So much for reigning in the mental compo awards

gerrybbadd · 03-04-2019 2:27pm #1

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/boy-left-with-scar-after-climbing-site-fence-for-ball-settles-case-for-80000-915183.html

80K. For scaling a fence. That was intended to keep him off the site to begin with.

Awarded because the fence wasn't stable when climbed - a purpose it is not intended for.

This is crazy. Did the judge expect the firm to have 24hr CCTV on the entire length of the fence, along with permanent security guards there at all times also?

mathie · 03-04-2019 2:28pm

Good job he didn't pierce his foot on a spike Lynn.

Deebles McBeebles · 03-04-2019 2:31pm

Absolutely nuts. 80k for a cut on his arm. CIE owes me about half a million from playing around rail yards as a kid.

alchemist33 · 03-04-2019 2:36pm

Now businesses who put up fences or walls to protect their properties will have to provide gates or stiles so that people can safely get through those barriers intended to keep them off the property

seamus · 03-04-2019 2:37pm

Another settlement, not an award.

You can blame the insurance companies who are throwing their our money at these.

BattleCorp · 03-04-2019 2:38pm

No matter what the headlines say, there's no reigning in on compo awards.

There are a few headlines here or there where cases are thrown out but these are less much less than 1% of all claims.

Only about 5% of all claims actually reach court. The vast majority of them are settled in advance.

Force Carrier · 03-04-2019 2:38pm

It's a bit high.

robarmstrong · 03-04-2019 2:41pm

It was further claimed the fence was allegedly unstable and dangerous to persons particularly children who might attempt to climb it.

....

Surely any attempt at climbing any fence should result in you losing your ability to sue.

Force Carrier · 03-04-2019 2:46pm

robarmstrong wrote: »

....

Surely any attempt at climbing any fence should result in you losing your ability to sue.

What if you were walking along outside the fence and you saw someone in cardiac arrest inside the fence and thought a little cpr could be helpful?

Pherekydes · 03-04-2019 2:47pm

They really should rein in these awards.

Obviously, reigning them in is having no effect.

robarmstrong · 03-04-2019 2:53pm

Force Carrier wrote: »

What if you were walking along outside the fence and you saw someone in cardiac arrest inside the fence and thought a little cpr could be helpful?

Circumstance is irrelevant, I am climbing over a fence that was not designed to be climbed over, I should lose my ability to sue for compensation due to this. Fences are not ladders, they are not meant/designed/supported to be subjected to a decent climb every now and again.

Kivaro · 03-04-2019 2:59pm

robarmstrong wrote: »

....

Surely any attempt at climbing any fence should result in you losing your ability to sue.

Not in Ireland.
I've even heard somewhere that Irish solicitors drop off prospective clients near high fences in the hope that they climb them, and if that doesn't work they bring them to lunch ..... hoping that they bang their leg off the table leg, which was outrageously covered with a table cloth in order to hide these dangerous devices. (If you hadn't heard, someone filed a lawsuit in Ireland and won a case against the restaurant for this exact scenario).

Force Carrier · 03-04-2019 3:34pm

robarmstrong wrote: »

Circumstance is irrelevant, I am climbing over a fence that was not designed to be climbed over, I should lose my ability to sue for compensation due to this. Fences are not ladders, they are not meant/designed/supported to be subjected to a decent climb every now and again.

Not alone are there occassions when someone might lawfully need to climb a fence but the fact that that is so is forseeable by the occupier. This is one of the reasons why people design and build structurally sound fences every day of the week.
Designing and building a sh1t fence that will collapse under any bit of force is a bad idea for lots of reasons including that someone making their way lawfully over the fence could injure themselves.

BattleCorp · 03-04-2019 3:50pm

Force Carrier wrote: »

Not alone are there occassions when someone might lawfully need to climb a fence but the fact that that is so is forseeable by the occupier. This is one of the reasons why people design and build structurally sound fences every day of the week.
Designing and building a sh1t fence that will collapse under any bit of force is a bad idea for lots of reasons including that someone making their way lawfully over the fence could injure themselves.

Was the kid climbing in over the fence one of those lawful occasions?

Correct me if I'm wrong but there is no proof that there was anything wrong with the fence. Counsel for the plaintiff alleged that the fence was dodgy (as they would) and Counsel for the defendant says that it wasn't. If the judge 'approved' the settlement, then he didn't make a judgement one way or another on liability.

On the foreseeable aspect of the case, any fence is climbable.

Irish Guitarist · 03-04-2019 4:04pm

Unlike the thread about the girl being awarded €30,000 for getting a table in the face this one lives up to its title.

He had no business climbing into someones property. Tough shit if he got injured. If that had happened to me when I was 13 I probably wouldn't even have told my parents that I had been breaking and entering.

suicide_circus · 03-04-2019 4:06pm

another victory for stupid.

and the legal profession.

jimmycrackcorm · 03-04-2019 4:08pm

seamus wrote: »

Another settlement, not an award.

You can blame the insurance companies who are throwing their our money at these.

The reason that there is a settlement is because the insurance companies know that judges give huge unjustified awards

Skylinehead · 03-04-2019 4:12pm

Being discussed in the other thread, I think we have enough of them now.

So much for reigning in the mental compo awards

Comments