Crazy Compensation costs us all!

[Kent Fox]

If Sir Fynwy notices, that's when you need to start to worry!

Sshh! He might hear you

[Guest]

Sshh! He might hear you

That'd be a first!!

[Daggers]

C'mon Daily Mail readers...show us your angry face

Grrrr

*Daily Express readers may join in too if they wish.

** Sun readers need to go directly to the Chebs thread

***Sport readers need to sit back down as Mrs.Jones will be collecting the glue back from your tables shortly

[Zingari]

Firstly, did you not follow the link to the Keown case?

Secondly, where are the tax rises come from? You'll find that it's insurance premiums that rise, as local authorities will have public liability insurance to pay out cases like this.

Thirdly, what makes you think that I am defending them? All I am saying is that without being aware of all of the facts, I would rather not jump to any conclusions over what is right and what is wrong. I've just finished studying the law of tort, and having started the module with the feeling that the 'compensation culture' in this country is getting stupid, I've had the chance to read what the judges have had to say, and the reasoning behind it. Sometimes I have disagreed with their outcomes, but more often than not, their decisions have been logical, if somewhat unfair. Believe it or not, many claims are thrown out, or even if a claim has gone in an applicants favour, they have ended up with nothing for various reasons of their own doing.

But basically what you are saying is that an awful lot of court time ( which is eventually paid for by the tax payer ) is wasted on this merry go round of litigation and counter litigation ; and the only people benefitting is the lawyers ;

errr that's right ; The very people who are telling you that ; " hey lisa , things aint so bad " ;

Of course judges/lawyers etc won't criticise this system , its a gravy train for them; and one i presume you intend to board very soon given the chance

i think most people's criticism is the fact that these cases get to courts in the first place if as you say; hardly anyone gets paid but the lawyers

[Guest]

But basically what you are saying is that an awful lot of court time ( which is eventually paid for by the tax payer ) is wasted on this merry go round of litigation and counter litigation ; and the only people benefitting is the lawyers ;

errr that's right ; The very people who are telling you that ; " hey lisa , things aint so bad " ;

Of course judges/lawyers etc won't criticise this system , its a gravy train for them; and one i presume you intend to board very soon given the chance

i think most people's criticism is the fact that these cases get to courts in the first place if as you say; hardly anyone gets paid but the lawyers

Many judges, barristers, solicitors, scholars etc do criticise the system. There are plenty of cases where judges have stated that a person is at fault for their injuries, but that shouldn't absolve the owners of premises from neglecting their duty of care owing to the state of their premises etc.

This is the civil system, not the criminal courts where cases do not reach court if there is insufficient evidence or a weak argument, and if one party thinks that have a case, they can issue a writ. The reason it goes to court is because of the grey areas; it's not that simple. This is the point that I'm making. In any of the cases cited in the newspapers, do you know the full facts, and do you know the reasons why the decision went in their favour? I certainly don't, and until I do, I will reserve making any judgments.

Besides, wouldn't you prefer to live in a society where you can challenge people rather than a society that says "tough shit" regardless of the circumstances?

As for tax payers, I would rather my local authority took out the insurance premium. But then again, I can be risk aversive.

[Edmund]

Many judges, barristers, solicitors, scholars etc do criticise the system. There are plenty of cases where judges have stated that a person is at fault for their injuries, but that shouldn't absolve the owners of premises from neglecting their duty of care owing to the state of their premises etc.

This is the civil system, not the criminal courts where cases do not reach court if there is insufficient evidence or a weak argument, and if one party thinks that have a case, they can issue a writ. The reason it goes to court is because of the grey areas; it's not that simple. This is the point that I'm making. In any of the cases cited in the newspapers, do you know the full facts, and do you know the reasons why the decision went in their favour? I certainly don't, and until I do, I will reserve making any judgments.

Besides, wouldn't you prefer to live in a society where you can challenge people rather than a society that says "tough shit" regardless of the circumstances?

As for tax payers, I would rather my local authority took out the insurance premium. But then again, I can be risk aversive.

