Burglar sues shop owner after he injured his testicles while robbing the premises.

I would be demanding an inspection of said testicle and would ask Doc Martin to help with the inspection.

That's nuts...

Hector Bellend wrote: »

He has a right pair of stones on him.

Relevant username

In all fairness though, yer man has some cheek. I hope he gets nothing

gerrybbadd wrote: »

Relevant username

In all fairness though, yer man has some cheek. I hope he gets nothing

I hope he gets five years.

Deleted User wrote: »

Um, what's the free legal aid scheme for civil claims?

I don't follow why the Solicitor should be fined, he hasn't committed a crime.

Is there no onus on a solicitor not to behave like a complete f*ckwit?

Deleted User wrote: »

Claim almost certain to fail, as the Occupiers Liability Act imposes a duty of care in respect of visitors only, and the definitions section refers to those on property as of a right...

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1995/act/10/section/1/enacted/en/html#sec1

Right on cue.

barney 20v wrote: »

Hahaha....solicitors and shame are like oil and water

I often wonder if most of them are born or bred to be ethically and morally bankrupt ?
And some wonder why the vast majority of people consider the legal profession to be lower than the pond life they often represent.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Is there no onus on a solicitor not to behave like a complete f*ckwit?

Perhaps one of our legal posters can elucidate?

How can he sue if he's caught by the bollocks?

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

And the insurance company for the property owner has to engage it's own legal representative to answer the allegation. If the claimant persists with legal action, it cannot just be ignored otherwise the case will be found against you. The cost of defending this action adds to the insurers costs, which then get reflected in the premiums everyone pays

It is a shame when the costs of fraudulent claims get passed on to consumers.

What is also a shame is that the insurance industry is very hard to believe when they say that the cost of claims is the reason for insurance hikes. The reason that they are hard to believe is that they have all of the data/information but they have refused to release it.

In fact, the Cost of Insurance Working Group has stated that there is no basis to that claim.

It has been stated by some stakeholders that legal costs are a significant factor in the rising cost of motor insurance claims. However, there is no statistical basis for the measurement of legal costs either in the economy in general or in relation to the legal costs associated with motor insurance. The courts do not record legal costs.

Some stakeholders advise that they have had to increase reserves to take account of future cost of claims arising from a number of changes in the legislative environment. This includes the change in jurisdictional limits. As outlined in this Chapter, available evidence does not support this assertion in relation to the new limits.

There is no publicly available evidence of the increased costs of claims being the cause of insurance hikes, apart from what the insurance companies insist. The insurance industry has all of the data/information but it has refused to release it, in order to back up what it says.

I wonder if it is because what they say is an absolute crock of sh!t?

Interesting also that the response of the insurance industry has been to point to an increased cost of claims in the Circuit Court alone, ignoring the inescapable fact that much of the business that used to be dealt with in the High Court is now dealt with in the Circuit Court - because the max limit of the Circuit Court has increased. A €50,000 case will now be dealt with in the Circuit Court instead of the High Court. This doesn't increase claims, it moves the case from one court to another and it actually decreases the costs! More smoke and mirrors from the insurance industry, showing brass necks here.

In any event, it will be interesting to see what the result will be of the recent investigation by the Competition Authority and European Competition Directorate of the insurance industry for cartel-like behaviour and price-fixing.

Vic_08 wrote: »

Technically you can but as the scumbag (thief) won't have any assets you will have no chance of actually getting any payment no matter the result. That is why the scumbag (solicitor) would tell you to fukk off while he welcomes scumbag (thief) into his practice like a long lost love, business owners and insurance companies have deep pockets.

The game is playing the cost of defending the case, which as above cannot be claimed back from a broke scumbag (thief), against the cost of settling it.

While a small trader might take the moral stance and refuse to pay out even if it costs more in defending a case, insurance companies more often than not just look at the bottom line. €10k to settle or €15k to fight with the distinct possibility that it may end up before some unaccountable tosspot (judge) who will throw even more of somebody else's hard-earned at the scumbag (thief) and the insurance company just write a cheque, add it to their actuary tables and raise the premiums of all the marks (law abiding citizens).

Who is the real scumbag here, the underclass waster who just sees another source of free money like he has been brought up to believe is his entitlement or the supposedly respectable member of society who knowingly perpetrates a cynical shakedown against a victim of crime?

Succinct, funny and bang on the money. 10/10.