Dáil debates

Wednesday, 7 December 2005

Good Samaritan Bill 2005: Second Stage (Resumed).

 

12:00 pm

Photo of M J NolanM J Nolan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)

Like previous speakers from the Government benches, I commend Fine Gael, particularly Deputy Timmins, on bringing forward this Bill. After examining it, experts in the parliamentary draftsman's office acknowledged that some deficiencies and faults exist in the Bill as drafted. The sentiments expressed on all sides of the House are that the legislation is worthy of consideration and it is proper to debate it. With some changes and, possibly, after consultation with the Minister responsible for this area, legislation which could address all the shortcomings identified in the preamble to this Bill could be accommodated. That matter might be considered by this or future Governments.

The Bill purports to protect from liability those who go to the assistance of others suffering illness or injuries as a result of an accident or other emergency. Under the law as it stands for personal injury cases, due weight is given by the courts to the social utility of the defendant's conduct. The courts fashion the duty of care and specifies its scope with the aim of accomplishing social goals. A common sense approach is taken in determining the standards of care and all circumstances are considered. However, that is not to say that a person may be foolhardy or reckless. There is no general duty to rescue a person in need and no evidence exists at present to suggest a compelling need for changes to the law or that concerns over liability discourage or prevent people from coming to the aid of others in medical emergencies. Research undertaken by the State Claims Agency suggests that there has never been a case where a person responding to a medical emergency as a good samaritan has been sued. Staff at agencies covered by the State's clinical indemnity scheme whose actions arise from bona fide emergencies are protected in cases of personal injury. This applies whether the staff member is on or off duty when rendering such assistance.

We must acknowledge the steps taken by the Government to deal with the out of control claims culture through the introduction of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board and the relevant Act, which was passed in 2003. I commend the Government on bringing forward that legislation because, even at this early stage, we have received reports of its success. While the legal profession may not be pleased with the effect it has had on its business, the public in general are happy that the cost of insurance, whether personal, commercial or for motors, has decreased, and it will continue to decrease due to the reduction in claims.

The Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business recently met the executive and officials from PIAB, who were positive with regard to the implementation and operation of this legislation. PIAB provides independent assessments of personal injuries and compensation for victims of workplace, motor and public liability accidents. Its assessments are provided without the need for the majority of current litigation costs. During the course of our investigations into the insurance industry, evidence was brought before the committee of serious cases in which particular firms of solicitors charged exorbitant fees. These fees were additional to the settlements that were agreed and impacted on the costs of motor insurance. We heard one case in which a settlement of €10,000 was made but the legal costs involved were in the order of €50,000. This was unsustainable and reached the point where some Government had to act. I am pleased that this Government did the business by bringing in the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003.

Among the statistics presented to us was that 75% of PIAB awards have been accepted by claimants, which is an extraordinary figure. PIAB has delivered the same level of awards as the litigation system without the huge costs of associated legal fees. Delivery time for PIAB awards is approximately three times faster than the former system. Obviously, that frees up some of the courts' time.

I commend Fine Gael on bringing forward this legislation. While the faults that have been identified are unfortunately such that we cannot support it, these may be addressed in the future.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.