Litigation means a resort to the Courts for resolution of a problem. Wikipedia says the conduct of a lawsuit is litigation.

It also says:

“A lawsuit is a civil action brought before a court of law in which a plaintiff, a party who claims to have received damages from a defendant’s actions, seeks a legal or equitable remedy. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff’s complaint. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment will be given in the plaintiff’s favor, and a range of court orders may be issued to enforce a right, award damages, or impose an injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.”

We could go on and on and on about the topic, but this is a blog and we should limit ourselves to the practical.

A typical lawsuit has its origins in a Road Traffic Accident. (“an RTA”). A typical RTA will involve two motor cars. The drivers may have bona fide differing opinions of the causes of the accident. One driver may have sustained more damage than the other. These circumstances may drive the lawsuit.

There are other circumstances that drive a lawsuit. Greed can drive it. Desperation can drive it. Lack of scruples (a sub-set of greed) can drive it. Ambition can drive it.

Most lawsuits are settled. The judicial system is under-resourced to adjudicate on every lawsuit filed in court.

The statistics in the Annual report of the Courts Service of Ireland do not properly reflect this. Take the figures for the High Court civil cases in 2008. There were 22,861 proceedings issued in that year. Allegedly the court made 25,734 orders and there were 4,631 settlements. These two latter figures are categorized as “Cases disposed of”.

In truth the figures for commencement of proceedings and cases disposed of are unrelated. This is so notwithstanding that most proceedings would still be in being one year after being issued. The Court Service statistics take no account of cases commenced and then discontinued. These cases, more often than not, have been settled.

The litigants, with the assistance of the legal profession, settle their cases. (At lunch-time outside the Law Library).

The implications of this, for litigants, is profound. It implies the process is a rational process (on the whole). It is rational in the way a game of chess is rational. The rules and principles are sufficiently clear and well known that the outcome can be predicted with greater or lesser certainty. It is the function of the judges to preserve the integrity of the rules and, exceptionally, expand on them.

Nevertheless, litigation is uncertain. That may mean it is uncertain to the extent of 10% or 50%. The burden of proof in civil law is on the balance of probabilities. To win, a litigant must persuade a judge that what is alleged by that litigant is, on balance, more likely than what is contended for by the opponent.

Failure to settle a case, or failure to settle until “the door of the court” may be caused by a failure to assess where the balance in the case lies, or it may be evidence of a deferment of settlement to the day of trial to maximize the compensation discount a defendant would like to get from an injured plaintiff.

Whatever the case, those causes are in principle, also assessable.

“The Green Cross Code” is for pedestrians.

The equivalent for motorists is more extensive. However, any amount of rules will be wasted if a driver has a defective attitude to his/her “rights”.

Long before the motorcar appeared, the roads were used by pedestrians and animals, particularly horses. It is within living memory that a large cattle market thrived at the top of Prussia St. on the North Circular Road in Dublin and the cattle were herded down the NCR to the docks for shipment to, usually, the UK. All that is gone now.

What motoring “entitlements” could be asserted in circumstances like that?

With the departure of the animals, only pedestrians remain to hinder the motorist. Pedestrians, being more malleable and responsive than animals, avoid offering themselves as a hindrance, for good reason.

Who has not been challenged by a motorist for having the temerity to walk across a T-junction, obstructing a turning car? Most pedestrians anticipate the car and yield to it, although the right of way generally rests with the pedestrian.

What hope, then, that a motorist would anticipate a momentary error by a pedestrian in a “refuge” on a dual carriageway? The self-same driver is, after all, in the “fast” lane as he/she zips past within inches of the pedestrian.

The fact is, a driver is obliged to drive in such a manner and at such a speed as to avoid a pedestrian who MAY step out onto the roadway. That implies that it is an obligation to SEE the pedestrian and, probably, to LOOK AT the pedestrian.

We see much of this in McDermott v McCormack [2010] IEHC 50.

The Defendant driver admitted he did not see the Plaintiff pedestrian. The Plaintiff was an admirable witness, given that he was thrown into the air by the Defendant’s taxi. The Defendant gave evidence of the Plaintiff’s head hitting his windscreen. The judgment does not record the Plaintiff’s evidence in detail on the point, but if it was tendered it would probably have been in terms of the Defendant’s windscreen hitting him on the head.

