The price of living in a litigious age

Whatever next.

Chaps

I like this as it could be a boost to my income.

I shall conduct a long and tedious trawl of all the threads that I have contributed to, and if anyone has made references to my age, I shall sue the buggers.

Regards

Mick

Mick I doubt the new legislation will work retroactively.

quote:

As usual a decent piece of legislation has been rendered ludicrous

by the reaction of a few idiots? Fear not, the legislation is not there for this trivia and most people realise that. You have to assume that the firm/council are publicity seeking.

quote:

“Of course we have not precluded employees giving birthday cards to each other individually and we certainly still encourage the practice of buying cakes.”

God forbid if someone gets a stomach ache from eating said cakes.
Could be costly!

quote:

You have to assume that the firm/council are publicity seeking.

Sorry, forgotten their name already.

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:

I shall conduct a long and tedious trawl of all the threads that I have contributed to, and if anyone has made references to my age, I shall sue the buggers.

Regards

Mick

Silly old bugger

And just in case

Young Fool!

Or

Middle Aged Prat

There you go Mick. Could be a great money earner!!

Oh and be careful coffee is hot (unless it is iced and then it's not). Actually I seem to remember someone being sued for their iced coffee being too cold - must dig the story out.

Steve

I think the fault for the litigious society and the compensation culture lies with the Courts.

No one goes through the process for its own sake - only for the final gain. If Courts found for the plaintiff and awarded 1p in damages, with each side to meet their own costs, the compensation culture would die in weeks.

Fraser

quote:

Originally posted by Fraser Hadden:
I think the fault for the litigious society and the compensation culture lies with the Courts.

No one goes through the process for its own sake - only for the final gain. If Courts found for the plaintiff and awarded 1p in damages, with each side to meet their own costs, the compensation culture would die in weeks.

Fraser

Let that be a warning to you Mick I'm off to spend my penny before you get your hands on it!
Steve

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen B:
Whatever next.

FiretrUCK

I don't know about the English system, but the courts here do not entertain frivolous and vexatious claims.

I would have thought that a claimant would need to prove that the harrassment was repeated and that they were harmed by the harrassment.

Getting something to "stand up in court" is never straight forward and never worth doing for the sake of a minor principle.

But then again, there is the story of a small town in which only one lawyer maintained a practice. He struggled to get enough work to keep himself going - that is, until another lawyer opened a practice...

Should I sue for my broken ankle? Well I did slip on a slippery surface. But I will not, because it was simply an accident. Bet many would sue aided and abetted by the personal injury lawyers though.

quote:

Originally posted by MichaelC:
Should I sue for my broken ankle? Well I did slip on a slippery surface. But I will not, because it was simply an accident. Bet many would sue aided and abetted by the personal injury lawyers though.

MichaelC

Is it that simple?

Where was the slippery surface?

Were you exercising a level of caution appropriate to the situation when you slipped? It is certainly an accident if you were not.

Was the slippery surface concealed by the owners of the surface? Did they take reasonable steps to ensure that users of the surface were aware of the hazard or were they negligent in this respect?

Is there a no-fault injury cover system in your jurisdiction (as there is in mine)? If not, did a personal injury lawyer approach you and suggest that you ought to sue in this case? If a lawyer did then they may be guilty of maintenance and champerty.

I am not sure if your argument is set out as fully as your opinion of personal injury lawyers.

Hi Deane

Valid points you raise in your post. The point I simply wish to make is that, there would be many, of which I do not doubt, who would take advantage of my situation and seek financial redress.

In my books, an accident is an accident - I have always found the compensation culture to be distasteful. Indeed I have almost certainly posted previously to this effect. I haven't changed my mind and I would feel somewhat hypocritical if I sought to obtain an advantage from my situation.

Another analogy is directly in my line of profession. I am an accountant in practice. My firm does not offer insolvency services. I couldn't live with acting as auditor, professional adviser or whatever one day and walking in the next day as the liquidator. It just doesn't sit right with me.

Hi Michael

I know where you are coming from. In New Zealand, however, we have a no-fault compensation scheme (the ACC or Accident Compensation Corporation) that is basically funded by the government and employer levies (all workplace injuries are covered). No-fault meaning that a claimant needs only to prove injury and needn't prove that they are not at fault or that another person is at fault. This was introduced in the 1970s to prevent the growth of a litigious culture. The right to go to law over personal injury, negligence and other torts is removed by this system.

I guess it sounds good in theory but the problem is that ACC is quite agressive with their interpretation of the legislation that empowers them and defines entitlements - their culture seems to encourage the rejection of claims and they can be particularly sparing with information about entitlements when they deal with claimants. So the legislation removes the right ot sue for personal injury but sets up a no-fault scheme - the problem is that if ACC will not cover an injury the right to sue is still gone. A sterling example of injustices arising from this is the workers that have been affected and many of whom have died through contact with asbestos. ACC has fought in the courts to deny eligibility to these men. In Australia the company involved has paid out compensation to many but in New Zealand the men are "covered" by the Accident Compensation scheme.

I can't help thinking that a few injustices might be addressed in our system by the restoration of the right to sue for personal injury. We average one workplace death per week in New Zealand - population 4,000,000 (a smallish city by world standards).

As to the topic of this thread, I'd have to say that nearly every employer I've had has thoroughly resented the duty of care that they owe to employees. Apart from a couple of notable exceptions, every one of those employers would give nothing to employees that the law didn't require them to - market forces are just not enough to ensure a healthy or safe workplace.

My guess would be that any suit brought under this new age-discrimination law will have to show serious harrassment and substantiated damages to be entertained by the courts. I rather doubt that any lawyer would accept instructions to sue an employer for a round-robin christmas card.

I think journalists might be earning more money out of this one for the moment.