Transat settles Atlantic Glider lawsuit for $7.65 million
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with innuendo Frivolous court actions are not the problem some seem to think. However companies that are serial injurers are more of a problem.
If mythical Airline A, is chosing to "prioritize" on which safety related item it will neglect in favour of another, it is being willfully negligent and rightly runs the risk of litigation from those it has effectivley chosen to injure by its neglect.
Debating the "regulatory approach", or "prioritisation of resources", or "levels of compensatory damages" is a very moot consideration when you yourself are a victim of this corporate negligence. Lawsuits in many western jurisductions are expensive, time consuming and often frustrating affairs. The process may extend to many many years to achieve any sort of resolution. Even then that resolution is likely to be an unsatisfactory compromise for the litigant parties. This concept of "punitive damage awards" is not to be found in many jurisdicitions outside of the United states. In the UK for example it is almost unheard of. A claimant will have done well to successfully achieve their actual damages and if they are lucky most of their legal costs !
When you say let the damages compensate for actual injury and no more. What does that mean to a young woman whose face has been scarred and ruined ? What does that mean to a person whose muscle damage never again gives them the same quality of life ? What does it mean to somebody who is mentally scarred and frightened to partake in something that was once routine and enjoyable ? What price do you put on it ? If you ask the victims of this corporate neglect, they will often say that there is no price. Nothing can put back what they have lost. The only thing these companies, and more properly the lawyers representing their insurance companies, will ever have to offer is money ! The ability to say "heres a few pounds or dollars, now go away and let us get back to business as usual", is not acceptable. ! These companies should be pursued by the regulator on the one hand, with the very real threat of fiscal punishment by way of compensation to those they have damaged on the other. Their insurance companies ( without whom they cannot function), would then give them a wake up call. The serial injurers might suffer a dent in their balance sheets for a year or two. A much shorter time than many of their injured customers would suffer !
I am always amazed that there are so many people who seem to think that action and redress against corporate offenders is such a personal threat to their own wellbeing. A view no doubt encouraged and propogated by those same offenders !
By way of analogy. I almost never bother to take out insurance protection against goods I buy, simply because it is often cheaper to accept the risk, against the cost of buying new again. Unfortunetaly many companies look at the compensatory payouts of courts in some jurisdications, and adopt exactly the same line. In other words the customers life and quality of same, is an acceptable risk, against the possible fines and insurance premium hike of killing or injuring that person. After all your newly aquired epilepsy and facial scar from the falling laptop computer is a small price to pay for Airline A's insurers, than their client actually having to fix those bin latches they already knew about ?
If mythical Airline A, is chosing to "prioritize" on which safety related item it will neglect in favour of another, it is being willfully negligent and rightly runs the risk of litigation from those it has effectivley chosen to injure by its neglect.
Debating the "regulatory approach", or "prioritisation of resources", or "levels of compensatory damages" is a very moot consideration when you yourself are a victim of this corporate negligence. Lawsuits in many western jurisductions are expensive, time consuming and often frustrating affairs. The process may extend to many many years to achieve any sort of resolution. Even then that resolution is likely to be an unsatisfactory compromise for the litigant parties. This concept of "punitive damage awards" is not to be found in many jurisdicitions outside of the United states. In the UK for example it is almost unheard of. A claimant will have done well to successfully achieve their actual damages and if they are lucky most of their legal costs !
When you say let the damages compensate for actual injury and no more. What does that mean to a young woman whose face has been scarred and ruined ? What does that mean to a person whose muscle damage never again gives them the same quality of life ? What does it mean to somebody who is mentally scarred and frightened to partake in something that was once routine and enjoyable ? What price do you put on it ? If you ask the victims of this corporate neglect, they will often say that there is no price. Nothing can put back what they have lost. The only thing these companies, and more properly the lawyers representing their insurance companies, will ever have to offer is money ! The ability to say "heres a few pounds or dollars, now go away and let us get back to business as usual", is not acceptable. ! These companies should be pursued by the regulator on the one hand, with the very real threat of fiscal punishment by way of compensation to those they have damaged on the other. Their insurance companies ( without whom they cannot function), would then give them a wake up call. The serial injurers might suffer a dent in their balance sheets for a year or two. A much shorter time than many of their injured customers would suffer !
I am always amazed that there are so many people who seem to think that action and redress against corporate offenders is such a personal threat to their own wellbeing. A view no doubt encouraged and propogated by those same offenders !
By way of analogy. I almost never bother to take out insurance protection against goods I buy, simply because it is often cheaper to accept the risk, against the cost of buying new again. Unfortunetaly many companies look at the compensatory payouts of courts in some jurisdications, and adopt exactly the same line. In other words the customers life and quality of same, is an acceptable risk, against the possible fines and insurance premium hike of killing or injuring that person. After all your newly aquired epilepsy and facial scar from the falling laptop computer is a small price to pay for Airline A's insurers, than their client actually having to fix those bin latches they already knew about ?
