Politics

Modern people, sportsmen/women excepted, are most at risk of serious injury when travelling on the road. The energy bundled in a motor car, or other vehicle, is considerable. If that energy is suddenly blocked, which is what happens in a typical car accident, it must go somewhere and, unfortunately, it sometimes goes into us. Then you are injured and the nature and extent of that injury is determined by chance.

Make no mistake; as a society, we have planned these accidents. Otherwise we would prohibit such forms of travel. Instead, we build lots of roads and we promote the use and sale of motor cars.

In this sense, it is a misnomer, to call these events “accidents”.

Take a circus, or theatre, knife-thrower.  If the knife thrower “accidentally” throws the knife and stabs his (typically) lovely assistant in the heart, we expect that the police will arrest him and that he will be convicted of a crime. We reject the idea that this is an accident. His implied position, that his only fault lies in that last unintended lapse in his wrist, is rejected.

We know that he arranged everything and we are reasonable in considering that, perhaps, or even probably, he had no lapse whatever in his wrist and intended the injury/death.

It is, among other things, this knowledge of a social responsibility for road traffic accidents that we see expressed in the fact of a Government “4^th Road Safety Strategy” or that the EU is holding a “Road Transport Safety Conference on Serious Injuries” in Dublin.

It is a fact, and we should know it, that, as a society, we can suffer mental aberration on these matters. (“Mental aberration” is a polite term for madness).

I do not just mean politicians’ proposals for Irish farmers to be permitted to drink and drive.

I do not just mean politicians claiming that workers allegedly neglecting road safety be allowed to get on with the job and be freed from “red tape”.

I mean it is a form of mental illness, hypocrisy certainly, to plan for injuries to happen and to claim, in the Constitution, that the State will vindicate the person (meaning bodily integrity) of citizens (and others) and then to establish a statutory body (the Injuries Board, a.k.a., the Personal Injuries Assessment Board) (and maintain it) that seeks to ensure the lowest possible level of success in delivering compensation to those injured persons, and to go further; to shrink the window of opportunity for the injured person to effectively make a claim for that compensation to the inadequate time of two years.

In fact, to term all of this “madness” is politeness.

We should remember that we were not always as “mad” as we currently are. We have a “legal system” that includes a cohort of persons intent on overcoming the State’s lunacy.When it comes to car accidents solicitors (and barristers) are those working for the common good. The persons who intentionally hobbled them in doing what they try to do, namely, vindicate the bodily integrity of road accident and other personal injury victims, cannot be categorised as mad. They are simply working against the common good.

The Injuries Board is also called the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. It was established by statute in 2003.

Every person wishing to recover compensation for a personal injury inflicted by wrongdoers must first apply to the Injuries Board for an assessment of the value of the claim.

The Board has issued an article today (26^th March 2013) and Patricia Byron, Chief Executive, went on Morning Ireland for an interview.

The upshot of the article and the interview is this; personal injury claims are increasing and this is bad.

This sounds like the resurrection of the jibe about “Compo Culture”. That jibe was the cry of persons who wished to deny to injured persons their rightful compensation when they were injured by the wrongful acts of others.

Those persons were successful in their campaigning because they had political friends in high places. The establishment of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board was one of their achievements.

Another was the shortening of the time within which an injured person had to issue proceedings before becoming statue barred from doing so. The time was shortened from three years to two years. (One politician wanted to drop it to one year).

Now the Injuries Board is asserting something is happening that it says is undesirable; that people are being educated to make claims for personal injury.

This is a surprising development. The Personal Injuries Assessment Board has a budget for advertising. Any reasonable person would think that it was part of the job of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board to educate injured persons to make claims for personal injury and to do so to the Board. Clearly, the Board does not think so. It fully approves of the restrictions on solicitors to advertise about personal injury claims. It wants that extended to others; it says those others are “claims agencies”.

