395 / 462
GAZETTE
V I E W P 0 1 N T
DECEMBER 1993
Undermining the right
to bring claims
Once again, the right of people to take
claims in the courts for personal
injuries has been called into question.
In the recent past, a report published by
the Irish Business & Employers'
Confederation (IBEC) has sought, by
implication, to put blame on workers
for making claims against their
employers when they suffer injuries.
The Law Society has expressed con-
cern about this report and has issued a
statement rebutting some of the
conclusions drawn from its findings.
On top of the IBEC report, the Irish
Insurance Federation has published
another Coopers & Lybrand study on
j
| the cost of motor insurance in this
I country which raises questions about
j
the level and cost of claims for
[ personal injuries suffered in motor
accidents. Coming on the heels of a
suggestion made by the Minister of
State for Commerce & Technology,
Seamus Brennan,
TD, that
I compensation awards should be
capped and in the wake of criticisms
from Dublin Corporation and others
about the role of lawyers in the
bringing of personal injury claims,
there appears to be a concerted attack
on the right of people to pursue claims
and on the role of solicitors in
representing them.
The Law Society and the Bar Council
have spoken out. They have defended
the right of people to take claims for
j
compensation when they suffer
I injuries through no fault of their own
and to have their claims litigated in
courts of law where the compensation
levels are determined by judges.
Cynics might well suggest that
lawyers would be bound to take this
line; they would be motivated by self
j
interest. We would retort that it is no
j
use engaging in those kind of self-
interest tactics, suggesting ulterior
motives; far better to deal, by
reasoned argument, with the very
| important issues that are involved in
I this debate.
Access to the courts and the right to
pursue claims - especially claims for
personal injuries suffered as a result
of the negligence of others - are
fundamental principles of our legal
system. The right to have that
compensation determined in open
court following argument and to have
the determination made by an
independent judge is also, we would
have though, vital. Yet, surprisingly
few people seem to have grasped, as
yet, that both of these rights appear to
be under threat at present. We do not
dispute that litigation is pushing up
costs and it is understandable that
j
business interests, and especially
small companies, should be concerned
about the cost of insurance. However,
the answer to rising insurance costs is
not to start tinkering with the
fundamental rights of people to bring
claims or to attempt, by statute, to
i
limit the levels of compensation that
should be paid in individual cases.
| These are very serious steps to take
and, in our view, should only be
contemplated for very grave reasons
and where substantial public benefit
can be shown to follow.
The answer is not to attack the rights
of people to be compensated but,
j
rather, to address the issue of why
j
there are so many accidents that lead
! to personal injury claims.
I
! It is no good complaining about the
fact that people take actions when
they suffer personal injuries. There is
an absolute right to do this, and while
industry has a legitimate point in
seeking ways of reducing the cost
burden, if the outcome is that industry
incurs heavy costs as a consequence,
the answer is not to attack the rights
of people to be compensated but,
rather, to address the issue of why
there are so many accidents that lead
to personal injury claims.
j
The statistics in relation to accidents in
i the workplace in Ireland paint a bleak
picture - a picture of carelessness and
indifference. Recently, a representative
from the Health & Safety Authority
pointed out that there are about 13,000
accidents in the workplace in Ireland
each year plus an additional 5,000 in
agriculture. The figure for industry is
derived from the number of persons
who claim occupational injury benefit
from the Department of Social Welfare
each year. The statistics show that the
average absence from work by an
injured worker is about 35 days which
results in the loss of 500,000 man-days
per annum to Irish industry. Between
8,000 and 9,000 workers have already
been permanently disabled. The total
cost of accidents is put at £330m of
which £120m is accounted for by
employer/public liability insurance. An
EU survey has pointed out that Irish
industry has the lowest perception of
the serious risks to the health and
safety of workers of any country in the
EU. In the two-year period 1991/92,
120 people were fatally injured through
accidents in the workplace; the figure
for the first eleven months of this year
is 62. Against the background of
statistics of this kind, is it any wonder
that there are a large number of
personal injury claims in the courts?
The wonder really is that so few people
who do suffer injury make claims.
According to the IBEC survey, in 1992
only one in ten accidents at work led to
a claim.
It is facile to speak, as IBFC did
recently, of "opportunistic" claims. If
a person suffers hand-blistering in the
workplace through no fault of his own
and pursues a claim that results in an
award of £1,200, what is wrong with
this? Is it being suggested that that
person should accept an injury of this
kind as an occupational hazard and
simply put up with it? It is
unfortunate, in our view, that the
IBEC report attempted to point the
finger at workers, suggesting that the
bringing of claims was threatening the
(Continued
overleaf)
373