€85,000 for spilling tea on yourself

It might worth noting that no actual award was made in this case. This was a settlement. The defendant offered the €85,000 by way of compensation, the claimant accepted and settled for it.
 
WolfeTone said:
It might worth noting that no actual award was made in this case. This was a settlement. The defendant offered the €85,000 by way of compensation, the claimant accepted and settled for it.
Click to expand...

Presumably the defendant feared an even higher amount might be paid out in court.

We really need to stop this nonsense.
 
Firefly said:
Presumably the defendant feared an even higher amount might be paid out in court.

We really need to stop this nonsense.
Click to expand...

Perhaps.

Presumably they thought this because they felt they were negligent and liable to pay more despite apparently fighting the case all the way?

The full facts of the case are not known. If we are to start presuming one thing we may as well presume lots of other things.

Was the child customer served by another child (employee under 18yrs)?
Was the employee who served the child trained in accordance with Starbuck employee training procedures?
Is such training a requirement of Starbucks to hold and maintain the franchise?

If the answer to the first question is yes, second one no, and third question yes, then presumably Coffee Unlimited Ltd feared they may have a lot more to lose other than €85,000 if held to be liable in court while trading under the Starbucks brand.

But that is all presumption and speculation, and perhaps somewhat unfair on the business.
But the facts are, a child suffered burns in coffee shop and the company settled for compensation of €85,000. No award was made as was suggested in the OP.
 
Pity some of the judges who hand out cims like confetti are not more like Jacqueline Linnane - one of the few that are wise to shenanigans.

Not only did she throw out the case, but directed that the files be sent to the dpp AND the insurance company should contact the Law Society in relation to the solicitors. She all but said that the solicitors should have known better. We can all read in between the lines

Solicitors should be 'more selective' about personal injury clients - judge dismisses €300k whiplash claims

A judge expressed the strongest criticism yet by the judiciary of some members of the legal profession today.
www.independent.ie
 

Surely genuine claims should be upheld? Fraudulent claims should of course be thrown out and I would be in favour of laws that penalize people for taking fraudulent claims. But it is a difficult area. Just because a claimant cannot prove liability doesn't mean the claim was fraudulent.
The law needs to be tightened to cut out fraudulent claims. It is leading to a perception that genuine claimants, even those who settle for €85,000, are somehow on the gravy train.
 
Almost all genuine claims are settled via PIAB or settled by the insurance companies and anyone with a genuine case should have no fear. the problem is because too many in the legal profession accept the spurious cases (as detailed by Judge Linnane here) causing question marks on many genuine cases and there are some judges that are easier to win over than others.
In many cases the judge who is hearing the case is only known the day before and when that is known many cases suddenly get withdrawn - I have witnessed that myself in Naas court and there's one judge spurious claimants do not want to get there.
 
For me, the issue here is who was supervising the child? If she was in the care and under the supervision of a responsible adult, then I fail to see why the retailer should be penalized for a lack of proper supervision. Kids do silly stuff because they don't know any better; perhaps they haven't had the life-experience or adequate upbringing to know how to behave responsibly around potentially harmful substances. ('Elf an' Safety in the 'Ome, Bruv, innit, eh?")

Maybe, just maybe retailers in these situations could train staff at tills to ask a customer who is obviously under-age and buying hot-drinks or hot food who they are with and insist that the adult-in-charge supervises the entire transaction. This is not a cynical attempt to absolve retailers from the consequences of injuries on their premises, but to help save other children from needless injury
 
mathepac said:
I fail to see why the retailer should be penalized for a lack of proper supervision
Click to expand...

The retailer wasn't penalized. The retailer settled the claim, effectively admitting liability.

mathepac said:
Maybe, just maybe retailers in these situations could train staff at tills to ask a customer who is obviously under-age and buying hot-drinks or hot food who they are with and insist that the adult-in-charge supervises the entire transaction.
Click to expand...