The case looks like one of excess of ambition by the defence. They were in possession of a report from a hospital showing the Plaintiff had been very drunk when the accident happened, but, as the judge remarked;

“…He was an alcoholic. Unfortunately, he still is. That does not disentitle him to damages.”

In the event the court found (without reference to the Green Cross Code, it not being law), the Plaintiff was 50% responsible for the accident (there was no crossing point on the road at the point of the accident) and reduced the damages from €266,758 to €133,379.

For more information see our Colour Supplement HERE

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.

Many people have been injured in Ireland on public pavements due to the recent snow and ice. Public pavements are “public” because they have been “taken in charge” by the local authority. (If they are not taken in charge they are private pavements.)

It is settled law in Ireland that a public authority is not liable for damage arising from “non-feasance”. This means that, if the public authority fails to exercise a statutory power, and loss is sustained which would have been avoided if the power had been exercised, the public authority is not accountable in law for that failure.

(This does not mean that public authorities are not liable for all failures. They are liable to the same extent as ordinary persons for failure to act; that means that a Plaintiff must prove a duty of care resting on the public authority and loss arising from breach of the duty or care.)

Consequently, a failure by a local, or other, authority to clear snow and ice from roads or footpaths, generally, is an act of non-feasance and attracts no legal liability.

Private persons (adjoining owners and occupiers) have, generally, no liability in common law to clear public roads or pavements of snow and ice. They may have a particular liability; if they place the snow or ice on the road or pavement, or create it in the first place. These acts would constitute a public nuisance. For instance, if the owner or occupier transfers a snow burden from his premises onto the public pavement, the presence of the snow is not “natural”. It is man-made. The owner or occupier had created the condition. For further instance, if the owner or occupier pours hot water on the pavement to melt ice already there, and the water freezes, the new ice will have been created by the owner or occupier.

If the servants or agents of a public authority create a public nuisance, the authority will be liable on the general principles of nuisance.

In the City of Dublin a particular liability rests on owners and occupiers (including local and public authorities) adjoining public pavements to clear the pavement of snow immediately on the cessation of the snowfall. The liability was created by bye-laws of June1899. The bye-laws do not expressly create an entitlement to compensation for persons injured on such un-cleared pavements, but the courts have consistently interpreted such statutory obligations as creating and conferring such entitlement.

The liability for private roads and pavements will be covered by either or both of contractual duties, if any, and the Occupiers Liability Act 1995.

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.

McGarr Solicitors have opened a new “window” in cyberspace. You can see it HERE.

It is intended to more clearly explain legal issues to victims of personal injury.

Those legal issues can be complex.

The government introduced the Personal Injuries Assessment Board in 2003. This was professedly to benefit the people of Ireland by reducing the premiums for insurance cover.

That may or may not have happened, but the obvious beneficiaries were the insurance companies operating in Ireland and the obvious losers were the Irish victims of personal injury (not “Irish” but “injured in Ireland”).

Separately, the government reduced the time after which a personal injury claim was statute barred, from three years to two years. It also introduced new and onerous procedures for injured persons to adopt, as they sought recovery of compensation from the person or persons who had caused them the injury.

However, these issues have been addressed elsewhere in this website.

Instead of repeating them, this post can refer now, albeit gratuitously, to rotogravure, or rather its absence from the process for producing our new website. Rotogravure was a printing technology, remembered, if for nothing else, by a citation of it in the Irving Berlin song, “Easter Parade”.

When, if ever, will someone write a popular song incorporating the word “inkjet” in it?

Can it match “rotogravure” for poetry?

I think not.

As part of the assault on the constitutional rights of personal injury victims, the Minister for Justice etc. procured the making of a requirement, of such victims, that they write a letter to the person guilty of inflicting the injury within two months of that infliction. That requirement is found in Section 8 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004.

A failure to write the letter within the time may lead to the victim failing to recover legal costs against the wrongdoer, depending on what the judge in the case thinks.

Lawyers have a good word to describe such a provision; that word is “calculated”. The provision is calculated to have considerable downside for the innocent victim, even if it is never put to the test.

