Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
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.

Compo Culture?

  • 18-02-2009 08:33PM
    #1
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭


    RTE were doing a piece over the weekend about issues that may face business and the head of Supermacs (I think) was on saying that Public Liability insurance had dropped in recent years due to less claims. His worry was that this trend may reverse.
    Just curious if his observations and worries are correct?

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



«1

Comments

  • #2
    daithip
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 220 ✭✭daithip


    silverharp wrote: »
    RTE were doing a piece over the weekend about issues that may face business and the head of Supermacs (I think) was on saying that Public Liability insurance had dropped in recent years due to less claims. His worry was that this trend may reverse.
    Just curious if his observations and worries are correct?

    Imo I wouldn't think the number of claims has reduced, rather in the way they are dealt with (Just my opinion, don't know the stats.). It appears insurance companies are trying to cut the cost of claims by bypassing the legal profession and making offers to people rather than going to court. In this way they are saving themselves all those hefty legal and court fees, thus reducing their costs and sometimes payouts.


  • #3
    _JOE_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 479 ✭✭_JOE_


    daithip wrote: »
    Imo I wouldn't think the number of claims has reduced, rather in the way they are dealt with (Just my opinion, don't know the stats.). It appears insurance companies are trying to cut the cost of claims by bypassing the legal profession and making offers to people rather than going to court. In this way they are saving themselves all those hefty legal and court fees, thus reducing their costs and sometimes payouts.

    I would agree with the above...some insurance firms are making offers (albeit not great ones) without even assessing the claim in any detail or receiving medical reports...it would appear that they are hoping that claimants will take anything they can due to financial difficulties...


  • #4
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,466 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    Indeed and the solicitors are livid about it.

    I can see where they are coming from. Where there is a solicitor on record all correspondance should go via them.


  • #5
    Amazotheamazing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,048 ✭✭✭Amazotheamazing


    Bond-007 wrote: »
    Indeed and the solicitors are livid about it.

    I can see where they are coming from. Where there is a solicitor on record all correspondance should go via them.

    True, just remember no matter what, Insurance companies are evil.


  • #6
    McCrack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭McCrack


    Amazotheamazing wrote: »
    True, just remember no matter what, Insurance companies are evil.

    haha I wouldnt of put it quite like that but yes insurance cos. obviously dont have injuried parties best interest's at heart. Either does PIAB in my opinion and the recent O'Brien SC decision put an abrupt halt to that. Also the PIAB legislation is fundamentally unfair too put popular opinion would have people think it's all for the better when in reality it's not.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    grumpytrousers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,884 ✭✭✭grumpytrousers


    ahem...from another thread...

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59098658&postcount=3

    :D


  • #8
    Latchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭Latchy


    If the compo culture had being around in previous decades then people who genuinely tripped over ,or had an accident due to somebody else's fault /incompetence, we would have being many quids in .I put myself in that bracket but we just brushed it off as ''an accident '' because that's what the culture was back then, always your own fault , never anybody else's .:(


  • #9
    Amazotheamazing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,048 ✭✭✭Amazotheamazing


    As an aside, why does every insurance agent I ring up have one of those really false sounding Northern accents?


  • #10
    Latchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭Latchy


    Amazotheamazing wrote: »
    As an aside, why does every insurance agent I ring up have one of those really false sounding Northern accents?
    Not sure but I see Roy walker from NI is in a car insurrence advert with that Basset hound Here :D


  • #11
    r14
    Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭r14


    Very funny compo stories here:
    http://www.stellaawards.com/

    As bad as it is in Ireland we are nowhere near the Americans. I heard somewhere (not sure where so don't quote me in court) that half of all qualified lawyers practice in the US. No wonder they have so many cases.

    The 2008 stella winner was a woman who put her mobile home on cruise control and went back to make a sandwich. When the van crashed she sued and won because there was no notice warning her not to be such an idiot.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Latchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭Latchy


    The compo culture is crazy . Yesterday , a top muslim clerical leader leader ,who preaches hate and violence against westeners has his appeal against being thrown out of UK , put on hold for 12 months ( costing hundreds of thousends more £ tax payers money ) was also awarded £3,000 pounds for being illigally held by police .


