Settling out of court just encourages it

E

EvilDoctorK

Registered User
Messages
1,014
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0427/aerrianta.html

Ok maybe the whole story isn't here but it certainly looks a bit off to me ... surely they should have fought a case like this in court .... I know it's cheaper to settle when you'd be looking at a case in isolation ... but really does settling like this not just encourage cases like this to be taken if plaintiffs think it's a one way bet as they can't really lose if the company will settle on the steps of the court and they wont' have to pay costs.
 
I must admit, I also thought this when I saw the story on RTE news at 6pm.

I don't think I would have been traumatised to that extent by a phone call, but I suppose everyone's different?

Spoke to a Barrister who goes to the High Court on a regular basis and he told me that about 90% of cases are settled on the steps of the court because the companies want to avoid bad publicity and high costs.
 
bleeding disgrace but what would you expect form a state organisation? why did they settle? they didnt owe her such a duty of care,it seems like anything vaguely threatening would have triggered off these psychological symptoms in her,99.9% of people wouldnt have any such reaction to a hoax phone call so i cant see how her employer had a duty of care to her ,im sure they supported her with time offpsychologists etc . this women getting 15k for a phonecall makes a mockery of the witnesses to the events of 9/11 which seems to be the event that triggered her fear/paranoia
 
and she also has a lovely job in Aer Rianta where she does not have to answer the phone :p
 
I'm thinking of taking a claim against RTE for the trauma of seeing state money wasted in such a way.
The judge could have issued a two line deliberation;
"Will ye go 'way out of that ye bleedin' chancer. Costs to Aer Rianta."
 
Folks,

I don't do personal injuries litigation and I have no knowledge of the details of this claim, but do bear in mind that Aer Rianta have lawyers who presumably advised them, and that if Aer Rianta were strongly advised to contest the claim, they would presumably have done so.

I can think of a number of ways in which an employer might be deemed negligent in a way which is consistent with the reported facts. I hasten to add that this is pure speculation - I have no inside knowledge whatever:

1. There is clearly nothing an employer can do to stop hoax calls being made - so the making of the call is not of itself an occassion of employer negligence.

2. Perhaps Aer Rianta had no procedures in place for dealing with this type of incident. Perhaps a court might rule that they should have had.

3. Perhaps this woman reported the incident and reported that she was deeply upset. Perhaps her employer did not take proper cognisance of this, such that most the the post-traumatic impact arose from the aftermath, rather than the incident itself.

I emphasise that the foregoing is pure speculation
 
All I know of this is what appeard in METRO, so nothing really ;) .

But if the cause of her distress was the prank call, then the best procedure in the world could not have alleviated her suffering.

Why Aer Rianta are culpable for her spending 18 months in bed (according to METRO) is beyond my understanding :confused: .
 
And they also have insurers who do not want to have to pay for weeks of legal wranglings in the HC with crazy fees being amassed before the verdict is handed down.

It is a disgrace because in this case she would have been advised in her training
1. the possibility of dealing with such a call
2. What to say / do on such a call
3. Been allowed take reasonable sick leave for the shock.

private companies are now delighted with PIAB as it is reducing these sort of payouts.
 
A person came to our firm just after Christmas for an Interview. I wasn't even in on the day she came for interview, so I did not even meet her. She wasn't suitable (for various reasons).

About two months later, I was staying late in the office one evening and the phone rang. As nobody would ring that late unless it was someone personal looking for one of us, I stupidly answered the call.

Turned out to be the woman who came for the interview and didn't get the job. She ranted and raved for about 20 minutes, and gave dogs abuse shouting down the phone, it was actually like she was having a nervous breakdown on the end of the phone and eventually I had to tell her to go away(nicely)

I did complain to the agency that sent her(candidates are not supposed to contact employers directly), but I didn't take it too far, as its hardly their fault that she went a bit gaga. My bosses thought it was bizarre( I would say more relieved that they didn't answer the phone). I told them she was just so disappointed at not having joined the ranks of such a great firm!!

Think I am now going to have to reconsider my options over the long weekend and speak to my boss Tuesday. Might need to take to my bed for a while.
 
