Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Claims for compensation

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,048 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123979651#Comment_123979651

    That is their job. Unless it is a very new judge, they will know the form.



  • #33
    jonnreeks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 751 ✭✭✭jonnreeks


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123980100#Comment_123980100

    So, would you say the Judge appointment would have a big influence on how most Solicitors/Barristors will decide their approach when counselling their clients and the arguments they shjould take in a case?



  • #34
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,048 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123982142#Comment_123982142

    In personal injury cases, it is the single biggest factor influencing the insurance companies. Their claims handlers run the case, not the lawyers.



  • #35
    Fann Linn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,360 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    Beware that there may be some surprises! I was a witness to a claim some years back. I knew neither party but as I'd given a statement to the Gardai regarding the car accident the plaintiff's obviously got my contact details.

    The day arrived and I gave my evidence, was questioned by barrister's on both sides plus by the judge, and then I was excused.

    I sat in the court to listen to the finale of all of this and then the defendants barrister called up the main injured party. He then proceeded to list of a ream of claims this lad had initiated previously. Now there was nothing to say he was a fraudster but it did leave a sour taste in my mouth as I felt then that perhaps everything wasn't as it actually appeared to be.

    He won his case but he didn't exactly hit the jackpot and I got the impression that the judge took all of these previous claims into account when coming to his decision.



  • #36
    jonnreeks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 751 ✭✭✭jonnreeks


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123983096#Comment_123983096

    I would suggest that the Plaintiff has bigger worries.

    While it might be okay to have medical details of an injury, its proving how it is related to an incident that has to be convincing. You can't just have an injury claim because you claim it happened as you have told your legal team to describe.

    I reckon that most solicitors/barristers would find it difficult to describe an incident that has no witnesses or that it actually happened an argue a reason for some for of compensation based on just hearsay.



  • Advertisement
  • #37
    jonnreeks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 751 ✭✭✭jonnreeks


    Just a re-write to the above, thanks.

    I would suggest that the Plaintiff has bigger worries to give reasons or evidence in support of their claim that can look more like an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view.

    While it might be okay to have medical details of an injury, its proving how it is related to an incident that has to be convincing. You can't just have an injury claim because you claim it happened as you have told your legal team to describe.

    I reckon that most solicitors/barristers would find it difficult to describe an incident that has no witnesses or that it actually happened and then have to argue a reason for some form of compensation based on just hearsay.



  • #38
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,048 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    The Plaintiff has to give has own evidence outlining how the injury occurred. That is direct evidence. The barrister will just invite the judge to draw inferences. It will be a matter fir the judge to decide which version of events is more likely to be true. Often the insurance companies won't let it get that far.



  • #39
    jonnreeks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 751 ✭✭✭jonnreeks


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123984431#Comment_123984431

    But if they have tried that option and got no response at that time, then they will use this choice against the Plaintiff in any claim for compensation while also expecting their legal team to fight the case based on the lack of evidence and connection with the claim and the defendants.



  • #40
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,048 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123985298#Comment_123985298

    Who has already tried what?



  • #41
    jonnreeks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 751 ✭✭✭jonnreeks


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123984431#Comment_123984431

    If the Plaintiff describes how an injury occurred and produces a medical report outlining injuries, then it would be fair to say that they would need to provide convincing evidence that it actually happened, while a medical can only confirm injuries but not how or where they happened as to state that in the report would be considered hearsay. The burden of proof and persuasion will be based on the quality and weight of your evidence.

    The Plaintiff will really need witnesses and actual evidence that the incident happened when and where they claimed otherwise their claim will look more like an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view.



  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Jim_Hodge
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,626 ✭✭✭✭Jim_Hodge


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123987151#Comment_123987151

    I'm getting confused as to what this thread is actually about, at this stage. It's the job of the court to examine and decide based on evidence. The plaintiff's and your insurer's teams will know how it works. At this stage your hypotheses or opinions are way down the list of relevant factors. Your insurer may even pay up just because it's cheaper than challenging it.



  • #43
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,263 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    The plaintiff is a witness to the incident — and so, in most cases, is the defendant. It's not unknown for these to be the only two witnesses to the incident itself and, to the extent that their evidence conflict, the court simply has to evaluate their respective testimonies and decide which of them is more probably true, in relation to the salient elements of the claim.

    The plaintiff's evidence, in a personal injuries case, will generally be supported by medical evidence. The medic can't, obviously, say that the injuries were incurred in an incident that he didn't witness, but he can confirm (a) that the injuries are consistent with the incident, as described by the plaintiff (and, often, as described by the defendant too) and (b) that the plaintiff give the same account of how they incurred their injuries to to the medic, when examined/treated, as they gave to the court.

    In these circumstances, unless the defendant can offer (and, preferably, support with evidence) an alternative account of how the plaintiff came by his injuries, the court will generally prefer the evidence of the plaintiff.



  • #44
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,048 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123987151#Comment_123987151

    Once the Plaintiff says that an accident happened in a certain place at a certain time, it will be for the Defendant to rebut it. There is no presumption that if at least 2 people did not see something that it never happened. I could walk past your house at 1 o clock in the morning with no one else in the area. Your gate, weakened with rust falls on me due to your negligence. I am injured. Why should I need witnesses to sue successfully?



  • #45
    jonnreeks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 751 ✭✭✭jonnreeks


    If a Plaintiff has stated beforehand that there was no actual witnesses and has also moved items from the area of the incident before an Engineer has been able to conduct an investigation, will the Plaintiff be considered to have tampered with the scene and compromised the claim.



  • #46
    Jim_Hodge
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,626 ✭✭✭✭Jim_Hodge


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123997097#Comment_123997097

    That's up to the court to decide. We're only getting snippets of one side here. It's impossible to guess how the court will weigh the evidence and credibility of statements or witnesses. You can't second guess it with what ifs.



Advertisement