Compo culture

[Purple]

Not at all. The employment and activation of adequate visual systems would appear to be sufficient for the business to avoid liability in the event of accidents occurring, irresponsible or otherwise.

So your concern is the liability of the company, not the safety of those engaging in dangerous and criminal behaviour. It that correct?

In practical terms how can a driver, even with an array of cameras that the NSA would be jealous of, ever be able to determine that nobody was holding onto the tram as it pulled away from every set of traffic lights? Do bear in mind that he/she has to look at what is in front of them as they pull off rather than the bank of screens from all the cameras.

 

[Firefly]

"Woman who sued school after fracturing her arm during game 13 years ago loses claim"

A picture tells a thousand words they say...

Woman who sued school after fracturing her arm during game 13 years ago loses claim

A WOMAN who tumbled over a bench when she was a schoolgirl and fractured her arm has lost her case for damages.

www.independent.ie

 

[Purple]

"Woman who sued school after fracturing her arm during game 13 years ago loses claim"

A picture tells a thousand words they say...

Woman who sued school after fracturing her arm during game 13 years ago loses claim

A WOMAN who tumbled over a bench when she was a schoolgirl and fractured her arm has lost her case for damages.

www.independent.ie

I've way more sympathy for her than for the LUAS surfer.

 

[Leo]

I agree they are very safe, but not perfectly safe. Particularly if deployed with adequate visual systems.

What is perfectly safe? Limited to 5km/h while being escorted by a team of safety personnel to ensure no one comes within 5m of it while in motion?

My car is very safe, but if the rear brake lights stop working, it is less safe. In the event of an accident, having no adequate brake lights may be a significant factor in determining liability regardless of anything else including the actions of any other party.

But what if someone crawled out in front of your car while you were stopped at traffic lights? That'd be pretty stupid, but surely you should have extra mirrors and cameras to detect such an event. Perhaps you need to take a walk around your car every time before you start to move again to ensure there are no idiots present?

I wouldn't suggest otherwise.

Yet you are suggesting the trams need more cameras, mirrors or procedures to stop people doing incredibly stupid things. At what point do we decide to let the really stupid people pay for the consequences of their own actions rather than society as a whole continually having to pay more to subsidise their stupidity?

 

[Purple]

At what point do we decide to let the really stupid people pay for the consequences of their own actions rather than society as a whole continually having to pay more to subsidise their stupidity?

What's really stupid is that we continue to reward stupidity and are then baffled when we get more types of stupid.

 

[Leo]

What's really stupid is that we continue to reward stupidity and are then baffled when we get more types of stupid.

Perhaps it's all a consequence of the rise of over zealous health and safety where stupid that might have been eliminated from the gene pool is allowed to propagate and multiply. Perhaps Idiocracy was a warning....

 

[odyssey06]

I can't figure out who is acting more idiotically, the person who without thinking puts themselves into danger; or the judge who is given to reflect on the case and makes decisions like these! Different kinds of stupid maybe.

 

[Firefly]

What is perfectly safe? Limited to 5km/h while being escorted by a team of safety personnel to ensure no one comes within 5m of it while in motion?

How about the old days?

That horse looks a bit wild. The copper might get a knock and claim for whiplash. And....is that an early "ambulance chasing" lawyer behind the lamppost???

 

[Firefly]

I can't figure out who is acting more idiotically, the person who without thinking puts themselves into danger; or the judge who is given to reflect on the case and makes decisions like these! Different kinds of stupid maybe.

Don't forget the parents either for their "parenting"

 

[WolfeTone]

What is perfectly safe?

I couldn't say. All I know is that you said the trams were perfectly safe everywhere else.

But what if someone crawled out in front of your car while you were stopped at traffic lights?

What if someone crawled out in front of my car? There is no requirement for me to have lights and mirrors, or heat sensors working under my car. I would have a strong defence against any liability.
But if it could be shown that I didn't have adequate visual systems in operation (say a dirty windscreen hampering vision) then it is arguable that if I had clear vision I may have spotted the stupid person crawling under my car and thus prevented an accident.

Yet you are suggesting the trams need more cameras, mirrors or procedures to stop people doing incredibly stupid things.

