News2 mins ago
Compensation.
30 Answers
It is frequently seen that the family of victims who died in an industrial accident or through some mishap, feel they qualify to a money wad as compensation for the loss of their relative.
I can understand that a recompense for medical and/or funeral or other costs they have to meet may be requested, or even educational fund for young children of the victim, but where do these people get off asking for huge sums? Are they going to feel better about the loss of their family member when they are driving in a new cars or live in a new house?
Is this putting a monetary value on a family member that passed away not a bit distasteful?
I can understand that a recompense for medical and/or funeral or other costs they have to meet may be requested, or even educational fund for young children of the victim, but where do these people get off asking for huge sums? Are they going to feel better about the loss of their family member when they are driving in a new cars or live in a new house?
Is this putting a monetary value on a family member that passed away not a bit distasteful?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by wildwood. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Perhaps we should differentiate between compensatory damages, and punitive damages. If you suffer a financial loss caused by someone's fault which kills your relative, you should be compensated for that. But if the person or company which is at fault has to pay punitive damages, ( if, for instance, criminal negligence was involved) I can't help feeling that the money should not go to the bereaved but to a charity which helps similar victims who don't get payouts.
Depends who the family member is.For example, a father's premature death will result in a claim for loss of the earnings which his family depended on and were entitled to expect for, perhaps, many years.This may mean a very substantial sum. But a child who was killed could only create only the damages for the death, which will be depressingly small.
It may be distasteful, but economically it will prevent a possible plunge into poverty for the claimant.
Most "industrial accidents" result from cost-cutting practices by unscrupulous employers - for them to merely cover funeral expenses is quite frankly obscene.
The "huge sum" is intended to generate a regular income, not splash out on new cars etc.
Most "industrial accidents" result from cost-cutting practices by unscrupulous employers - for them to merely cover funeral expenses is quite frankly obscene.
The "huge sum" is intended to generate a regular income, not splash out on new cars etc.
Does loss of future potential earnings apply?
A friend of mine was burnt alive about 11 years ago when an electrical unit he was working on exploded into him. He left two very young children and a distraught wife who now suffers from depression.
There is nothing distasteful in my view, of funds being sufficient enough to support his family + compensation for personal distress.
A friend of mine was burnt alive about 11 years ago when an electrical unit he was working on exploded into him. He left two very young children and a distraught wife who now suffers from depression.
There is nothing distasteful in my view, of funds being sufficient enough to support his family + compensation for personal distress.
Nothing will make up for the oss of a loved one, but if you add up how much someone would earn over the rest of their working life and then calculate what the lump sum would be to generate that amount per month, its a pretty big sum, and that's just the baseline. All the things that a partner and children might have relied on that person to do must now be sourced elsewhere and paid for or done without. Things like assistance with decorating, minor DIY and other house chores, odd bits of childcare, sharing the driving when going on holiday.
I don't support ambulance chasing or the blame culture but there has to be some compensatory support. I also support the notion of punitive damages in appropriate cases and also think that this should go to the bereaved family or individual to do with as they wish.
I don't support ambulance chasing or the blame culture but there has to be some compensatory support. I also support the notion of punitive damages in appropriate cases and also think that this should go to the bereaved family or individual to do with as they wish.
People have to be practical and money does affect your happiness whether we like to admit it or not. If a stable happy person with children is suddenly thrown into the chaos of having no money to rear those children after a bereavement then you will see what I mean. Of courseit doesn't bring anyone back, but there is nothing ' distasteful' about looking after the interests of your family, especially if there has been severe negligence, think of it more as justice for the person who would not otherwise have been dead, would they not want their family well cared for and not to have died in vain?
You are right and I agree 110%. Few people just love money or material things. Main objective is the get the money and enjoy the life and forget about the person involved. It used to be the case that in any industrial accident or workplace death employer used to help the relatives. Education for the children and other bits and pieces like job for someone else in the family. But few people just want compensation and social benefits. And I would not be surprised if few people be praying that it may happen to someone in their family too so they could become rich. Unfortunately time of the hard earn living has almost gone.
This compensation culture has destroyed the industry and how people work. That is the main reason why manufacturing industry mainly has gone towards the countries where people are looking for work and not compensation. However a different question is about the working conditions in those countries. Ideal situation is somewhere in the middle and most importantly people need to be thankful for what they have and not be jealous for what they do not have and other do.
This compensation culture has destroyed the industry and how people work. That is the main reason why manufacturing industry mainly has gone towards the countries where people are looking for work and not compensation. However a different question is about the working conditions in those countries. Ideal situation is somewhere in the middle and most importantly people need to be thankful for what they have and not be jealous for what they do not have and other do.
So let me follow the logic here with a hypothetical example.
A young married couple with two children. He works at a well paying job and she stays at home looking after the children.
One day the man is killed at work due to the company he works for cutting corners and not providing a "safe place of work". She now has to raise the children on her own with no wage coming into the home so she has to claim benefits. (She suddenly finds herself to be one of those single mothers living off the state that are so popular with the British population)
There are remarkably few examples of directors of negligent companies being jailed for corporate manslaughter. What normally happens is the company will be fined.
How does this help the woman in this story? It doesn't.
Of course there should be compensation. Why should the tax payer pick up the tab for a criminally negligent company?
A young married couple with two children. He works at a well paying job and she stays at home looking after the children.
One day the man is killed at work due to the company he works for cutting corners and not providing a "safe place of work". She now has to raise the children on her own with no wage coming into the home so she has to claim benefits. (She suddenly finds herself to be one of those single mothers living off the state that are so popular with the British population)
There are remarkably few examples of directors of negligent companies being jailed for corporate manslaughter. What normally happens is the company will be fined.
How does this help the woman in this story? It doesn't.
Of course there should be compensation. Why should the tax payer pick up the tab for a criminally negligent company?
There is an ongoing matter in my own family right now - my brother who died last year had fought very hard in trying to get compensation as he had contracted a little bit of absestos. The asbestos did not kill him it was cancer, however, before that he written to MPs, papers etc for the right of other people too. It has been in the hands of a solicitor maybe for 7 years now - now his girlfriend and my sister knew how hard he fought for the case still want to pursue it for principle only but I know the way it is working that if my brother's case was won the compo would be paid to nieces and nephews he never knew. I am not interested just pretend.
@Wildwood - Your question seems to suggest that all compensation claims are borne out of frivolity or naked greed and I would fundamentally reject that cyncial interpretation. Sure, you will find examples like that, but what on earth makes you think that most are like that?
If a company is at fault because it has not properly ensured a safe working environment for their workers and a fatality ensues, it should surely be only right and proper that any dependents of that worker receive compensation in recognition of the loss of both current and future earnings?
It is also important that sometimes punitive damages are issued, to set an example for corporations to follow.
I mean, what prompted your question? How about giving some real life examples of those claims you consider to be borne out of greed, or are not warranted?
If a company is at fault because it has not properly ensured a safe working environment for their workers and a fatality ensues, it should surely be only right and proper that any dependents of that worker receive compensation in recognition of the loss of both current and future earnings?
It is also important that sometimes punitive damages are issued, to set an example for corporations to follow.
I mean, what prompted your question? How about giving some real life examples of those claims you consider to be borne out of greed, or are not warranted?
The compensation culture is rather out of hand with a lot of people jumping on any bandwagon they can find, but if the main breadwinner of a family is killed in an industrial accident that’s surely very different. If a company is found to have been negligent, then it should pay compensation. Bad enough to lose a loved one without losing living standards too.
