Legal professionals who specialise in personal injury are of the opinion that this is an attempt to undermine and abolish the book of quantum that has recently been updated in light of recent economic developments within Ireland. However, it has been ascertained that the judiciary and the book of quantum will still hold the authority when valuing victim’s cases.
The rationale and ethos of this working group who is attempting to administer this new commission is that of transparency, with them declaring that the personal injuries process lacks the ‘required’ transparency that ought to be prevalent within the personal injury legal sector. With these proposals, insurance companies are evidently enthusiastic about them, regardless of whether this undermines the judiciary and the Injuries Board which they claim will purportedly assist. The sheer resilience by insurer’s against personal injury claims echoes contamination that those of us who pay for insurance, regardless of the price of premiums, expect a fair and just legal approach to obtain compensation if and when we are entitled to it.
It is apparent that this commission primary focus will directed towards soft tissue injuries, namely, ‘whiplash’ claims. The rationale for this is that whiplash injuries equate to approximately 80% of all motor injury claims. As a result of the latter, it seems that rather than having justice at the forefront of this new commission, it appears that it is a means for the insurance industry to restrict victims of road traffic accidents from obtaining the compensation they deserve.

When fatal and non-fatal injuries are compared within the agricultural sector it transpires that these figures supports the HSA’s contention that farmer’s tend to not respect health and safety regulations until they are involved in an accident. What is significant from the latter is that there is a higher risk of farmers dying as opposed to simply injuring themselves.
If you work on a farm and have suffered an injury as a result of negligence on the behalf of your employer then you can claim compensation for the injuries sustained. Those who operate within the agricultural sector are governed by the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 if they employ more than 3 workers. The 2005 Act requires the following measures to be employed within the workplace –
Protective equipment to be made available to all employees where applicable

• Safe equipment and machinery

- Note that there has been advocates demanding tractors to have an NCT/MOT requirement similar to that of other motorised vehicles which in essence illustrates that the law may become more restricted

• Training for workers
• Safe working procedures

If you have been involved in a workplace accident within a farm and the above has not been adhered to then this can warrant negligence within the workplace and secure you compensation for any injuries you have sustained.
If an employer has 3 workers or less, then they are not governed by the 2005 Act but rather the Code of Practice which can be found on the HSA website. If this is appropriate for your situation then you must ensure that if you are involved in an accident that a risk assessment is carried out which can be carried out online as this is a legal requirement. Conversely, if a risk assessment is not carried out this can leave the employer susceptible to punitive measures.

1. http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Your_Industry/Agriculture_Fo... 

However, many within the armed forces may be of the impression that they have no legal recourse when it comes to receiving compensation for their injuries. Fortunately, we have dealt with several cases over the past year where victims who work in the armed forces have sustained injuries. In terms of the legal approach we take, cases such as this are treated like an ordinary work place accident case and therefore we would sue the armed forces to compensate you.

However, this is a distorted view that has no factual evidence to support their accusations. Legal professionals too, are targeted for their fees which in most cases the insurance company have to pay as well. Conversely, the Independent Referral Bar of Ireland has since remarked that fees for barristers’ have significantly decreased, even as much as 50% within the last decade. The apparent reason for increased premium prices seems to be more suited to the competition within the insurance industry. The Chief Executive of FBD Insurance stating that the competition is fierce amongst insurers particularly within Ireland, which is having an adverse affect on the finances of these insurance companies. Furthermore, in recent figures released by the Injuries Board for 2015, there has been an increase in personal injury claims by a mere 6% which they claim is a direct result of increased social and economic activity. Therefore, those of you who have been involved in a personal injury accident, do not let fallacies within the news regarding ‘facts’ the insurance industry have released deter you from seeking compensation.

To ensure that you are safe and that the defendant does not have any grounds for redress you should ensure that all normal safety precautions are taken. For example, within the work place, all health and safety measures that are implemented should be adhered to and not ignored. Furthermore, within road traffic incidents, matters such as the safety of your own vehicle and seatbelts etc should be worn at all times. As a general rule, if a parent is suing on behalf of a minor, it is more than likely that a child will not be found to have failed to take proper care.
The failure to take reasonable care must be a contributory cause to the damage suffered as opposed to the causation of the incident resulting in damage. Therefore, failure to wear a seatbelt, failure to wear and properly secure a crash helmet or acting carelessly in situations where danger is likely to arise all warrant sufficient means for an action against the claimant within the defence of contributory negligence.
A further area that can arise is where there are joint tortfeasors. This can arise where there have been multiple parties that have contributed to an accident. In this instance, contributory negligence can operate as mechanism to determine the payouts involved within a personal injury claim. For example, where the main culprit injured someone but this was due to the negligent actions of another party, the ratio of payments issued by the parties can be divided equally or in more unequivocal terms.

