Electrician awarded €83,000 against ESB

Leftyflip wrote: »

Damn! Never knew we had 1,000,000V in our network!

The article states 10,000kV that is 10,000,000V!

But as far as I know the highest voltages used at the generating stations is just 400kV.

I suspect someone has got their figures wrong and it was just 10kV (not that handling a cable carrying that would be safe)


edit, even the US doesn't seem to use anything about 1200kV
Apparently corona losses become higher than the resistive losses at voltages above 2,000kV

See Losses on the wiki below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#:~:text=Higher%2Dvoltage%20lines%20require%20more,them%20underground%20is%20very%20expensive.&text=Voltages%20of%2069%20kV%2C%20115,for%20subtransmission%20in%20North%20America.

"The ESB had admitted negligence in December 2018 and accepted the machine provided to Mr Harford was unsafe and unsuitable and Mr Harford was not trained in its use."

Don't know the details of it but €83k might be the kick in that ass that the ESB bean counters needed to fund equipment, training and re-evaluation of safety practices.

autumnalcore wrote: »

"The ESB had admitted negligence in December 2018 and accepted the machine provided to Mr Harford was unsafe and unsuitable and Mr Harford was not trained in its use."

Don't know the details of it but €83k might be the kick in that ass that the ESB bean counters needed to fund equipment, training and re-evaluation of safety practices.

Do you think anyone in the ESB will be held accountable for this? See how carefully our courts shield the identities of those responsible. Next time you’re paying your electricity bill, try to guess what fraction went on this case.

How does a court measure damages when the loss is purely psychological? A case like this could just as easily be awarded €15 Million - his life is ruined, m’Lud, he can barely go outdoors. Conversely, it could be valued at €20 - a few pints in the local, laugh it off, you’ll be right as rain.

These cases result in (a) a windfall of arbitrary amount to the plaintiff, (b) lavish payments to all the lawyers and (c) massively increased psychological impact on the plaintiff who would probably come to view this as just another incident in life if not for the endless legal wrangling. Instead, the plaintiff has a huge incentive to play up the psychological effects.

I thought COVID19 might moderate our courts’ largesse but there is a whole legal industry built around this nonsense.

autumnalcore wrote: »

Do you even know what PTSD is, do you really consider €83,000 (probably minus costs) a windfall for suffering PTSD.

You speak like your a psychologist, you've seen Mr Hartford and you have diagnosed that he does not suffer from PTSD or Depression.

One of the longest term problems for PTSD and Depression suffers is people like you belittling it contributing to an overall culture that inhibits men in particular for discussing and seeking help leading to a high suicide rate.

A windfall is an unexpected financial gain. That is exactly what such court awards amount to, even if you believe they are warranted.

Legal costs will be awarded against the ESB automatically and in no way will they reduce the award which is also tax free. It would take someone on the average industrial wage about 20 years of savings to accumulate this sum, which is the deposit for a large house in any part of Ireland.

I didn’t belittle the problem of PTSD - my point is our legal system is not equipped to deal with the issues involved. Does a big lump of money cure psychological damage? I think it aggravates the problem i.e. plaintiffs are handsomely rewarded for demonstrating the extent of their trauma to a judge in a weird performance ringed with esoteric rules where the truth is very carefully managed. For example, no one is actually held accountable, just a legal entity ( HSE, ESB, Department of Whatever).

Here’s an alternative, just as an example.

Award a special medal to anyone who suffers trauma while performing a public service. A special service at Aras an Uachtarain with proud family members applauding the individual who endured a terrible shock in the course of their duties. Nine O'clock news, tributes all round. Send the whole family on a lovely holiday in a five-star resort of their choice. Hopefully, the terrible memory is converted into a matter of pride and self-esteem. if not, a lifetime of therapy from the HSE.

Ah but I’m forgetting. There's serious money to be made from PTSD and not by the plaintiff, who has just a fleeting role in our legal theatre-casino. €83,000? Chicken-feed!

So the shock of immediate realisation would be covered but the shock of slow realisation would not. If that’s what it amounts to the plaintiff seems hard done by.

hesker wrote: »

So the shock of immediate realisation would be covered but the shock of slow realisation would not. If that’s what it amounts to the plaintiff seems hard done by.

The question is where do the courts draw a line?

“It was only the day after that I realised that if I had put my head in that oven while the gas was on .... oh., God! .... I can’t sleep thinking about it .. “

When it comes to psychological trauma, courts in many countries just say “forget it” but our courts have lavished riches on those who suffered no physical injuries. This case could have opened the floodgates. Everyone who might have injured themselves could claim. You’d be a fool not to. So the courts now say something must have happened, not just a hypothetical “if I had kept going...”.

Personally, I would have gone for the “about to cross the road when a bus suddenly passed by” route. Neat and simple, no special equipment required. Guess I’ll have to stick with rear-ending but it gets old with the phony neck brace.