  • #13
    r14
    Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭r14


    latchyco wrote: »
    The compo culture is crazy . Yesterday , a top muslim clerical leader leader ,who preaches hate and violence against westeners has his appeal against being thrown out of UK , put on hold for 12 months ( costing hundreds of thousends more £ tax payers money ) was also awarded £3,000 pounds for being illigally held by police .

    In fairness if you profess your attachment to a legal system and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by that system you must also honour the obligations of that system. You can't say provide one standard for "good" people and a separate standard for others.

    We may not agree with Qatada but you have to respect the rights you give him.

    The compo culture is not a legal problem but rather a cultural problem. Qatada's rights were infringed, so he had a right to sue. The court was legally right to hold as it did and I don't think you can object to that.

    It's the people who see liability everywhere, bringing frivolous lawsuits that I object to. That attitude that everything is always someone else's fault with no-one taking personal responsibility is a very annoying modern flaw.


  • #14
    Latchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭Latchy


    r14 wrote: »
    In fairness if you profess your attachment to a legal system and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by that system you must also honour the obligations of that system. You can't say provide one standard for "good" people and a separate standard for others.

    We may not agree with Qatada but you have to respect the rights you give him.

    The compo culture is not a legal problem but rather a cultural problem. Qatada's rights were infringed, so he had a right to sue. The court was legally right to hold as it did and I don't think you can object to that.
    It was just my excuse to rant aginst this parasite who is only using the EU system in the same way somebody might abuse the compo system .A westener in same situation in his country would have being killed long ago but agreed , it's a legal problem about human rights .
    It's the people who see liability everywhere, bringing frivolous lawsuits that I object to. That attitude that everything is always someone else's fault with no-one taking personal responsibility is a very annoying modern flaw.
    Yes, which goes back to a previous post of mine . But everybody from the top to the bottom has being guilty ,from the guy who say's he tripped over an unbalanced paving stone and got a few thousend £ pay out to the high flying excecutive /police Commisnor who may , or may not have a ligitimate case for being awarded very large 6 figure sums in tree seperate cases .It's not about accountablity in many cases .


  • #15
    daithip
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 220 ✭✭daithip


    r14 wrote: »

    It's the people who see liability everywhere, bringing frivolous lawsuits that I object to. That attitude that everything is always someone else's fault with no-one taking personal responsibility is a very annoying modern flaw.

    Would half of these lawsuits not have been brought on if we didin't have law firms advertising to help you sue for free??

    Won't see too many of them advertising for no reward no fee in the future, I bet:rolleyes:


  • #16
    McCrack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭McCrack


    daithip wrote: »
    Would half of these lawsuits not have been brought on if we didin't have law firms advertising to help you sue for free??

    Won't see too many of them advertising for no reward no fee in the future, I bet:rolleyes:

    No I wouldnt personally say the legal profession is responsible. I think people generally are better educated today and aware of their rights and responsibilities. We live in a more transparent and accountable society than previous. As a consequence people injured are more likely to seek redress and rightly so. The legal profession is the conduit in this.

    The advertisements you refer to are called 'no win, no fee' not 'no reward no fee'. There's nothing novel with this and it will certainly continue into the future. Generally costs follow the event which means the losing party is responsible for the other sides costs so solicitors are happy to take personal injury on a no win, no fee basis if the client's case is strong.


  • #17
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,782 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    daithip wrote: »
    Imo I wouldn't think the number of claims has reduced
    Certain claims have reduced in number, especially through the use of technology - Supermacs put CCTV in the shared areas of their toilets.


  • #18
    Berti Vogts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 417 ✭✭Berti Vogts


    Victor wrote: »
    Certain claims have reduced in number, especially through the use of technology - Supermacs put CCTV in the shared areas of their toilets.

    As far as I know, claims go up during a recession so watch this space.

    I read somewhere recently that UK personal injuries solicitors are taking a stand against insurance companies offering payments to injured parties prior to seeing a solicitor.