Maybe the staff are trained to do exactly that. Perhaps on this occasion, it was the staff member who hadn't been trained who served the customer. Perhaps, the restaurant was busy and understaffed, leading the staff to make mistakes in service? Who knows? Without full facts we cannot determine.
All we know is that the retailer settled the case in favour of the claimant for €85,000.
Everything about that suggests the retailer accepts liability.
 
WolfeTone said:
The retailer wasn't penalized. The retailer settled the claim, effectively admitting liability.
Click to expand...
I'd see €85 grand off the bottom line as a penalty and there is nothing to suggest they admitted liability; claims are settled all the time without any admission of liability, implicit or explicit.
Why introduce more red herrings then? Maybe and perhaps my aunt with different plumbing could be my uncle.
WolfeTone said:
All we know is that the retailer settled the case in favour of the claimant for €85,000.
Everything about that suggests the retailer accepts liability.
Click to expand...
Nothing I've seen suggests anything of the kind! See court reports and out of court settlement terms for confirmation, the key words are "without admission of liability".
 
WolfeTone said:
The law needs to be tightened to cut out fraudulent claims. It is leading to a perception that genuine claimants, even those who settle for €85,000, are somehow on the gravy train.
Click to expand...
Do you think €85,000 for spilling tea on yourself, resulting in very minor cosmetic scarring, is a reasonable settlement?

There may well be other factors which drove Starbucks to agree the settlement but that’s a different matter. Given the precedent it sets and the impact such settlements have on small businesses are you happy that someone gets €85,000 for the injuries this person suffered?
 
mathepac said:
I'd see €85 grand off the bottom line as a penalty
Click to expand...

Yes of course, my point was that there was no penalty imposed by a third party, namely the court.
But yes of course, paying out €85K will no doubt feel like a penalty.

mathepac said:
Why introduce more red herrings then?
Click to expand...

To emphasize the futility of introducing them in the first place.

mathepac said:
Nothing I've seen suggests anything of the kind! See court reports and out of court settlement terms for confirmation, the key words are "without admission of liability".
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. Just as there is no official record of a penalty imposed, there is no official record of admission of liability.

That wont stop the perception of having being penalized anymore than it will stop the perception of being liable.
 
Purple said:
Do you think €85,000 for spilling tea on yourself, resulting in very minor cosmetic scarring, is a reasonable settlement?
Click to expand...

No I don't think so, do you?


Purple said:
are you happy that someone gets €85,000 for the injuries this person suffered?
Click to expand...

My happiness or otherwise is irrelevant. Its whether the parties involved were happy to settle for that amount. I can only assume they were happy to settle for that amount (as distinct from being happy to settle for that amount.
Do you think the parties were happy to settle for that amount?
 
Leo said:
Just to be clear, the retailer's insurer settled the claim, the retailer gets no say in such cases.
Click to expand...


Just to be clear, from the article

"Michael Byrne SC, for Demi, said an offer of €85,000 had been made by the defendant."

There is no mention of the retailers insurer, where are you getting your information from?
 
WolfeTone said:
There is no mention of the retailers insurer, where are you getting your information from?
Click to expand...

A company can only appoint their own defence where they don't have liability insurance in place. Once you take out such an insurance policy, you waive your right to fight any such claims. Starbucks have a clause mandating public liability insurance for all franchisees.
 
Purple said:
This is a discussion forum. We deal in irrelevant opinions.
Click to expand...

I gave you my opinion already on the settlement with regard to it reasonableness, or otherwise.
It is my happiness, or otherwise, that I considered irrelevant.
 

I may be misreading this, but the article clearly refers to the company's legal defence, and mentions it was a case they fought all the way.
Going by what you are saying, then they must not have had the proper insurance in place? Otherwise how did they appoint a legal defence?
It appears to be contrary to the clauses of a Starbucks franchise, as per your comment.

Its just an assumption, but is it possible that this is a factor that may have had some bearing on the company's decision to settle for €85,000?
As I alluded to before, the €85,000 does not necessarily stem from the injuries that the child suffered. There may be other mitigating factors that may have prompted the company to settle for that amount.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register