Im sorry, but it quite clearly says in black and white what happened in the article and two people are quoted, one being from a teacher union and the other from the council finance dept. If the other party were so innocent why did they not make a statement. The only reason why it went in the boys favour is because he got injured and the school didnt have proof that the gate had been maintained simple as that. They have completly over ruled the fact that the kid broke into property. So what if the gate was faulty, if the kid wasnt there in the first place none of this would have happened not only pursuing his own injury by swinging on a gate. It's his fault for breaking the law so he is doing so at his OWN RISK. Say my bicyle brakes happened to fail whilst a thief stole my bike and ended up crashing and breaking a leg, would i have to pay compensation beause i didnt have a log book stating the maintenance of the bike brakes?? HELL NO. That is how the people in the school must feel as that money could have been made for better use.

Everything youve said is correct in terms of the actual written law but thats the problem people need to be brought back to earth and not over complicate things by trying to make everything sound clever. Ive said it once and i will say it again. COMMON SENSE

[Kent Fox]

Im sorry, but it quite clearly says in black and white what happened in the article and two people are quoted, one being from a teacher union and the other from the council finance dept. If the other party were so innocent why did they not make a statement. The only reason why it went in the boys favour is because he got injured and the school didnt have proof that the gate had been maintained simple as that. They have completly over ruled the fact that the kid broke into property. So what if the gate was faulty, if the kid wasnt there in the first place none of this would have happened not only pursuing his own injury by swinging on a gate. It's his fault for breaking the law so he is doing so at his OWN RISK. Say my bicyle brakes happened to fail whilst a thief stole my bike and ended up crashing and breaking a leg, would i have to pay compensation beause i didnt have a log book stating the maintenance of the bike brakes?? HELL NO. That is how the people in the school must feel as that money could have been made for better use.

Everything youve said is correct in terms of the actual written law but thats the problem people need to be brought back to earth and not over complicate things by trying to make everything sound clever. Ive said it once and i will say it again. COMMON SENSE

Ooh, I could pull holes in that statement, my friend, but I will leave it to Lisa..

[Edmund]

Ooh, I could pull holes in that statement, my friend, but I will leave it to Lisa..

It will be tough

(kent fox knows he cant help himself)

[Kent Fox]

It will be tough

(kent fox knows he cant help himself)

LISA!

LISA!

Must...not..reply...

[davieG]

Firstly, did you not follow the link to the Keown case?

Secondly, where are the tax rises come from? You'll find that it's insurance premiums that rise, as local authorities will have public liability insurance to pay out cases like this.

Thirdly, what makes you think that I am defending them? All I am saying is that without being aware of all of the facts, I would rather not jump to any conclusions over what is right and what is wrong. I've just finished studying the law of tort, and having started the module with the feeling that the 'compensation culture' in this country is getting stupid, I've had the chance to read what the judges have had to say, and the reasoning behind it. Sometimes I have disagreed with their outcomes, but more often than not, their decisions have been logical, if somewhat unfair. Believe it or not, many claims are thrown out, or even if a claim has gone in an applicants favour, they have ended up with nothing for various reasons of their own doing.

I can't argue the facts of the case and as you rightly say it's a fair bet that the circumstances have been exaggerated but it still costs us, because insurance premiums are paid by the tax payer then you have all the hidden costs of employees of the council being side tracked to deal with these cases, ironically often the same people that should be dealing with the maintenance but now don't have the time.

I worked for the County Council and I spent a fair amount of my time compiling information to prove that we were complying with all the political, discriminatory, H&S etc. regulations, so were many, many more.