Here are some facts:

1. PIAB are precluded from examining liability, but do get information on the facts of accidents. if those facts are not credible or reliable, PIAB can decline assessment;
2. In addition, respondents can and do decline assessment of false claims;
3. Consequently, piab assessments are of valid claims;

What public official can claim to be reasonable when decrying a claimed increase in PIAB claims? These claimants have been injured and want and deserve compensation.

The explanation is this; PIAB is biased against injured claimants.

1. It wishes to leave those persons in ignorance of their rights. (Patricia Byron; RTE’s “Morning Ireland” – 26/3/2013). Ms. Byron specifically complained in that interview that “the thought is being put in their mind”.
2. PIAB charges claimants for an assessment, but can, and does, relieve respondents (wrongdoers) of their obligation to pay, or even to submit to the PIAB system, before making an assessment (or, as should happen, giving the claimant an authorisation to go to court). (See Section 14 (b) of The Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003).

Perfect justice does not exist. When a person is injured, by the fault of another, only a money payment is available in law to compensate him or her. This inadequacy is unavoidable. Recently, in Ireland, a generation of politicians, civil servants and some lawyers, decided to trade even this inadequacy to further their prospects and careers. They promoted the interests of the defence in personal injury claims, over the interests of the injured plaintiff and some still do so.

They were the least likely persons to care about the plaintiff in Hu -v- Duleek Formwork Ltd & Anor [2013 IEHC 50; every generation of Irish politician for eighty years had, in principle, cared nothing for that plaintiff.

It is imperative that this stop now. Even the lowest common denominator says so.

Think only of what John Donne, the English poet, wrote in 1623, in Meditation XVII (Nunc Lento Sonitu Dicunt, Morieris);

“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were: any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

With very little bother or trouble, the Oireachtas could and should remedy a real and persistent injustice for many injured persons.

In Hu -v- Duleek Formwork Ltd & Anor [2013 IEHC 50,  the High Court declined to make a declaration that the Plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of an insurance contract taken out by the insolvent Defendant company. The insurance company, Aviva, took issue with the Defendant’s failure to pay the excess of €1,000 which, as between the Defendant and Aviva, it was the Defendant’s liability to pay in respect of the Plaintiff’s claim.

Aviva would not be able to do this in the UK.

Mr Hu was injured due to the Defendant’s negligence and, it seems, breach of duty. The Defendant had paid a premium to Aviva and insured itself against claims such as that of Mr. Hu. It would have got its indemnity entitlement if it had not been insolvent. Its insolvency prevented it paying the excess. Mr. Hu offered to pay the excess but Aviva would have none of that. Consequently Mr. Hu is left without compensation for his serious personal injury and Aviva have escaped paying him because there is no person to make them do it.

More than 80 years ago the UK decided that exactly these instances of  the doctrine of privity of contract, which doctrine was in essence the basis of the Irish High court decision, were indefensible and insupportable in such circumstances. Recently the UK law was updated.

All we Irish have to do is to copy what the UK has done.

The past is still here. 80 years is no excuse for perpetrating injustice; it is an inexcusable injustice. Laziness and indifference are human faults not explanations.

Supermarkets are common locations of slips and falls. The customer numbers are high and the material to cause the slips is readily to hand.

Under the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 an occupier is obliged to take;

 “… such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances…….to ensure that a visitor to the premises does not suffer injury or damage by reason of any danger existing thereon”

There is a danger in supermarkets that stuff will fall to the floor and customers will slip on it.

The circumstances will vary between one part of the supermarket and another. If a tin of beans falls to the floor, it is unlikely a customer will step on it or fall having stepped on it. However, if vegetables or fruit fall to the floor the customer will surely fall if she steps on it. So, the care to be taken is greater in the area of the vegetables (or containers of oil, for instance).

Ireland does not like to collect information. If it does collect information, it does not like to release it to the public. Until the introduction of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989, statistics on work accidents were completely unreliable. Many such accidents had been defined out of existence and were not searched for or recorded. The State set up a commission, the Barrington Commission, to review the facts on accidents at work, in the lead up to the introduction of the 1989 Act.

Things are now improved. Work accidents are monitored, to a degree, by the mis-named Health and Safety Authority.