I am not. Im suggesting, based on the article, that adequate visual systems were not in place, meaning there appears to have been a deficiency of such systems and it is possible that if the tram had been in required working order (ie adequate visual systems) the tram driver may have had the opportunity to spot the child, and not move the tram.

 

[WolfeTone]

So your concern is the liability of the company, not the safety of those engaging in dangerous and criminal behaviour. It that correct?

No. My concern is neither. Im simply trying to establish the basis on which the award was made. The article, and the subsequent reported vitriol aimed at the claimant suggests she got the award for her stupidity.
Im suggesting that the award was made on the basis of the claim that the visual systems in place on the tram were inadequate and had there been adequate systems in place it may have prevented the injury.
Its not a case of adding to safety and visual systems, but rather there was a deficiency in the legally required safety and visual systems. In which its possible the tram should not have been allowed to operate that day.
But like I said, I dont have the full judgement to hand so I can only speculate as to the reasons of the award.

In practical terms how can a driver,

If the required safety standards, systems and procedures are activated and operating as required, it is, in my view, highly likely no liability would have been attributed to the company.
It sounds like to me, that a report of the incident highlighted a deficiency in such systems and it was on that basis the award was made.
Again, im only speculating, but I cannot think of another reason why the award was made.

 

[Leo]

I couldn't say. All I know is that you said the trams were perfectly safe everywhere else.

So how then are you in a position to say there is a 'genuine flaw in safety standards'?

What if someone crawled out in front of my car? There is no requirement for me to have lights and mirrors, or heat sensors working under my car.

Just as there's no requirement for Luas drivers to perform idiot checks.

But if it could be shown that I didn't have adequate visual systems in operation (say a dirty windscreen hampering vision)

Dirty windscreens are irrelevant. The issue here is someone deliberately endangering themselves in a position out of the field of view of the driver.

...it is possible that if the tram had been in required working order (ie adequate visual systems)

So you are now suggesting the tram was not in working order or did not meet the required EU safety standards?

 

[WolfeTone]

So how then are you in a position to say there is a 'genuine flaw in safety standards'?

Im not, no more than you are in a position to say the trams are perfectly safe.
Im speculating that the award was made on basis that there were inadequate visual systems in operation.

Just as there's no requirement for Luas drivers to perform idiot checks.

Of course not. Nobody said there was.
There is, id imagine, a requirement to perform routine safety checks. But if the systems and equipment required to be activated and assist in those checks are not working, then such checks will be hampered increasing the possibility of injury.
Again, im only speculating, on the basis of what was reported.
I can't think of another reason why the award was made, can you?

The issue here is someone deliberately endangering themselves in a position out of the field of view of the driver.

The field view of the driver is completely relevant. It is claimed that the field view of the tram driver was somewhat impeded by the failure to activate adequate visual systems.

So you are now suggesting the tram was not in working order or did not meet the required EU safety standards?

Im suggesting the award was made on a failure to employ and/or activate adequate visual systems.
Again, im only speculating, I dont have the judgement to hand. But I cant think of any other reason why the award was made, can you?

 

[Purple]

Im not, no more than you are in a position to say the trams are perfectly safe.
Im speculating that the award was made on basis that there were inadequate visual systems in operation.

LUAS trans are run by Transdev and maintained by Alstom. Both are international companies. The Trams are made by Alstom in France. They comply with EU safety standards which include visual systems in place for the driver. They have sold more than 2000 of them in over 50 cities across the world. The Trams are checked every day before they start operating to ensure that there is nothing wrong with them.

Unless the Judge is a Tram design engineer with a specialist competence in safety systems I fail to see how he can have decided that the Tram design is intrinsically unsafe. If, for some reason, he was in fact in a position to draw such a technical conclusion then Alstom would have stopped the use of their 2000+ trams around the world.

 

[WolfeTone]

So I did a bit more searching on this. The reason why there is no judgement is because the court awarded nothing.
All accusations against the judge are false. In fact, the judge suggested that if the case had gone to trial it was likely the defendant would have ended up with nothing!

The award was made by Veoila, the owners of Transdev who operate the LUAS.

