We were mind boggled to learn that there are 4,000 adverse incidents in Irish Hospitals every month.

Now we know the statistic is wrong. It does not include the 58,000 adverse incidents from Tallaght Hospital.

A very large number of intelligent, knowledgeable, people must have known of the “systemic failure” in Tallaght. Every medical practitioner who read a Tallaght x-ray and acted on that reading knew that no confirmatory reading from a consultant radiologist had come to hand.

“Irish Health” reports;

“The remainder of the x-rays to be reviewed and reported on are understood to relate mainly to orthopaedics, and further new delayed diagnoses are thought to be unlikely at this stage.”

I imagine the reason for this is the tendency for failures to detect bone damage in x-rays to come to light by the pathetic return of the patient to the hospital with exacerbated injuries from neglect of the original injury.

In Byrne v Hudson [2007] IESC the Plaintiff lost his eye when an adult son of the owners of 84 Windmill Rd. Crumlin in Dublin shot him with a paint ball gun from the upstairs window of that house.
The Plaintiff instructed his solicitor. However, the Plaintiff failed to tell the solicitor of certain circumstances actually known to him. Those circumstances were that the father of the adult son no longer lived at 84 Windmill Rd. and that the occupier was the mother. (The adult son also did not live at the address.)
Consequently, when the solicitor issued proceedings, the adult son and the father were named as the defendants, the latter as the occupier of the premises. As he was not the occupier, the action was bound to fail against him. Much later the Plaintiff joined the mother. She pleaded the Statute of Limitations 1957, as amended. The Plaintiff pleaded the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991 in reply. Under this amending act time does not begin to run until a victim knows or with reasonable inquiry can know the identity of the person who has wronged him or her.
The mother claimed that the time within which the Plaintiff could effectively and successfully issue proceedings against her had long since expired. The Supreme Court agreed with her. It found that the Plaintiff could not avail of the provisions of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991 in circumstances where not only could he easily find out the relevant facts (that the mother was the only occupier) but that he actually knew this when he instructed his solicitor (and failed to tell him).
(What was at issue, [it is surmised], was the probable availability of insurance cover for the Plaintiff’s claim. That cover was to benefit the occupier and not anyone else. The adult son was not welcome in the house; he would not have been an insured person. The father was not an occupier; he would not have had cover. Only the mother as occupier would have been covered. She was the proper and preferred defendant.)
(Currently, an injured person has two years to issue proceedings and to stop time running against him or her. Only if the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991 applies, will that time not start running at the accrual of the cause of action (the date of the injury)).
It is unwise to make a quick judgment on whether time has run against a claim or not. This post should not be relied upon to determine that question in any case. See the post “Disclaimer!” in this blog.

It isn’t easy to generate readable prose on any subject, even one’s “own” subject. The principal difficulty is the depreciation of intellectual capital. We tend to learn what we know early in life and by the time we look authoritative we know less than we ever knew.

Maurice Neligan is a case in point. In the Irish Times he has opined about the trauma of medical negligence claims on doctors.

He shouldn’t bother, unless he has monitored the latest available information (in the self-same Irish Times!)

That shows there are more than 4,000 adverse incidents in Irish Hospitals each month. That’s more than 48,000 per year.

The trauma to concern us should be the trauma of the victim patients, not the trauma of the doctors.

Insurance has a strange aspect which we often overlook; we are happy that we did not need it.

We do not think that the premia paid year after year to insure our house is wasted money. After all, we do not want our house to burn down; we just want to rebuild and restore it if it does. So, we pay a small sum of money to meet the possibility of having to pay the much larger sum if the house does burn down (or suffer some other form of damage).

Sometimes the question of what is a proportionate sum to pay as a premium to cover the perceived risk has to be publicly determined.

In the UK, unlike Ireland, there is anxiety that justice should be facilitated. By “justice” is meant the ready and easy opportunity to go to court seeking a remedy without being prevented by extraneous causes, like poverty. Poverty is relative; most people in Ireland would consider the costs of a High Court action (or even a Circuit court action) beyond them.

Consequently, the UK authorities have facilitated schemes intended to achieve this end.

One such scheme is to allow lawyers who work on a “no win, no fee” basis to charge a significantly higher fee when they are successful, and provide that the losing party has to pay that higher fee as a matter of course.

Another is to recompense a plaintiff his or her insurance premium for “After The Event” (ATE) insurance. This is insurance taken out to, effectively, help pay for some of the litigation costs of the plaintiff/insured.

Section 29 of the UK Access to Justice Act 1999 provides:

“Where in any proceedings a costs order is made in favour of any party who has taken out an insurance policy against the risk of incurring a liability in those proceedings, the costs payable to him may, subject in the case of court proceedings to rules of court, include costs in respect of the premium of the policy.”

Inevitably, the losing defendants (other insurance companies) took issue with the premia being charged for the ATE.

HERE ‘s the outcome of that dispute.

I have referred previously to the difficulties sometimes encountered with insurance companies.

However, an insurer does not always have the advantage.

If an insurer, meeting a claim of wrongful refusal of indemnity (meaning, the insured person sues for breach of contract following the making of a rejected claim), pleads a simple denial, the court will invariably restrain the defendant insurer from making an affirmative case and the insurer will be confined to undermining the plaintiff’s case (if it is possible).

This means that the plaintiff cannot and should not be surprised, in the litigation, by the advancement of some theory explaining the mechanism of loss (justifying the refusal of indemnity cover). In other words, the defendant insurer is obliged to plead its specific case and reason for refusing cover and cannot take the plaintiff by surprise in the running of the case.

Furthermore, if the defendant insurer is claiming that the claim falls into an exception specified in the contract of insurance, it is for the insurer defendant to prove that fact and not for the plaintiff insured to disprove it.