It is mis-named because it deals almost exclusively with accidents at work, happening to workers. It has no remit to collect data on accidents and/or injuries generally.

For that kind of information we have to look to the USA. See HERE for the US National Safety Council’s report for 2008. On page 29 it recites:

“Falls are the leading cause of nonfatal unintentional injuries that are treated in hospital emergency departments, according to data from the All Injury Program…..More than 8.5 million people were treated in an emergency department for fall-related injuries in 2008. Falls were the leading cause of nonfatal injuries for all age groups except for the 15-24 year old age group, for which struck by or against an object or person was the leading cause. Struck by or against, overexertion, and motor vehicle crashes involving vehicle occupants were also leading causes for most age groups.”

This is surprising; falls injury more people than road accidents. (Possibly not; see page 37 of the US report) What does this mean for retailers?

Perhaps it is time to examine an idea (that a fall in a supermarket should trigger an obligation on the occupier to prove it happened in the absence of fault on the part of the occupier ) similar to one floated in the Irish Supreme Court; (Mullen v Quinnsworth Ltd, t/a Crazy Prices (No 1)[1990] 1 IR59 (raising the possibility of imposing “absolute” liability on the proprietors of large supermarkets on an analogy with the rule in Rylands v Fletcher)

Much of everyday speech is inaccurate, so inaccuracy is not a big deal in everyday life. However, Government ministers do not inhabit our banal everyday world. In the case of the Minister for Agriculture and Food this means at least two things; he should not say “appraise” when he means “apprise,”  and he should not undermine criminal investigations by diminishing the facts being investigated which he does when he says he is investigating “mislabeling”. To say that selling horsemeat as beef is mislabeling is to imply inaccuracy, merely, by the seller.

Sometimes even inaccuracy is very serious. When an auditor finds a discrepancy of €1.5 euros in the accounts he/she keeps looking for the cause of that discrepancy. If they do not, they may find they are answerable for a very large fraud.

The Minister for Agriculture and Food is running that risk.

He should read Section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. It reads:

“6.—(1) A person who dishonestly, with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss to another, by any deception induces another to do or refrain from doing an act is guilty of an offence.”

The definitions section of the act says this:

““dishonestly” means without a claim of right made in good faith;”

The Health and Safety Authority is a good institution but an odd one. It was established under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. It has as its central purpose, as recited in Section 34 of that Act,

“to promote, encourage and foster the prevention of accidents, dangerous occurrences and personal injury at work in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions”

So, oddly enough, when some customers were killed and injured in the Connacht Gold shop in Longford, the Health and Safety Authority, as it has done before, stretched its remit to investigate the incident. Actually, that is an overstatement; at least one employee was injured in the incident.

The most notable case of the Health and Safety Authority extending its remit (to the benefit of all) was the road accident in May 2005 in which five schoolgirls died when a Bus Eireann bus crashed in a single vehicle accident.

The Authority prosecuted Bus Eireann, Meath County Council and a motor service company for the accident. The anti-braking system on the bus was disabled. The motor service company noted this and left it like that. The county council commenced roadworks at the place of the accident without making a safety plan. These circumstances, mostly the disabling of the ABS, resulted in the accident.

The presence of the bus driver, a Bus Eireann employee, made the bus a workplace and conferred jurisdiction on the Health and Safety Authority.

It would be a good idea to make the jurisdiction of the Health and Safety Authority general and not simply limited to places of work.

It is also time to reform the law on liability of occupiers of premises as laid down in the Occupiers Liability Act 1995.

This is the appropriate editorial to replace that of the Irish Times of 2nd February 2013.

