Tagged: Injuries Board
The Minister’s proposal is not suitable for legislation; it is suitable for a proclamation. He is, in effect, proposing to issue a call to arms, directed to the Nation, enjoining the citizens to embrace goodness and to avoid evil.
n 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.
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.
n Ireland, we have not introduced provision for injured persons to claim against the insurers of the malfeasor who caused the loss. This provision is available in the UK and, it would appear from Knight v Axa, France.
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).
the Plaintiff suffered severe personal injury and suffered loss damage and expense.
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.
It is intended to more clearly explain legal issues to victims of personal injury.