A plaintiff must prove the defect and damage. The fact of the DePuy “recall” is useful to prove the defect, but it would be necessary to engage an expert in the issue. The damage would vary from case to case, but it is difficult to see how any plaintiff with a DePuy hip would avoid ex-plantation before the expiration of the expected use life of the hips, 10 to 15 years.
Calculate, with the solicitor, the various periods of limitations for the various heads of claim. They are; 2 years for a claim under the Liability for Defective Products Act; 6 years for breach of contract; 2 years for negligence resulting in personal injury. Two or more of these periods are coming to an end. This is a crisis for victims who have not issued proceedings.
It is very possible for an injured applicant to know nothing of the personal circumstances of a guilty respondent. Even the Injuries Board may know nothing of those circumstances; the Board will carry on correspondence with a lawyer or an insurance company acting for the respondent (who, in their turn, may also not know of the state of health of the respondent).
Once again, the remedy for such social ills is to hand; introduce forms of proceedings in court called Multi-Party Actions.
What happened, then, to those Bye Laws on the repeal of Section 54 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act 1878 in 1996?
This legislation clearly states that the snow is a nuisance. It is a public nuisance if it is on the public pavement. If it is not cleared off by the adjoining occupier, it is being maintained by him/her. Consequently the occupier is answerable for injury sustained by passersby who fall on the snow.
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.
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.