  • #19
    andrewdeerpark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 951 ✭✭✭andrewdeerpark


    Re opening an olde thread however its worth it daft judgement today:

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-who-fractured-knee-after-slipping-on-new-tiles-wins-71k-29729070.html

    A woman got 71K compo from slipping on tiles she bought and that were laid by here husband. What about a bit of personal responsibility??

    The PIAB has been picked over and destroyed by the legal profession, the gravy train is back.


  • #20
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    andrewdeerpark wrote: »
    Re opening an olde thread however its worth it daft judgement today:

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-who-fractured-knee-after-slipping-on-new-tiles-wins-71k-29729070.html

    A woman got 71K compo from slipping on tiles she bought and that were laid by here husband. What about a bit of personal responsibility??

    The PIAB has been picked over and destroyed by the legal profession, the gravy train is back.

    Women a 2 other members of her family slip on tiles, judge accepts her experts evidence.

    "Awarding her €71,340, Mr Justice Cross said he accepted expert evidence on behalf of Ms Ryan that these tiles were unsuitable for a kitchen as they were particularly slippy when wet. Given the amount of time between when they were laid and when these accidents or near-accidents involving the Ryan family occurred, he must agree with a description by one witness that the floor was lethal."

    Seems an open and shut negligence case, also the other side of the coin for a bit of balance, http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mother-loses-damages-bid-for-dancefloor-fall-at-coppers-29408564.html


  • #21
    Bepolite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭Bepolite


    From reading that it sounds like a liability for defectives products case no?


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    andrewdeerpark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 951 ✭✭✭andrewdeerpark


    She bought of her own free will, porcelain tiles, everybody knows when wet they are slippy. Are right price tiles going to have an avalanche of cases brought by people slipping who bought these tiles? Are they insured against such claims; I doubt it? They may as well shut up shop now before more claims roll in...

    This could be another mini "army deafness style" legal junket.


  • #23
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    andrewdeerpark wrote: »
    She bought of her own free will, porcelain tiles, everybody knows when wet they are slippy. Are right price tiles going to have an avalanche of cases brought by people slipping who bought these tiles? Are they insured against such claims; I doubt it? They may as well shut up shop now before more claims roll in...

    This could be another mini "army deafness style" legal junket.

    Unless there is a spate of people slipping all over the country I doubt it. Kitchen tiles should be non slip tile companies I assume spent a fortune developing non slip tiles for a reason, if she bought such tiles she did so in the expectation that she would not slip. She produced expert evidence to that effect, which was accepted by the judge.

    Do you think if a person injuries a third party by their negligence they should be immune from paying compensation.


  • #24
    andrewdeerpark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 951 ✭✭✭andrewdeerpark


    What negligence on the part of Right Price Tiles? They sold her porcelain tiles, she obviously saw them in the shop they were shiny slippy, her husband put them down. The product we have to assume did not wear and become slippy it was always such, so basically the product performs the same now as originally, so it has not failed in any way. How is this a faulty product case?

    Did the original receipt specifically say "Kitchen Porcelain Tiles" if it did then she may have a case? Otherwise did the tile shop care what she done with the product?


  • #25
    Bepolite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭Bepolite


    andrewdeerpark wrote: »
    Did the original receipt specifically say "Kitchen Porcelain Tiles" if it did then she may have a case? Otherwise did the tile shop care what she done with the product?

    You're uncovering the floors (sorry!) in your own argument here. The main one being you're working off a fraction of the info the Judge in the case had.


  • #26
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    andrewdeerpark wrote: »
    What negligence on the part of Right Price Tiles? They sold her porcelain tiles, she obviously saw them in the shop they were shiny slippy, her husband put them down. The product we have to assume did not wear and become slippy it was always such, so basically the product performs the same now as originally, so it has not failed in any way. How is this a faulty product case?

    Did the original receipt specifically say "Kitchen Porcelain Tiles" if it did then she may have a case? Otherwise did the tile shop care what she done with the product?

    So your first paragraph says why you believe she has no case. Your second paragraph says why she may have a case.

