nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Justice System & Irish Courts..

[Deleted User]

.. are a bloody piss take. just read this article about a kid who was at a friend's birthday, climbed onto a brick wall, a brick came loose and he fell and broke his leg.

very unfortunate for him, but the property owners were sued for the tune of €66k. you can read the article to get all the details, but the judge effectively said that the wall shouldn't have had loose bricks (I mean okay sure) but also it was up to the people who owned the gaff to warn the kid not to climb the wall.. isn't that his parents job?

but sure he couldn't play sports for a few weeks there.

what brings my piss to a boil in this situation is the fact that CRIMINALS are let away with a stern talking to or a suspend sentence over and over again. yet a kid at someone's house for a party, climbs a wall, falls and breaks a leg and it's somehow not even a little bit his fault? or his parents?

boggles the mind...

https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/1101/1257189-boy-settlement-injury-children-party/

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

kowloonkev

I hope this ends up with requiring compulsory insurance for such events.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118105188#Comment_118105188

There is insurance in place. That's why the action was taken.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058215990/the-justice-system-irish-courts

There's no reason to think that his parents were even present, much less that they knew or should have known that the garden wall was unsound. Seems a bit much to suggest that the onus was on them to prevent this accident.

This is a pretty straightforward application of standard and, I would have though, reasonable legal principles. The person who owns, and is in a position to maintain, any property is responsible for any loss which results from it not being properly maintained. That makes sense, because it creates the right set of incentives - the person who can make sure the wall won't fall down has a financial interest in making sure that the wall doesn't fall down.

If owners could save money by not maintaining walls properly and the resultant losses were borne by others, then the rational course for owners would be to skimp on maintenance, and the losses and injuries resulting from falling walls would be much greater than in fact they are. How in God's name would that be a good outcome?

Shao Kahn

Well done judge.

Parents will now be reluctant to have kids over to their house for birthday parties. I'm sure this sort of ruling creates a precedent for other similar incidents in the future. People getting sued, because they didn't realize there was some moss on the ground and someone slipped and broke their leg etc? (it could literally be anything)

Our entire legal system needs a massive overhaul at this point. It's getting a bit ridiculous now. We are starting to become almost as litigious as the Americans.

These judges are not following the law, they are creating their own laws!

What ever happened to personal responsibility for your own actions? Or what ever happened to something perhaps just being an unfortunate accident where nobody was necessarily to blame? I don't think some of these judges live out in the real world like the rest of society!

Potential-Monke

Comment #4 is why

(Not having a go at the poster)

[Deleted User]

How will the homeowners pay for this? Through their home insurance?

Bit **** of the Mother to do that to her son’s friend’s parents. Let’s face it - her young son didn’t see the euro signs as he was getting his cast on.

Potential-Monke

It'll all result in no one having parties ever. I'd be thinking twice now myself, even with adults. I host a party, someone headbutts the wall and gives themselves brain damage, and I get sued for not having a sign up saying not to headbutt the wall. It's the way it's heading!

I'd also be making sure to train the kid to give his friends parents the finger every time they see each other now.

Jequ0n

Pity he just broke a leg.

I feel old now. In my days you would have just gotten a bollocking for being stupid and injuring yourself.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118105387#Comment_118105387

It’s not the kids fault a claim was made, it’s his mother’s!

whisky_galore

It's all law and no justice.

cruizer101

What the hell is the basis for 66k, to me 6k would have been excessive.

There doesn't appear to be any long term issues, just leg broke few months later was grand. What is the 66k for?

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118105392#Comment_118105392

You can blame her for the ridiculous claim. But the only one who decided to climb the wall is the little ****, who I can only wish a different unjury on him.

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118105453#Comment_118105453

You wish harm on a child for climbing a wall?

Thats proper messed up sh*t right there.

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118105533#Comment_118105533

Be so kind to shed a tear on my behalf if it bothers you so much.

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118105419#Comment_118105419

Here's my thinking on how they came up with that figure.

The accident happened in 2016 so the old Book of Quantum would be in operation. This is basically a price list for injuries and their severity. If it was a minor non-displaced fracture, the book of quantum says it can be worth up to €49,400. Moderate is worth up to €70,400 and moderately severe can be worth up to €91,900. I'm guessing this injury was judged as at the top end of minor. That would put it at about €49,400 because an operation under general anaesthetic was required to fix it. The article also says there was some scarring on the leg so this would attract an extra few quid in the settlement. This would bring it up close to €60k(ish) maybe. This is all a guess by me but I woudn't think I'm too far out.

There may or may not be costs involved. The article doesn't say if costs were included. So yeah, I can see how it could get up to close to €66k. The insurance company also knew that they would be throwing money away by going to court as they had no chance of winning. They would have gotten caught for their own high court costs and the plaintiff's costs too.

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058215990/the-justice-system-irish-courts

...yes, we dont want to truly accept we ve failed many in society with complex needs, we have failed to offer them help and supports for their needs, as their needs are far more complex than the average, instead, we have decided to make their situations far worse, exasperating their issues, so, go us!!!!!