The Book of Quantum obliges the judiciary under section 22 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 to have regard to the guidelines laid out within the Book of Quantum. However, as highlighted previously, under section 22(2), the judiciary are afforded the right to take other matters into consideration when assessing damages. Therefore, there is room for manoeuvre when it comes to assessing how much compensation you are awarded, particularly if the case goes to court.
The Book of Quantum has been met with some criticism, with many professionals advocating their dissent towards it. This is because they have omitted a number of injuries that are somewhat likely to occur and extremely serious in nature such as the loss of an eye. Another anomaly within the Book of Quantum is the fact that it does not touch upon psychological damages or scarring. Understandably, this is a more subjective matter that is hard to generate a sufficient figure that would be deemed satisfactory. However, under injuries such as the aforementioned ones, the Injuries Board will attempt to make an assessment on these types of injuries, although, more often than not, these will be rejected by the Claimant as the Court’s would be able to make a more accurate assessment.

In comparison to other personal injury claims, such as road traffic accidents or accidents at work, the third party usually has adequate insurance coverage in order to provide appropriate compensation to the victim. However, with matters concerning pets, it becomes extremely unlikely that a pet is adequately insured in order to deal with matters such as these. The following is a checklist that you should consider before pursuing a personal injury claim in relation to a dog bite:

• Do you know the owner of the dog?
• Is the dog insured?
• You must have suffered some form of physical injury

A crucial element in determining whether you have an actionable case is whether the Defendant’s actions were negligent which therefore contributed to the injury sustained. The law is of the view that dog owners are fully responsible for their pets and owe members of the public and visitors to their property a duty of care. However, if you trespass onto someone’s land and sustain an injury, you may not be able to successfully claim against the third party as per the maxim, ex turpi causa non oritur actio [see blog post], which means ‘from a dishonourable cause, an action does not arise.’ In addition, if a person’s property is sign-posted with warnings curtailing the risk of injury of others, then this could negatively impact your chances of obtaining compensation.

The outcome of your case from the Injuries Board can only go two different ways. Firstly, if the Respondent in the matter allows the Injuries Board to assess the claim, then the Injuries Board will take a number of months to examine all the medical evidence provided such as medical reports, medical records, Garda reports etc. Furthermore, they will appoint a Doctor to personally examine you to provide them with a greater insight into the extent of your injuries sustained from the accident. After this has been carried out, the Injuries Board will award the Claimant a figure for compensation which can either be accepted or rejected depending on the advice of your solicitor and your own personal opinion. If the decision is to decline the Injuries Board’s assessment figure, then they will issue you with an Authorisation letter which allows you to pursue the case through the Courts.
When the Injuries Board makes an assessment, the Claimant has 28 days to either accept or reject the offer. If you simply do not reply within the specified time frame, it will be deemed that you have rejected the offer and you will receive an Authorisation letter. Similarly, the Respondent also must accept or reject the offer but has only 21 days to make a decision. Therefore, if the Claimant accepts the offer but the Respondent wishes to reject it, then the case will move forward to Court, regardless of your views.
Conversely, if the Respondent dissents against the Injuries Board assessing the case, then they will automatically issue an Authorisation letter as discussed above, which will then instigate the Court Proceedings.