Woman in ‘Luas surfing’ case initially said claim worth €4m

Rebecca Kelly, who received more than €550,000 for injuries, conceded her own actions played a significant role in the incident

www.irishtimes.com

 

[WolfeTone]

The Trams are checked every day before they start operating to ensure that there is nothing wrong with them.

According to the report in previous post, the cameras used to combat the problem of tram surfing were not operating that day.

 

[Firefly]

Transdev obviously came to an assessment that it was safer to pay out €550,000 than to risk a much higher award being made against them depending on the judge

"These assessments incorporate multiple factors including actuarial assessments of the monetary impact of an injury on a plaintiff as well as legal assessments of what award a particular judge is likely to make if a case went to trial."

Woman in ‘Luas surfing’ case initially said claim worth €4m

Rebecca Kelly, who received more than €550,000 for injuries, conceded her own actions played a significant role in the incident

www.irishtimes.com

That the initial claim was for $4m and that the judge suggested that if the case had gone to trial it was likely the defendant would have ended up with nothing just shows what kind of compo culture exists. Rewarding stupidity and recklessness. I would think it more just for her to be prosecuted for admitting her tram surfing.

 

[WolfeTone]

Rewarding stupidity and recklessness

Yes, these international companies need to stand up for themselves and not allow 13yr old girls bully or intimidate them into handing over €€€'s .

These assessments incorporate multiple factors including actuarial assessments of the monetary impact of an injury on a plaintiff as well as legal assessments of what award a particular judge is likely to make if a case went to trial."

I do hope this assessment was a once off and that the assessors didn't get their P45's.
Everyone cocks up from time to time.

I would think it more just for her to be prosecuted for admitting her tram surfing.

Prosecute! A 13yr old girl!! For doing what generations of kids have done in the past - jump a ride on slow moving vehicles.

I dont think that is the answer.

The only reason this woman is being targeted is because Veoila settled with her for €500,000.

 

[cremeegg]

Yes, these international companies need to stand up for themselves and not allow 13yr old girls bully or intimidate them into handing over €€€'s .

I couldn't agree more.

I do understand that you meant it sarcastically.

It may not be 13 year old that are bullying the international companies but our deeply compromised legal system.

 

[WolfeTone]

It may not be 13 year old that are bullying the international companies but our deeply compromised legal system.

Interesting.

To target 13yr olds, or even that young mother, as has been the case, for some unsubstantiated grievance that the rest of general public have in paying higher premiums because of alleged 'compo culture', it might be worthwhile examing some other detail beyond the eye-catching, sales pumping headlines.

It would be interesting to hear how is the legal system has been, or is compromised?

Certainly I think such sentiment is not without merit. But I do think that litigation, in the arena of compensation for injury, is driven primarily by the legal profession itself and, more deceitfully, the insurance industry itself.
It is a cash-cow for payouts, commission, fees etc, all to be pocketed by those leading the charge.
The insurance Industry can claim that higher and higher premiums as consequence of all these claims, but in reality it is just profit gorging.
In 2015, with no-claims, no penalty points, my car insurance went up 25%. When I questioned my insurer they told me it was because so many cars had been written off in the floods the year before.
I did some searching, and sure enough up to 80 cars were written off in flooding incidents the previous year.
This is out of a stock of some 2million in this country. The maths doesn't add up.

Pearse Doherty, TD, is doing great work in the Dáil trying to expose the machinations of the insurance industry. Unfortunately, not too many headlines.

It is clear to me that there are nefarious practices in the compensation arena that on the face of it sound costly to Joe Soap et al, but in the background there is a lucrative and profit driven system at play that gives scant regard for the welfare of its victims. I would almost sense a US type style of litigation for compensation embedding itself here.
This can only be facilitated by our law-makers and our legal system, no doubt with representations from the insurance industry itself.

Instead, from the media headlines, young mothers with brain injuries are vilified. Or 12yr olds who are scalded in cafes.

Notwithstanding the reality of fraudulent claims, they are a penny a dozen, relative to awards (or more frequently, settlements) made to keep decisions out of courts and judgements held against defendants.
There is a reason for this, the legal system is being compromised or manipulated in some way. Not by 12 and 13yrs olds, but by people far more in tuned with the entire system.