The blame for Ireland’s faulty beef burgers lies with the relevant Irish meat processors and, maybe, with someone in Poland. The testing of the burgers showed two pertinent facts; the animal source of the burger content and the proportion coming from each animal type. Of the tested burgers, most contained trace elements of horse and/or pig. One did not. That one burger, from Silvercrest Foods Ltd., revealed that Silvercrest’s meat constituent of the burger was one third horse meat. The other burgers, with traces of adulteration, were evidence of contamination, probably from the factory machinery. The machinery, in its turn, must have been contaminated by the very same source as the Silvercrest  burger; the meat the processors had put through the machines and into the burgers. The fact that there were traces only in those other burgers was not a relief; it simply showed the adulteration had passed through the factory and was, or had been, in an earlier burger production run.

Why did it take the Minister so long to discover Silvercrest’s meat sources led to, inter alia, Poland?

The fact that the public does not know the full facts relating to the adulteration of its food is the responsibility of the Minister for Agriculture and Food. It is unacceptable that the Minister persists in implying that unwittingly eating horse and pig meat is not a food safety issue. The public did not choose to eat horse or pig in the circumstances in which it ate those meats; the Minister is wrong to imply that the public does not know what is good for it, or that its loss of control over its food is not a big deal. Strictly, the Minister seems to think frozen burgers are fungible protein sources.

It is galling that Tesco is acting as the Minister should have acted; applying severe but appropriate sanctions to the guilty. Of what is Silvercrest guilty? It, reputedly, breached its contract with Tesco. It was limited under that contract to sourcing its meat from Irish or British suppliers. That contract would not have failed to stipulate that the meat was to be beef meat. When Silvercrest supplied Tesco it knew that the burgers, or some of them, were not in accordance with contract. Every such supply to Tesco involved a misrepresentation by Silvercrest. Unwittingly, presumably, Tesco in its turn misrepresented the contents of the burgers to its customers. In fact each of those misrepresentations was really a misrepresentation of Silvercrest to each consumer. Tesco was just a conduit of the falsehood. To suggest that this was a failure of quality control is, to be charitable, poor judgement. What Tesco describes as a “breach of trust” is clearly a breach of contract and a breach of Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2007. It is an unsettled point whether it was also a breach of Section 42 of the Consumer Protection Act 2007.

It is disturbing that the Polish authorities are challenging the Silvercrest and Ministerial narrative of events. If Poland is not the source of the horse meat, what is the Minister going to do about that, resigning aside?

Noted in the Irish Times, 2nd February 2013, page 15.

 “With no evidence of fraud…”

This phrase means there was no evidence of deceit by Silvercrest Foods Ltd. There was in fact deceit. Tesco was deceived as to the sources of the burger meat; it described it as a breach of trust.

My online dictionary defines “fraud” as:

“a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities”

The finding by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland of horse meat in frozen beef burgers invokes the following legal provisions:

A)            Articles 14 (1) and 16 of Regulation (EC) N° 178/2002 on General Food Law;

B)            Regulations 5 (1) and 6 of the European Communities (General Food Law) Regulations 2007.

Under Article 14 (1) of Regulation No. 178/2002, “Food shall not be placed on the market if it is unsafe”. “Unsafe” includes food unfit for human consumption.

The Regulation goes on…

“In determining whether any food is unfit for human consumption, regard shall be had to whether the food is unacceptable for human consumption according to its intended use, for reasons of contamination, whether by extraneous matter or otherwise, or through putrefaction, deterioration or decay.”

So, food is contaminated if it contains extraneous matter.

Article 16 of Regulation No. 178/2002 provides;

“Without prejudice to more specific provisions of food law, the labelling, advertising and presentation of food or feed, including their shape, appearance or packaging, the packaging materials used, the manner in which they are arranged and the setting in which they are displayed, and the information which is made available about them through whatever medium, shall not mislead consumers.”

Under Regulation 5 (1) of the European Communities (General Food Law) Regulations 2007;

“A food business operator is guilty of an offence if the food business operator places unsafe food on the market or otherwise contravenes Article 14 of the EC Regulation.”

Under Regulation 6 of the European Communities (General Food Law) Regulations 2007;

“A food business operator is guilty of an offence if the food business operator fails to comply with Article 16 of the EC Regulation in the labelling, advertising or presentation of food.”

So, citizens will want to know if there will be prosecutions for the Irish beef burger incident.