I take your points MOB but IHMO the bottom line is that she is a grown-up and should be able to cope with the knocks that we all get in the grown-up world. I don't see why her employer should be held liable for her inadequacies. No training will cover all eventualities and no support will ever compensate for a persons own inadequacies. If the woman’s inertia and weight gain were a result of this incident, which I seriously doubt, it is not the fault of her employer.
It is shameful that our legal system allows, and even encourages, this sort of nonsensical claim.
 
and you should - your workload was such that you had to stay late!!! and you were not trained to expect or field that type of call - i reckon its 15K all the way for you.
BUT - public or private firm? real world or state company?
 
Oh. My. God.

This country is going to hell with this kind of limp wristed crap, there's not always someone to blame if something crappy happens to you and even when there is that person is often unidentifiable (as in this case). Why is there the need to trawl around for someone else to blame who has the ability to cough up thousands. How far down the line of people involved directly/indirectly with the incident will people go to make sure they get their money.

Will we be seeing Irish ads for "I had to lift a 2 ton safe in work but because I hadn't been given training I didn't know that I should get help or bend my knees, I contacted Joe Bloggs solicitors and then hurt my back carrying home the amount of cash I was given as settlement on the steps of the court".

There's no such thing as personal responsibility anymore and there's too many doctors/judges prepared to pander to this blame culture.

disclaimer: This rant assumes this case is as blatantly ridiculous as it seems, if its not then there are still plenty of prime examples from which to choose.
 
the phone call lasted one second! 15k for one second isnt bad!
aer rianta and their insurers/legal team did a cost benefit analysis and realised a poxy 15k was a better option than 50k plus for not settling on steps,this settlement doesnt mean aer rianta were responsible.thing is with psycholocial problems like in this case it impossible to disprove but also very difficult to prove conclusively and in civil tort trials you only need to prove your case is probably true and not true beyond reasonable doubt.
 
It's no wonder people here seek to avoid paying tax in order to avoid paying for this kind of nonsense. It may be a civic obligation to pay your fair share, but I wound't like to have any hand, act or part in paying my fair share of this.
 
bearishbull said:
the phone call lasted one second! 15k for one second isnt bad!
aer rianta and their insurers/legal team did a cost benefit analysis and realised? a poxy 15k was a better option than 50k plus for not settling on steps,this settlement doesnt mean aer rianta were responsible.thing is with psycholocial problems like in this case it impossible to disprove but also very difficult to prove conclusively and in civil tort trials you only need to prove your case is probably true and not true beyond reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

True if you view the case in isolation it makes sense to settle as even if they had won and had costs awarded in their favour they'd probably not have managed to recover them successfully from her .... but do you think that if Aer Rianta (or whoever) had a tougher reputation amongst the various ambulance chasing legal firms who are invovled in this type of carry on then these cases would be less likely to come up ?

It's surely the idea that it's a one way bet that encourages this type of stuff
 
I don't have the Irish Times in front of me (& I'm paraphrasing) but they reported that one of her managers/bosses said something like, 'sure the bomb didn't go off', in response to her expression of distress. Maybe that was the clincher for the lawyers?

The H&S laws are extreme.

We have a team of drivers in my company. It is being seriously considered that we'll have to buy them suncream because they drive around with their (bare) arm perched on the door window during the Summer. We already pay for their eye exams/glasses and an advanced driving course. If they hit six penalty points, they get 'extra' (?) advanced driving courses.
 
I think the IT article also mentioned that the employer failed to do any kind of debriefing, or to offer support or counselling after the event.
 
RainyDay said:
I think the IT article also mentioned that the employer failed to do any kind of debriefing, or to offer support or counselling after the event.
Click to expand...
jaysis next you'll have debriefings if a customer gets snotty on the phone ,for 99.99% of people such services wouldnt be required and as the probabilty of this service being required is virtually nil should excessive expense be forced on employers?? in law cases relating to duty of care judges find against claims if enforcing the duty of care would be impossible or cost excessive amounts of money /time/resources.
everyone i know in aer rianta say they are well looked after medically.
 
bearishbull said:
the phone call lasted one second!
Click to expand...
You mean the call in question in the specific case mentioned in the original post? Are you sure about that? The original news article linked above suggests that the call lasted a bit longer.
MandaC said:
She ranted and raved for about 20 minutes, and gave dogs abuse shouting down the phone, it was actually like she was having a nervous breakdown on the end of the phone and eventually I had to tell her to go away(nicely)
Click to expand...
Why on earth did you only do this after 20 minutes of "ranting/raving and dogs abuse"?
 
clubman the call to the aer rianta woman was one second by all reports ive read on irish times and indo sites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top