A distinction must be made between that of a criminal nature and a civil one. For the purposes of this blog, we will solely be discussing the civil aspect. There are many academics that are of the opinion that in a criminal case, it is wrong to allow a criminal to profit from his crime. Conversely, the opinion in civil cases is usually viewed as the Claimant seeking compensation for a loss that has occurred to him rather than seeking to gain something. This highlights the underlying principle of restitution ad integrum which is means restoration to the original position.
With regards to ex turpi causa, if you are involved in something that courts may regard as ‘dishonourable’ then according to the reliance test that is applied, the court studies whether the Claimant has to plead to the illegality. The general rule with regards to the latter is, where the Claimant has to plead the illegality committed to found their claim, the courts will not permit the Claimant to succeed. However, if you do not need to plead your illegality for a claim from the outset, then you may succeed.
Recently, we have opened a case with a client who was unfortunately involved in a road traffic accident where they suffered serious injuries. However, the crucial point within this case was that the Claimant had been banned from driving and no longer possessed a licence to drive a vehicle. With regards to any case like this, the ambit of the legal principles changes from a more straightforward case and a number of different legal principles become involved as we have discussed above.
If you have been in a similar situation, there are a number of things that you should be made aware of in order to evaluate whether you have a claim. A claim for compensation may be defeated if the illegality is inextricably linked to the cause of action. Therefore, with regards to our recent example, the fact that the cause of action arose from an illegality that would have been prevented had the person not breached their driving ban, it would have made it easier to when avoiding the plea illegality.
The rationale by the courts in determining whether a Claimant can bring a case for compensation even if they have committed an illegal action is hinged upon that of public policy. In National Coal Board v England [1954] AC 403, per Lord Porter, it was founded any wrongdoing on the part of the plaintiff would not preclude the plaintiff from bringing an action where the court is of the opinion that to offer redress would not be in contravention of public policy. Therefore, it appears that the courts will analyse cases based on subjectivity rather than the usual objective tests.

Machinery within factories requires specialist training to ensure maximum safety is maintained at all times. Those who have not been sufficiently trained to operate certain machines should not attempt to use them and those who oversee the factory should be notified immediately. As well as this, options such as safety goggles, protective clothing and headgear should also be worn if necessary to minimise the risk of any injury being sustained. However, it is the responsibility of your employer to ensure that you are provided with adequate protective safety equipment and in failure to do so will result in them being liable for any injury sustained.

The use of vehicles within the workplace such as forklifts is a likely occurrence for injuries to happen. Those who operate forklifts must ensure that they are appropriately trained to competently operate the aforementioned vehicle and ensure that they are provided with and wearing all protective equipment available. Routes should be concealed to avoid pedestrians wandering in areas that forklifts may be operating to avoid unnecessary contact with vehicles and pedestrians that could result in an accident. The implications arising from an accident involving a forklift and a pedestrian can be potentially life threatening and in the very least cause extreme injuries that may have a long term impact on your health.

Furthermore, a major contribution to factory-based accidents is slipping/tripping accidents. Due to the varied nature of a factory-based job, there are many instances where spillages can occur and may not be adequately signed to ensure that no-one slips on it. If this occurs, the employer is liable to pay you compensation if you are injured as a result of these negligent actions. As well as that, tripping over a loose wire or object is also the responsibility of the employer to ensure that this does not occur.

Furthermore, the Garda should be contacted immediately in order to have the accident on record and to ensure adequate help is on the scene of the accident if needs be. If the Garda cannot be contacted at the scene, they should be contacted as soon as is reasonably convenient in the circumstances.

If you or anyone you know sustains an injury as a result of a road traffic accident, you should obtain the following information from the other party involved in the incident and any witnesses:

• Name
• Address
• Telephone Number

The rationale behind the latter is to quash any doubt of liability on your behalf and to ensure that the culprit does not flee the scene unidentified. However, even if the driver is unidentified, if you or a passenger sustains an injury, you may be able to bring a claim against the Motor Insurer’s Bureau of Ireland (MIBI). The MIBI provides compensation to those who are unable to trace drivers who damaged their property and injured them.

If you are involved in a road traffic accident where you have sustained an injury and another driver was at fault for this, you may be able to claim against the other party and obtain compensation for your injuries. In addition to this, you may also be able to claim for special damages ( see special damages post ) to repair your bicycle and associated equipment that may have been damaged during the course of the incident.

During the course of your employment, if you suffer an injury as a result of a road traffic accident, the only form of redress will be to bring an action against the other driver as you are technically self-employed. 

If, however, you suffer an injury not from another driver, but from the equipment that Deliveroo supplied to you, then you may be able to bring a claim against them. Regardless of the unique position that Deliveroo may have placed on its cyclists, there are still forms of redress available in order to allow victims to be adequately compensated.

The rationale for special damages is to reimburse you, the victim, for any expenses you have incurred as a result of an accident you may have suffered. Depending on the severity of an accident, special damages allows you to claim compensation for fees incurred such as medical expenses, travelling costs in relation to the latter, medical assistance and medical aids such as a wheelchair.

In addition, special damages encompasses compensation for loss of earnings and any future earnings if the injury you have sustained has had an adverse effect on your health to prevent you working in the future. There are a number of factors that will be considered when determining a sum to be awarded in the area of loss of earnings, such as, likely future promotions and pensions.