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Bealzebub: If mythical Airline A, is chosing to "prioritize" on which safety related item it will neglect in favour of another, it is being willfully negligent and rightly runs the risk of litigation from those it has effectivley chosen to injure by its neglect.
Neglecting an issue entirely is a different matter - nobody could possibly defend that.
But there is an interrelationship. One of the big problems with allowing private legal proceedings to result in punitive awards intended to deter neglect is that they may affect the decisions about prioritisation, as I've tried to explain. And one of the problems in the air safety fields is that the areas which would be prioritised according to the whims of the litigating public are often not the areas that should be prioritised. The punitive "damages" may themselves actually damage the cause of safety.
When you say let the damages compensate for actual injury and no more. What does that mean to a young woman whose face has been scarred and ruined ? What does that mean to a person whose muscle damage never again gives them the same quality of life ? What does it mean to somebody who is mentally scarred and frightened to partake in something that was once routine and enjoyable ? What price do you put on it ? If you ask the victims of this corporate neglect, they will often say that there is no price. Nothing can put back what they have lost. The only thing these companies, and more properly the lawyers representing their insurance companies, will ever have to offer is money ! The ability to say "heres a few pounds or dollars, now go away and let us get back to business as usual", is not acceptable. ! These companies should be pursued by the regulator on the one hand, with the very real threat of fiscal punishment by way of compensation to those they have damaged on the other. Their insurance companies ( without whom they cannot function), would then give them a wake up call. The serial injurers might suffer a dent in their balance sheets for a year or two. A much shorter time than many of their injured customers would suffer !
If you think that the amount of compensation now paid out is too little, then the answer would be to press for higher levels of compensation. This was argued and decided relatively recently by a special 5-man Court of Appeal (England) in Heil v Rankin, which contains some useful discussion of the other side of the argument - which amongst other things boils down to the fact that higher levels of compensation are not paid for by the companies concerned or even by their insurers - they are ultimately paid for by you and me as consumers.
And I think you misunderstand the nature of the relationship between companies and their insurers. Insurers don't get involved from time to time in a way which might prod them into giving the companies a wake up call. There are no special "serial injurers" in big business. All big companies put in a steady stream of injury claims to their insurers, both internal and external. Claims handling is already a process, not an event. Big awards of punitive "damages" would not change that relationship, just the numbers involved.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then I am a little surprised that you seem to advocate the position adopted by the insurance companies and their clients. Premiums are normally set to reflect the risk. That risk is normally based on the applicants claims history. Indeed the insurance market will often offer reduced premiums to companies who can settle claims at reduced figures even if in the extreme it means the company liquidates itself ( or threatens to, to avoid exposure ) and then continues in business with another name. Obviously this is something big business is unlikely to do. However larger companies will often use a subsidiary or another name in matters of litigation to avoid unwelcome publicity. The insurance companies are only concerned that the claim is avoided or minimized. That is their mandate, to remain as competitive as possible. Punitive or appropriate levels of compensatory damages most definetaly do not assist in achieving this mandate. Therefore nobody in the business of advocating these industries, would be expected to argue anything other than the position you proffer. However if you or one of your close relatives were ever to be injured by this sort of neglect, I suspect you would adopt a very different private stance ? If not at first, you might eight to ten years down the road when the matter was eventually resolved.
To suggest there are not serial injurers is a little naive. Some of the claims history of large auto manufacturers, drug companies, and aerospace conglomorates would strongly suggest otherwise ! To state that higher levels of compensatory damages or punitive damages would only be passed on to the consumer is fairly irrelevant. It is the negligent companies that would be hit first, and it is they who would have to pass on this cost to their customers. If this puts them at a commercial disadvantage to their more cautious and responsible competitors then good ! In any event if we are only talking, as you suggest, about an increased level of numbers so what ? Better compensation for the injured party is no less than they deserve. After all the £400 hr lawyers and £600 hr Barristers and the Billions of pounds of premium income generated by these industries all have to be paid for as well, and I don't hear much vociferous complaint from the industry on those costs. Claims handling is indeed a "process" and not an event, at least it is for the companies. The same does not hold true for the person they injured of course !
The US system of punitive damages tends to focus the minds of companies because the stakes are higher. In this jurisdiction (UK) the companies and / or their insurers might as well gamble, because the only the thing they have to lose is their costs ! Those costs are well funded and certainly affordable to big business. The same usually does not hold true for the injured party. Even in these days of "no win no fee" ( a sorry apology for the loss of legal aid), the recovery sums for the acting solicitor often make such business undesirable. In the US of course the percentage take for the acting lawyer, makes the assumed risk an altogether different story.