Who will feel sufficiently brave to fight to the last ditch, knowing that the letter was not written and that the judge is an unknown quantity?

In short the victim’s morale will be sapped.

That was what the Minister intended.

If a person suffers a personal injury while in the premises of another person, it is necessary to analyse the circumstances of the accident from the point of view of the law of negligence and also the Irish law on occupiers’ liability.

(If the injured person is an employee, it will be necessary also to consider what employer duties might have been broken, resulting in the injury).

The law on occupiers’ liability applies when the injury is caused by a defect or some condition of the premises. If the injury occurs without involving the premises, occupiers’ liability does not arise.

The greater part of the law on occupiers’ liability is now to be found in the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1995.

It is a highly technical piece of legislation.

Consider the definition of “premises”:

“premises” includes land, water and any fixed or moveable structures thereon and also includes vessels, vehicles, trains, aircraft and other means of transport;”

So, a motor car or a bicycle is a “premises”.

Or, consider what is a “recreational user”:

“recreational user” means an entrant who, with or without the occupier’s permission or at the occupier’s implied invitation, is present on premises without a charge (other than a reasonable charge in respect of the cost of providing vehicle parking facilities) being imposed for the purpose of engaging in a recreational activity…”

What for instance is the cost of providing car parking in a particular location? If a “recreational user” is alleged to be such, having paid a car parking charge, should the occupier prove that the charge was “reasonable” (relative to the “cost” of providing parking)?

(Why the reference to the “greater part of the law on occupiers’ liability” above?

Because of Section 8 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1995;

“8.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting any enactment or any rule of law relating to—

( a ) self-defence, the defence of others or the defence of property,

( b ) any liability imposed on an occupier as a member of a particular class of persons including the following classes of persons:

(i) persons by virtue of a contract for the hire of, or for the carriage for reward of persons or property in, any vessel, vehicle, train, aircraft or other means of transport;

(ii) persons by virtue of a contract of bailment; and

(iii) employers in respect of their duties towards their employees, or

( c ) any liability imposed on an occupier for a tort committed by another person in circumstances where the duty imposed on the occupier is of such a nature that its performance may not be delegated to another person.”

Chemicals can be Corrosive, Explosive, Toxic, Flammable, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammable Combustible or Oxidizing. A corrosive chemical can burn the skin or deeper tissue. A toxic chemical is a poison. The poison may enter the body through the skin and not simply by the obvious routes of ingestion or breathing. Effects may not be immediate; a chemical may have a chronic effect, rather than an immediate acute effect.

A chemical is said to be flammable if it will burn or explode at temperatures lower than 140 degrees fahrenheit. Some substances can reach this phase below room temperature.

A chemical is said to be combustible if it will burn or explode at temperatures above 140 degrees fahrenheit.

A chemical is said to be oxidizing if it reacts with oxygen and other substances, resulting in a release of energy in the form of a fire or an explosion.

It is a source of additional worry (above the prospect of unemployment) to employees who have been injured at work, to find that their employer is insolvent.

The reason for that lies in the fact that, in Ireland, only a party (the employer) to employers’ liability insurance may sue an insurance company for an indemnity in respect of a claim made against the employer.

In addition, in the general law of insurance, any money paid to the insolvent employer by the insurance company would become the property of the insolvent company and would be swallowed up in the insolvency.

To avoid this, the Oireachtas legislated in Section 62 of the Civil Liability Act 1961;

62.—Where a person (hereinafter referred to as the insured) who has effected a policy of insurance in respect of liability or a wrong, if an individual, becomes a bankrupt or dies or, of a corporate body, is wound up or, if a partnership or other incorporated association, is dissolved, moneys payable to the insured under the policy shall be applicable only to discharging on full all valid claims against the insured in respect of which those moneys are payable, and no part of those moneys shall be assets of the insured or applicable to the payment of the debts (other than those claims) of the insured in the bankruptcy or in the administration of the estate of the insured or in the winding-up or dissolution, and no such claim shall be provable in the bankruptcy, administration, winding-up or dissolution.”

As a consequence of the Section a liquidator holds the money in trust for the insured employee and should pay it directly to the employee in the appropriate circumstances.