Many claims against employers can and will fail when the claim is made as one of negligence by the employer. However, because of the multitude of duties imposed on employers by statute, it is common for the employer to be found liable to the employee for an injury even where the employer has not been “at fault” (meaning, here, “negligent”).

The duty imposed by Regulation 28 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations 2007 is a case in point. Its predecessor, Regulation 19 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations 1993 was described in Doyle v Electricity Supply Board [2008] IEHC 88 as

“In the instant case, I have found that the plaintiff has not established a breach by the defendant of any duty at Common Law owed by the defendant to the plaintiff as his employer.
However, with effect from 22nd February, 1993, (when the Regulations of 1993 came into force), a statutory duty was imposed upon the defendant which has been described (by Kearns J.at p. 263 in Everitt) “as virtually an absolute duty” which requires the defendant “ . . . to ensure that . . . the necessary measures are taken so that the work equipment is suitable for the work to be carried out or is properly adapted for that purpose and may be used by employees without risk to their safety and health”.”

Regulation 28 (and Regulation 19 before it) imposes duties on employers relating to work equipment. The equipment must be suitable and free of risk to the employee. It is not necessary to prove that the risk was known to the employer; all that is required is to prove the injury and relationship of the injury to the equipment.

The Minister for Transport has suggested that he will require the occupiers of premises adjacent to public footpaths to clear them of snow and ice.

He has also, unfortunately, indicated that the occupier will be exempted (by the Minister) of legal liability arising from that obligation.

Why bother?

If the occupiers are free of consequences for failure, they won’t clear the pavement in the first place.

The Minister’s proposal is not suitable for legislation; it is suitable for a proclamation. He is, in effect, proposing to issue a call to arms, directed to the Nation, enjoining the citizens to embrace goodness and to avoid evil.

(The title to this post comes from one of my Christmas presents; a series of CDs of episodes of “Jeeves and Wooster”, starring Hugh Laurie as Bertie and Stephen Fry as Jeeves. My particular interest is in the Drones club and its members; it helps to understand current Irish politics by realizing that the Drones are in charge)

(Slippy pavements are not our major problem; NAMA is the big problem).

There is an argument to be made that the broad statement in the blog post “Slip and Fall” acknowledging impunity for public authorities for non-feasance is wrong.

Under the European Convention on Human Rights, persons have the following rights;

Article 8: The right to respect for home (private and family life)
Article 2: the Right to life;
The First Protocol, Article 1: the right to protection of property.

Under the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003, the Courts are obliged to interpret Irish law to conform with the Convention.

In Guerra v Italy (1998) 26 EHRR 357, toxic emissions from a factory injured many nearby residents and killed some. The ECtHR found that the absence of information on the effects of living near the factory breached the Applicants’ right to respect for home under Article 8 of the Convention.

Consequently, where a failure by public authority would result in a breach of an Article of the Convention, it would be incumbent on the authority to act and the authority would be liable in those circumstances for any failure to so act.

Council Regulation 41/2001, “the Brussels Regulation” decides the proper jurisdiction for the determination of disputes in the EU.

Its authors must have been chess fans, dreaming of the great games of the early twentieth century when Capablanca and Lasker dominated the game. That is, it is hoped the authors had dreams.

In a chess dream one does not want to know that Capablanca and his wife Gloria did not get on well and had affairs, even if one does want to know that he became a Cuban civil servant “…with no particular duties but to be famous and go about putting Cuba on the map”. (We have aspirants in Ireland for jobs like that, hence my inappropriate interest).

Likewise, we provide no market for books entitled “The Philosophy of the Unattainable” [Lasker].

No, indeed, chess players should be seen and not heard. They should play the game and recede into the darkness (better still, the languorous white light of the Cuban midday), when the game is finished.

That half-remembered, half-forgotten realm of austere thought seems to be the birthplace of the Regulation. The Regulation has the appearance of simplicity but it is deceptive. It has the capacity to throw up great surprises from apparently straightforward circumstances.

Who would have thought that it would favour the Irish legal profession?

What else can we conclude when we see the Regulation in action in Knight v Axa Assurances [2009] EWHC 1900 QB?

The Plaintiff was injured in a road traffic accident in France. The Defendant was the insurer of the French motorist who had injured him. Under French law the Plaintiff had a direct claim against the Defendant as insurer. That claim was for the payment of compensation, and therefore was a debt. The place of payment of debts is, generally, where the Creditor is domiciled. Furthermore, the Plaintiff was a beneficiary, under French law, of an insurance arrangement and Article 9 (1) (b) of the Brussels regulation applied.

In Ireland, we have not introduced provision for injured persons to claim against the insurers of the malfeasor who caused the loss. This provision is available in the UK and, it would appear from Knight v Axa, France.

Therefore, in Ireland, third parties (other than named beneficiaries) are not “beneficiaries” under policies and cannot invoke Article 9 (1) (b) of the Brussels regulation to issue proceedings in their home state. They have to sue here, being the place where the wrongful event happened and the defendant resides.

Legal proceedings claiming compensation for personal injury (including injuries due to medical negligence) must commence within two years of the commencement of the running of time against the injured person.

When does time begin running?

It depends on the facts of the case.

The Irish Medical Council has published Guidelines to doctors that they may be convicted of medical malpractice if they are not open to the patient or the family of the patient in the event of error.

This is good. It is good for two reasons; firstly, the Council’s ruling (although not entirely selfless) will allow injured persons to access legal advice promptly after an error (and retrieve evidence before it is lost).

Secondly, the situation referred to in this earlier post of McGarr Solicitors can be avoided. The situation was one where, due to the deceit of a doctor, the Statute of Limitations did not begin to run against a patient until she could find out about the injury and the full, true, circumstances in which it was inflicted.