To suggest there are not serial injurers is a little naive. Some of the claims history of large auto manufacturers, drug companies, and aerospace conglomorates would strongly suggest otherwise ! To state that higher levels of compensatory damages or punitive damages would only be passed on to the consumer is fairly irrelevant. It is the negligent companies that would be hit first, and it is they who would have to pass on this cost to their customers. If this puts them at a commercial disadvantage to their more cautious and responsible competitors then good ! In any event if we are only talking, as you suggest, about an increased level of numbers so what ? Better compensation for the injured party is no less than they deserve. After all the £400 hr lawyers and £600 hr Barristers and the Billions of pounds of premium income generated by these industries all have to be paid for as well, and I don't hear much vociferous complaint from the industry on those costs. Claims handling is indeed a "process" and not an event, at least it is for the companies. The same does not hold true for the person they injured of course !
The US system of punitive damages tends to focus the minds of companies because the stakes are higher. In this jurisdiction (UK) the companies and / or their insurers might as well gamble, because the only the thing they have to lose is their costs ! Those costs are well funded and certainly affordable to big business. The same usually does not hold true for the injured party. Even in these days of "no win no fee" ( a sorry apology for the loss of legal aid), the recovery sums for the acting solicitor often make such business undesirable. In the US of course the percentage take for the acting lawyer, makes the assumed risk an altogether different story.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Bealzebub: To suggest there are not serial injurers is a little naive.
The idea that punitive damages are somehow necessary to do this job is in fact the fallacy dreamt up by greedy claimants' lawyers who will stand to take a percentages of the over-inflated damages recovered by their clients. Fortunately, they are not found here in the UK.
Indeed the insurance market will often offer reduced premiums to companies who can settle claims at reduced figures even if in the extreme it means the company liquidates itself ( or threatens to, to avoid exposure ) and then continues in business with another name. Obviously this is something big business is unlikely to do. However larger companies will often use a subsidiary or another name in matters of litigation to avoid unwelcome publicity. The insurance companies are only concerned that the claim is avoided or minimized.
Better compensation for the injured party is no less than they deserve.
After all the £400 hr lawyers and £600 hr Barristers and the Billions of pounds of premium income generated by these industries all have to be paid for as well, and I don't hear much vociferous complaint from the industry on those costs.
The US system of punitive damages tends to focus the minds of companies because the stakes are higher. In this jurisdiction (UK) the companies and / or their insurers might as well gamble, because the only the thing they have to lose is their costs !
Why? It's not been because of punitive damages, obviously, because we don't normally award any.
Funnily enough, this has been achieved by a regulator through the effect of regulatory powers and criminal prosecutions.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote
"There are no special "serial injurers" in big business."
quote
"All big companies are serial injurers, and they all feel the pressure from their insurers."
Contradictory ?
quote
"Have you got any idea what you are talking about? This is not legally possible in the UK - the insurer will get hit for the full whack of damages regardless of any manoeuvreing by the insured company."
Indeed I do! Possible or Legally possible ? Two different questions. The first is absolutely so, the second only if you can get away with it. I have seen evidence that a syndicate on one of the largest insurance markets in the world has done just this ! Even better one of the names in that syndicate is no less than a chairman of one division ! However you are right, it is not legal, it just happens. The matter is currently before the RCJ and it is therefore (tempting but) not appropriate to discuss it publicly. But to answer your question. Yes I do have " any" idea what I am talking about. As for the legal costs, you really should see the costs they have tried to submit for their defence, presumably it "would make (you) laugh".
quote
"The idea that punitive damages are somehow necessary to do this job is in fact the fallacy dreamt up by greedy claimants' lawyers who will stand to take a percentages of the over-inflated damages recovered by their clients. Fortunately, they are not found here in the UK."
Unlike the "greedy" retained lawyers who presently defend their insurance and big business clients in the UK at present then ? It is not that they are not found "here in the UK", it is that the legal framework has richer pickings for them defending wealthy corporate customers.
Regulatory oversight and the fines imposed for deficiencies are one thing. Damage done to an invidual is another. It seems quite perverse to suggest that a punitive fine imposed by the former is fine (no pun), but a punitive claim by the latter is abhorent ? I wonder if I were to maim a person, negligently driving at high speed. You would advocate the fiscal punishment should be imposed from the "regulator" but the victim should get a few shillings from my insurance company and then go away ?