[Guest]

Im sorry, but it quite clearly says in black and white what happened in the article and two people are quoted, one being from a teacher union and the other from the council finance dept. If the other party were so innocent why did they not make a statement. The only reason why it went in the boys favour is because he got injured and the school didnt have proof that the gate had been maintained simple as that. They have completly over ruled the fact that the kid broke into property. So what if the gate was faulty, if the kid wasnt there in the first place none of this would have happened not only pursuing his own injury by swinging on a gate. It's his fault for breaking the law so he is doing so at his OWN RISK. Say my bicyle brakes happened to fail whilst a thief stole my bike and ended up crashing and breaking a leg, would i have to pay compensation beause i didnt have a log book stating the maintenance of the bike brakes?? HELL NO. That is how the people in the school must feel as that money could have been made for better use.

Everything youve said is correct in terms of the actual written law but thats the problem people need to be brought back to earth and not over complicate things by trying to make everything sound clever. Ive said it once and i will say it again. COMMON SENSE

I gave you an example of common sense, but I bet you have ignored it.

So a council and a teaching rep say that the money could be used elsewhere - no shit, Sherlock!! For the umpteenth time, it would be covered by public liability insurance. Neither the school nor the council have paid the little hooligan. Oh, and does the article really cover all the facts? From what I read, NO. So yet again I reserve judgment. Anyway, people don't get damages just for being injured. You have to establish a duty of care, then you have to show that the duty was owed to the claimant, and then you have to establish that the duty was breached, and then you have to prove that the breach caused the injury. It's not like anyone can just walk into a court and demand money. To be honest, the fact that it wasn't overturned on appeal says something, non?

He got injured "AT HIS OWN RISK" (volenti non fit injuria ). So how do you know he wasn't awarded £10,000 in damages, reduced to £5,000 for contributory negligence? That wouldn't get the backs of the hoi polloi up though, would it.

Why should the council be absolved of it's duty (under the Occupier's Liability Acts 1957 and 1984)? I'm sure that if the child injured was swinging on the gates as he left school one afternoon, you would be calling for the council to be metaphorically hung?

You can't compare the state of premises with a bicycle. Besides, the civil law relies a lot on "reasonableness", and if you think that it would be reasonable, if not for your own safety more than anyone else's, NOT to keep your bicycle in a good state of repair, then I really do despair.

I have far too many questions to take the miniscule detail in a tabloid newspaper seriously.

FFS, I'm trying to sit on the bloody fence here!

[Guest]

I can't argue the facts of the case and as you rightly say it's a fair bet that the circumstances have been exaggerated but it still costs us, because insurance premiums are paid by the tax payer then you have all the hidden costs of employees of the council being side tracked to deal with these cases, ironically often the same people that should be dealing with the maintenance but now don't have the time.

I worked for the County Council and I spent a fair amount of my time compiling information to prove that we were complying with all the political, discriminatory, H&S etc. regulations, so were many, many more.

My point was to counter this notion that the councils or schools themselves were paying compensation directly to those claiming, when in fact they are not. The fact is we all pay more every time a public body is sued, or when people "lose" their phone, or whatever, not just through tax but with rising insurance costs for our homes, car, travel etc.

[l444ry]

I fully respect your knowledge on this subject Lisa, but that still doesn't make the issue anything other than a farce. It is the rise of American style no-win no-fee parasite lawyers that are helping people sponge their way through loopholes in the law. If everyone on Foxestalk had been aware of this shambles when we were at school we'd all be a lot wealthier today.

[Guest]

I fully respect your knowledge on this subject Lisa, but that still doesn't make the issue anything other than a farce. It is the rise of American style no-win no-fee parasite lawyers that are helping people sponge their way through loopholes in the law. If everyone on Foxestalk had been aware of this shambles when we were at school we'd all be a lot wealthier today.

I wish it were that easy. That's the point I'm trying to make, and without full facts, it's easy to say how outraged we all are, but the law doesn't always favour the trespasser, in fact it is more difficult for a trespasser to get any compensation. This is after all one incident - I'm sure for that one, there are plenty that have failed. But hey ho, what do I know.

[Alexikokopops]

I gave you an example of common sense, but I bet you have ignored it.