    Let's look at the only info we have, "Ms Ryan, a married mother of three, claimed the company was negligent in supplying a tile which was not fit for purpose in that they did not have sufficient anti-slip properties particularly for use in a kitchen which would regularly be wet."

    A person must show the court the defendant was negligent, if the plaintiff just bought wall tiles and put them on a floor then tough. I assume that as an expert said the tiles are not fit for purpose then the plaintiff must have told the tile company she wanted non slip kitchen tiles. If the tile company supplied the wrong tile then they are liable, if they provided the correct tile but it was faulty (say wrong coating in manufacture) then they are liable. I really don't see the issue.


  • #27
    Sala
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,494 ✭✭✭Sala


    _JOE_ wrote: »
    I would agree with the above...some insurance firms are making offers (albeit not great ones) without even assessing the claim in any detail or receiving medical reports...it would appear that they are hoping that claimants will take anything they can due to financial difficulties...

    This is really wrong. Whatever people say about Solicitors feeding the compo culture, it is foolish to believe insurance companies dealing directly with claimants will ever have the claimants best interest at heart. They are a business and want to pay out as little as possible.


  • #28
    andrewdeerpark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 951 ✭✭✭andrewdeerpark


    No where in the article does it say that Right Price Tiles sold the porcelain tile as kitchen tiles, so we have to assume they were sold as just tiles. Did she get written information that these tiles were suitable for a kitchen or had they printed brochures stating their kitchen suitability? Anyway this is all balmy, what about her own cop on and ability when picking the product. That is the compo culture mindset always somebodies else's fault and I deserve my rightful redress.

    Tomorrow people who "Forest Wengue" tiles from Right Price Tiles, that then laid them in their kitchen, and are of the compo culture mindset will be off to their local solicitor tomorrow. The precedent has been set, this is only the beginning, might be the end of Right Price tiles and their employees as from reading the case the company was defending the action itself (no mention of an insurance company) so its head is in the noose and how deep are its pockets.


  • #29
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    andrewdeerpark wrote: »
    No where in the article does it say that Right Price Tiles sold the porcelain tile as kitchen tiles, so we have to assume they were sold as just tiles. Did she get written information that these tiles were suitable for a kitchen or had they printed brochures stating their kitchen suitability? Anyway this is all balmy, what about her own cop on and ability when picking the product. That is the compo culture mindset always somebodies else's fault and I deserve my rightful redress.

    Tomorrow people who "Forest Wengue" tiles from Right Price Tiles, that then laid them in their kitchen, and are of the compo culture mindset will be off to their local solicitor tomorrow. The precedent has been set, this is only the beginning, might be the end of Right Price tiles and their employees as from reading the case the company was defending the action itself (no mention of an insurance company) so its head is in the noose and how deep are its pockets.

    The only barmy bit is the assumptions you are making based on a news article. A High Court Judge,found negligence. You disagree with that based on nothing more than maybes.

    There are many cases where it is no ones fault, except the plaintiff, and same is found by the courts, including the example I posted.


  • #30
    andrewdeerpark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 951 ✭✭✭andrewdeerpark


    Have to agree to differ on this case. Interesting to read how the Times will write it up tomorrow, that is if they will cover it.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    McCrack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭McCrack


    andrewdeerpark wrote: »
    Re opening an olde thread however its worth it daft judgement today:

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-who-fractured-knee-after-slipping-on-new-tiles-wins-71k-29729070.html

    A woman got 71K compo from slipping on tiles she bought and that were laid by here husband. What about a bit of personal responsibility??

    The PIAB has been picked over and destroyed by the legal profession, the gravy train is back.

    The tiles were inherently defective and this lady suffered significant injuries as a result. There's nothing novel here. There's a defect, a causal link and injury.

    The judge also made the point that the injuries board (PIAB) book of quantum is out-of-date even though courts are obliged to have regard to it when assessing quantum or the amount of compensation. That's constructive criticism and something personal injury solicitors and the courts have been aware about for some years now.

    You're really just ranting nonsense tbh.


Advertisement