Accidents at Work*
This means that confusion as to who is or is not an employee need not deprive an injured person from securing proper compensation when injured in a workplace.
The Irish State has a very poor record in defending the constitutional right to compensation for personal injury.
The musings by the Director of Public Prosecutions as reported HERE warrant a book written on them. He has pointed to the need for, and social value of whistleblowers. This being a blog, a posting will have to suffice. His musings were followed by a proposal from the Minister for Justice, the terms of which are currently obscure. Assuming that there is no co-ordination between the Minister for Justice and the DPP, and assuming them to be decent, well-meaning office […]
The courts have frequently rejected arguments that claims have been settled, as purportedly evidenced by “releases” signed by Plaintiffs.
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”).
It is a principle of Irish (and UK) law that the purpose of the award of compensation by the courts is to, insofar as money can, place the injured party in the same position as if he/she had not been injured.
Conventionally, to propose a debate is to, impliedly, claim to be reasonable. Calling for a debate overlooks the fact that we cannot, and should not, submit everything to debate; where things are settled and agreed, they should not be opened to examination (and procrastination), unnecessarily.