It is easy to be detached and dispassionate from the subject of proper damages when you only advocate one side of the arguement, and I accept, that cuts both ways, but there are enough well paid advocates for insurance and big business. Punitive damages go some way to redress the balance. They exist in the USA and big business survives as does the insurance industry, indeed they positvely thrive. In this and other jurisdictions it is high time we as people stopped accepting that we have a paltry worth, and demanded proper and indeed punitive damages for those whose negligence causes us real harm.
"There are no special "serial injurers" in big business."
quote
"All big companies are serial injurers, and they all feel the pressure from their insurers."
Contradictory ?
quote
"Have you got any idea what you are talking about? This is not legally possible in the UK - the insurer will get hit for the full whack of damages regardless of any manoeuvreing by the insured company."
Indeed I do! Possible or Legally possible ? Two different questions. The first is absolutely so, the second only if you can get away with it. I have seen evidence that a syndicate on one of the largest insurance markets in the world has done just this ! Even better one of the names in that syndicate is no less than a chairman of one division ! However you are right, it is not legal, it just happens. The matter is currently before the RCJ and it is therefore (tempting but) not appropriate to discuss it publicly. But to answer your question. Yes I do have " any" idea what I am talking about. As for the legal costs, you really should see the costs they have tried to submit for their defence, presumably it "would make (you) laugh".
quote
"The idea that punitive damages are somehow necessary to do this job is in fact the fallacy dreamt up by greedy claimants' lawyers who will stand to take a percentages of the over-inflated damages recovered by their clients. Fortunately, they are not found here in the UK."
Unlike the "greedy" retained lawyers who presently defend their insurance and big business clients in the UK at present then ? It is not that they are not found "here in the UK", it is that the legal framework has richer pickings for them defending wealthy corporate customers.
Regulatory oversight and the fines imposed for deficiencies are one thing. Damage done to an invidual is another. It seems quite perverse to suggest that a punitive fine imposed by the former is fine (no pun), but a punitive claim by the latter is abhorent ? I wonder if I were to maim a person, negligently driving at high speed. You would advocate the fiscal punishment should be imposed from the "regulator" but the victim should get a few shillings from my insurance company and then go away ?
It is easy to be detached and dispassionate from the subject of proper damages when you only advocate one side of the arguement, and I accept, that cuts both ways, but there are enough well paid advocates for insurance and big business. Punitive damages go some way to redress the balance. They exist in the USA and big business survives as does the insurance industry, indeed they positvely thrive. In this and other jurisdictions it is high time we as people stopped accepting that we have a paltry worth, and demanded proper and indeed punitive damages for those whose negligence causes us real harm.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Bealzebub: Contradictory ?
There are no special "serial injures" in big business who, according to the "punitive damages as regulation" theory, would get picked out and suddenly brought down to earth when they were identified as such. All big companies are "serial injurers", and all feel the pressure from their insurers. The effect contended for by the "punitive damages as regulation" theory simply does not exist.
Unlike the "greedy" retained lawyers who presently defend their insurance and big business clients in the UK at present then ? It is not that they are not found "here in the UK", it is that the legal framework has richer pickings for them defending wealthy corporate customers.
It seems quite perverse to suggest that a punitive fine imposed by the former is fine (no pun), but a punitive claim by the latter is abhorent ?
If you are to be punished in the criminal courts, it is elementary that you have many rights. Amongst others: You have the right to silence, you have the right to see all the relevant evidence whether or not the prosecution chooses to use it in court, and you have the right to make the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that you have done the wrong that you're accused of.
If you are to be punished via the mechanism of damages in civil proceedings, you have virtually none of those rights.
So as a matter of principle, it's wrong that people should be punished via "punitive damages". And so that is in general the law of England, and rightly so.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is obvious that we are coming from two opposing sides of this debate, and there is little common ground. Having already taken up a full page indulging this topic as an aside to the main thread, I cannot add much more than I already have without repeating myself.
Serial injurers and their insurers have a well honed mechanism for advocating their position and you do it well. Their victims are often less well served (often but not always). As a matter of principle it is Right that negligent companies should be punished by way of punitive damages. It is an established procedure in the USA and I suspect it will be adopted in one form or another here eventually. The unscrupulous companies will no doubt adapt and their apologists will still be employed to defend them.
Serial injurers and their insurers have a well honed mechanism for advocating their position and you do it well. Their victims are often less well served (often but not always). As a matter of principle it is Right that negligent companies should be punished by way of punitive damages. It is an established procedure in the USA and I suspect it will be adopted in one form or another here eventually. The unscrupulous companies will no doubt adapt and their apologists will still be employed to defend them.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Bealzebub: As a matter of principle it is Right that negligent companies should be punished by way of punitive damages. It is an established procedure in the USA and I suspect it will be adopted in one form or another here eventually.
But no doubt you will still think you know better.