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118105301#Comment_118105301

The judge didn't make the award. It was essentially an out-of-court settlement. The insurance company offered that sum and because the plaintiff is a minor, the award has to be approved by a judge to ensure that the kid isn't short-changed. The judge can't reduce the amount offered. What they can do is say that it isn't enough, but that didn't happen here.

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118106190#Comment_118106190

People commenting on the justice system when they know f*ck all about it? Well consider me very surprised.

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118105583#Comment_118105583

I won't shed any tears on your behalf. I just think any adult who wishes harm on a child that committed the crime of climbing a wall has a warped way of thinking.

Did you never climb anything when you were a child?

L1011

When I was a kid - a long time ago now - there was one lad never invited to any parties as his mother was known to have taken a few claims. But that was rare then, rather than really common these days,

source

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058215990/the-justice-system-irish-courts

The reason for criminals getting off and results like this happen is due to the different levels of burden of proof. Criminal cases require a case to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, whereas a civil court only requires a case to be proven on a balance of probabilities.

Basically, a solicitor/barrister only has to present a stronger argument in a civil case than that of their opponent to win their case, whereas in a criminal case the prosecution has to prove with almost 100% certainty that a person committed the crime before securing a conviction.

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118107013#Comment_118107013

I couldn't care less whether or not you consider my thinking warped.

Of course I climbed things, and of course I hurt myself. But when I was stupid enough to visibly hurt myself (or got caught causing damage) I certainly paid an added price on top the injury. How else do you learn?

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118107274#Comment_118107274

How was the child to know the wall wasn’t constructed properly?

The problem with this is with the parents who brought this matter to court, not for a child doing what a child normally does.

Yet you, for some bizarre reason, want to hurt the child. Completely unusual behaviour.

cruizer101

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118106984#Comment_118106984

Yeah but there is issues with awards/settlements this high.

Firstly the settlement is based on the fact the insurance expected to pay a figure that high otherwise they would have fought it. That is so long as the legal costs of fighting it plus the expected award were less than the settlement which leads on to the second issue then amount spent on legals for frivolous crap like this must be millions.

Then the book of quantum itself, from what I can tell the figures in it were derived from awards made by judges and whilst the judges may have originally had some basis for the figures they awarded which then lead to the figures in the book of quantum there doesn't seem to have been any actual review of what is actually a reasonable compensation for an injury based on potential treatment cost etc.

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118107350#Comment_118107350

Look I absolutely understand all of that, but a lot of people here would want judges hung when a good chunk of the awards are out-of-court settlements which are only approved by a judge.

The discussion of high settlements for what appear to be frivolous cases isn't one that's lost on me, because it does impact my pocket when insurance companies hike everything in response (which is just as frivolous), however the judges have a law to follow but yet many here think they should just make the law themselves.

As for this case, a child was left in the care of two people and ended up with a broken leg. Did they tell the kids not to climb the wall? Did they know he was climbing the wall? Did they know if a child did climb the wall that there would be a fear this would happen? Did they pay the bills for the child or did the parents? Was it paid for by the parents' insurance? Did they even offer to pay his bills?

If that was my child, you can guarantee I'd be pissed off too, especially if they didn't pay for his treatment because liability is on them.

Fandymo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118107686#Comment_118107686

The reason companies settle out of court is because if the judge rules, god knows how much he'll award. That is the issue.

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118107703#Comment_118107703

I think companies settle out of court because:

a. They know they are unlikely to win.

b. They know roughly what the injury is worth.

c. They know that the judge's figure probably won't be too far away from their figure.

d. They know that they'll have to pay costs on top of a settlement if they lose.

e. Because of all of the above, it's more cost effective to settle out-of-court.

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118107341#Comment_118107341

So what? Child fell, broke his leg. Normally I'd say he learned his lesson, but in this case the child will simply have learned that it's health and safety are entirely down to others. It's bizarre how some people can't even accept the fact that their children are not always the faultless little angels they believe them to be.

You have not considered the emotional trauma he will have endured as a consequence, or the the self esteem issues because he now has a scar on his leg.

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118107774#Comment_118107774

The child will have learned that it's sore if you fall off a wall or if the wall falls on you.

The parents of the child will have learned that there is easy money to be made.

The homeowners will have learned that they need to keep their property in good condition if they are having guests over.

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118107774#Comment_118107774

It was a 7 year old child and you're expecting him to be able to carry out a health and safety assessment.

How was the child to know the slab was going to fall on him? Like I said, where were the adults in all of this? Where were they to tell him to not to climb the wall? Where were they when he was climbing the wall?

You might think that the child should be able to assess everything for himself but it takes the grown-ups in the room to set things straight to avoid situations like a child in their care falling off a wall (or a slab falling on them) because they didn't consider that children, which like to climb things, might actually climb it.

Any adult that wishes harm on a 7-year-old child for climbing a wall is scum. And calling it a little sh*t? Children climb walls and trees. Lord knows I did it plenty of times and I was told very quickly that I shouldn't be when it was unsafe if my parents or any adult I was left in the care of were actually paying attention.

You're saying a 7-year-old child should be harmed further for climbing a wall all because of proceedings brought by his mother. That's f*cked up.

EDIT: Also, your sarcastic remark about 'emotional trauma' - there is nothing about any of that in any article I have read, so you're literally talking out of your hole.