Personal Injury Claims
For once our Government, [which, like every other element of the State, is, rest assured, amongst the best in the world], is ahead of the UK government. Unlike the UK there is, here in Ireland, a two tier level of strict liability for damage caused by dog attack.
(Of course the foregoing is a fiction. Our Executive has ensured that the Oireachatas does not function correctly; somebody other than the Oireachats decided the terms of the Act).
The frequency with which patients are injured in Irish hospitals is very high. The current estimate is of 160,000 per year. Who knows the exact figure? Presumably, the Health Service Executive does. If it does, why is that information not made public? If it does not know, why does it not know? Let us assume that the HSE is a competent body and infused with goodwill towards the patients. Would it not be a good idea to try to eliminate […]
Readers will have seen reference HERE to a plea in a medical negligence case as to the meaning of a “consent” signed by the patient (who was having an operation to make her sterile). In Fitzpatrick v National Maternity Hospital  IEHC 62 the Defendant claimed that the mother (in labour) declined an episiotomy or a forceps-assisted birth (leading to the damage to the infant). The court rejected this plea, and rejected the evidence of the Defendant, intended to evidence […]
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.
Road traffic accidents are common, but we rarely witness them happening. If we made a judgment of their frequency based on our experience, we would be wrong.
a collision took place between a car and a lorry. It occurred on a straight stretch of road at night with no witnesses. The drivers and other occupants died. The available evidence was inconclusive as to fault. The court apportioned blame equally between the two drivers.
The courts have frequently rejected arguments that claims have been settled, as purportedly evidenced by “releases” signed by Plaintiffs.
The court, accepting a calculation that the car that hit her had been traveling at not more than 30 mph and was about 75 ft. from the crossing when the Plaintiff began to cross decided she had not been guilty of contributory negligence. She was 10 ft. onto the crossing when she was hit.
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.