So a council and a teaching rep say that the money could be used elsewhere - no shit, Sherlock!! For the umpteenth time, it would be covered by public liability insurance. Neither the school nor the council have paid the little hooligan. Oh, and does the article really cover all the facts? From what I read, NO. So yet again I reserve judgment. Anyway, people don't get damages just for being injured. You have to establish a duty of care, then you have to show that the duty was owed to the claimant, and then you have to establish that the duty was breached, and then you have to prove that the breach caused the injury. It's not like anyone can just walk into a court and demand money. To be honest, the fact that it wasn't overturned on appeal says something, non?

He got injured "AT HIS OWN RISK" (volenti non fit injuria ). So how do you know he wasn't awarded £10,000 in damages, reduced to £5,000 for contributory negligence? That wouldn't get the backs of the hoi polloi up though, would it.

Why should the council be absolved of it's duty (under the Occupier's Liability Acts 1957 and 1984)? I'm sure that if the child injured was swinging on the gates as he left school one afternoon, you would be calling for the council to be metaphorically hung?

You can't compare the state of premises with a bicycle. Besides, the civil law relies a lot on "reasonableness", and if you think that it would be reasonable, if not for your own safety more than anyone else's, NOT to keep your bicycle in a good state of repair, then I really do despair.

I have far too many questions to take the miniscule detail in a tabloid newspaper seriously.

FFS, I'm trying to sit on the bloody fence here!

I tried and I tried but I got couldn't understand anything from "common sense" onwards.

[Guest]

I tried and I tried but I got couldn't understand anything from "common sense" onwards.

Sorry.

[Alexikokopops]

Sorry.

I think it was the "common sense" that threw me to be honest.

[Guest]

I think it was the "common sense" that threw me to be honest.

I should be more careful when using phrases like that, I guess.

Please don't sue me.

[Edmund]

I gave you an example of common sense, but I bet you have ignored it.

So a council and a teaching rep say that the money could be used elsewhere - no shit, Sherlock!! For the umpteenth time, it would be covered by public liability insurance. Neither the school nor the council have paid the little hooligan. Oh, and does the article really cover all the facts? From what I read, NO. So yet again I reserve judgment. Anyway, people don't get damages just for being injured. You have to establish a duty of care, then you have to show that the duty was owed to the claimant, and then you have to establish that the duty was breached, and then you have to prove that the breach caused the injury. It's not like anyone can just walk into a court and demand money. To be honest, the fact that it wasn't overturned on appeal says something, non?

He got injured "AT HIS OWN RISK" (volenti non fit injuria ). So how do you know he wasn't awarded £10,000 in damages, reduced to £5,000 for contributory negligence? That wouldn't get the backs of the hoi polloi up though, would it.

Why should the council be absolved of it's duty (under the Occupier's Liability Acts 1957 and 1984)? I'm sure that if the child injured was swinging on the gates as he left school one afternoon, you would be calling for the council to be metaphorically hung?

You can't compare the state of premises with a bicycle. Besides, the civil law relies a lot on "reasonableness", and if you think that it would be reasonable, if not for your own safety more than anyone else's, NOT to keep your bicycle in a good state of repair, then I really do despair.

I have far too many questions to take the miniscule detail in a tabloid newspaper seriously.

FFS, I'm trying to sit on the bloody fence here!

To be honest i did ignore it

Like the other poster said again you are reading into this to much even tho what your saying is true. Hope that makes sense. Anyways im gonna start a debate with this info at the pub sure the lads will enjoy this.

Might even invest into this book

[Guest]

To be honest i did ignore it

Like the other poster said again you are reading into this to much even tho what your saying is true. Hope that makes sense. Anyways im gonna start a debate with this info at the pub sure the lads will enjoy this.

Might even invest into this book

Let me know if it's any good!

[David O'Leary]

You sound just the kind of chap that UKIP are after

btw, what is UKIP

[Alexikokopops]

btw, what is UKIP

UKIP

[David O'Leary]

UKIP

Oh brill

[lookwhaticando]

It's all the EU's fault.

Out.

[Guest ecompensation]

Attain fair, honest and impartial advice by specialist compensation lawyers at very affordable cost.