your suggestions as to how this would happen are impracticable even by your own admission.

And they still don't address the issue of how you would avoid children getting injured while playing or doing sport, which is, let us remember the only way in which school sports are relevant here.

If you can't answer that point - and it seems you can't - then your point about schools being suitable alternatives to play centres fails, and you should accept that.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We can try I suppose, which would make what you’ve written beneath it irrelevant to the discussion, which leaves us with this then from your earlier post -

Personal injury claims aren’t closing businesses down. Businesses close down because their proprietors are unwilling to spend the money required to reduce the risk to children’s health and safety while at the same time charging a premium rate for the use of their facilities. In those cases, I don’t have any issue whatsoever with a business which is established with the intent of providing entertainment for children closing down when they’re putting their own profits before children’s welfare.

More unfounded claims from you. You claimed that zero risk was possible when it self evidently isn't. That being so, any company that doesn't achieve the little impossible aim you set it is "putting their own profits before children’s welfare" - because they could spend 100% of their takings, never mind their profits, on safety and still have a child who gets injured.

Your example of supposedly zero risk policies actually included deaths among professional employees, yet you claim to think children can be stopped from ever getting even a scratch.

They can't, so all those places will never fulfill your requirements for safety.
That's a loss to children, and your solution to that is regimented running around a field - oh, and a rant about (other) parents.

Nah, it's still a pathetic argument.

Gone are the days of playgrounds with tarmacadam, broken glass and lots of laughs.

There wasn't a week that passed without someone falling off a swing and getting 4 stitches and wearing those 4 stitches into school as a badge of honour.

Even better status if you fell off the top of the monkey bars and hit every bar on the way down.

Oh it was great times, living on the edge and having a happy fearless childhood....

2011abc wrote: »

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 )

You do realize insurance companies do not benefit at all from people making extortionate and exaggerated claims? Quite the opposite in fact.

If anything they do all in their power to avoid having to pay such claims.

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.

Just because we didn't have things as children doesn't mean they aren't good facilities.

Some people seem to think only lazy parents bring their kids to these places. Some are and just want to sit with coffee for 2 hours, but most parents bring their kids there so that they can get good exercise on a rainy day, meet other kids and interact.

Many more people live in towns and cities these days than 20/30 years ago. Where else can my 1 year old learn skills like climbing etc safely?

I see too many little cotton wool wrapped brats these days who won't go on a swing or slide because they are afraid. These places give kids a bit of sense of adventure and not be afraid to have a tumble etc.

2011abc wrote: »

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 )

So it's someone else's fault people claim for injuries that were the fault of someone else. Someone should sue!!

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can’t see that happening any time soon tbh -

Solicitors against plan to cut injury awards

I’ll fully accept though they would say that

The bigger the awards the more reasonable the legal fees look in comparison

The legal profession, fraudulent claims and "soft" claims all play their part in rising premiums.

But none of that explains a 300% increase in 12 months.

The majority of that is the insurance industry acting the bollix towards what seems to have been pretty loyal customers.

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.

Nah. I understand the point of insurance. You just seem to be working under the assumption that if you're sued and insurance pays out (either settlement or in court) then that was the correct outcome. The world is a complex place.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

So your issue is that I used the word "bounce"? Apologies, didn't realise you took every word so literally but in hindsight it should have been obvious. I didn't actually mean that they're bouncy. Call it poetic license if you will. What I meant was they're less likely to get injured in a small fall than an adult. Which is true. They're smaller, lower to the ground, weigh less and are still growing. Some kids will remain uncoordinated but they might learn to walk instead of run or at least fall slightly better. They might never join the circus but it might stop them losing their teeth if they trip on their laces. Learning to fall is 100% a real thing. Learning through play is 100% a real thing. Dunno what you're on about with the traffic. Not voluntarily reading more of your waffle. Don't go running in it though. Although if you get hit you'd probably get a bit of money out of it so clearly the drivers would be at fault.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Not potential in the way you're interpreting it. Potential for each individual child but definite problem in their general population. "Handling" energetic students isn't just something you can do. The kids need an outlet for the energy. Telling them to sit quietly doesn't work. Trust me on this, I've one kid with a condition that gives him lots of excess energy. Not sure what any of the PE talk has to do with this beyond the utterly terrifying belief you seem to have that a single weekly PE class should be all that's needed to combat obesity.

meeeeh wrote: »

My suspicion would be that they expect more claims and don't want to insure in that area anymore. So they quote prohibitively high premium.

Is there any tangible evidence that there is more claims from this type of business compared to others? The 2 examples referenced would suggest not, but that of course is not an overall view. That said if the insurance industry were not so secretive and opened up their books we would have an idea

Seems to me that it was squarely the insurance industry that closed those businesses and it seems the owners frustration is solely with them.

They got the usual fob, of fraud, rising premiums, etc. But none that explains such a stark increase in such a short amount of time.

Something not right.

Boggles wrote: »

Is there any tangible evidence that there is more claims from this type of business compared to others? The 2 examples referenced would suggest not, but that of course is not an overall view. That said if the insurance industry were not so secretive and opened up their books we would have an idea

Seems to me that it was squarely the insurance industry that closed those businesses and it seems the owners frustration is solely with them.

They got the usual fob, of fraud, rising premiums, etc. But none that explains such a stark increase in such a short amount of time.

Something not right.

Just to make it clear that was only my speculation but there is some data to support that number of claims and awards are increasing.

And at first glance, Courts Service statistics suggest the courts have become increasingly generous in recent years.

They show a substantial increase in the annual amounts the High Court has awarded in personal injury cases, from almost €22m in 2007 to €147m in 2016.

The corresponding figures for the Circuit Court show an increase from €13.5m in 2007 to €17.4m in 2016.

Those figures relate solely to awards ruled on by the courts. They don’t include settlements reached on the steps of the court.

There is, however, an important caveat: During the ten years from 2007 to 2016, there was a major increase in personal injury litigation, meaning that the numbers of court cases with awards also substantially increased.

In 2007, for instance, there were 133 High Court personal injury cases with court awards. By 2016, there were 390.

But this still means that the average High Court personal injury court award increased from €165,000 in 2007 to €377,000 in 2016.

Medical negligence

However, as the Bar Council noted in a 2016 submission to an Oireachtas Joint Committee on the cost of motor insurance, there has been a surge in medical negligence litigation in recent years, which explains in part the increase in court awards.

Medical negligence, which is beyond the remit of the Injuries Board, is primarily heard in the High Court and can result in substantial payouts.

But the Circuit Court – which infrequently hears medical negligence cases – has also increased payouts.

The average Circuit Court personal injury award was €14,000 in 2007, which jumped to almost €18,000 in 2016, a 27% increase.

https://www.rte.ie/news/investigations-unit/2018/0518/964391-awards/

There is also interesting comparison in awards received between UK and Ireland.