Chosing not to take out travel insurance...

[nickykim]

So had a conversation over the weekend that got fairly heated - the scenario is....you are 80+ and decide to visit Australia from England.

You get a travel insurance quote and it is in excess of 3000 pounds. So you decide that is too expensive and you will just rely on the reciprocal medical agreement.

You go and visit family who live in a rural area and on your walk down to the local shop, you trip and break your leg. You get carted off to hospital and are treated but now you cannot travel to Brisbane to meet other relatives and your doctor suggests verbally it would be "better" if you flew home business class.

So who pays? You because you took the risk and didn't take insurance? The local Council (and consequently the local residents through their rates)?

And what? If the Council pays anything, should it pay all the costs including reimbursement for the missed flights to Brisbane and the flight upgrades? Or just the direct medical costs (i.e. the gap between medicare and the $ charged)?

Just out of interest what do you think?

 

[The Rok]

Should of paid the STG 3,000 for insurance. Or shopped around for a better quote, or took better care when walking on the footpath.

Was the footpath inconspicuously damaged? If not then why should the council pay anything? It's not like they pushed him?

 

[notzac]

It's a situation that I would hope no one ever willingly puts themselves in.

I believe that the reciprocal medical treatment should cover just that and no more - the gap payments and repatriation costs should be borne by the person that wouldn't buy the travel insurance.

 

[oz_mark]

You go and visit family who live in a rural area and on your walk down to the local shop, you trip and break your leg. You get carted off to hospital and are treated but now you cannot travel to Brisbane to meet other relatives and your doctor suggests verbally it would be "better" if you flew home business class.

A lot of it may come down to what you trip on and where. Tripping over something may actually be your own fault!

 

[nickykim]

Perhaps I should have also said I work for a rural Council - so my response was if you chose not to insure yourself its your problem not the ratepayers'.

 

[nlagalle]

Perhaps I should have also said I work for a rural Council - so my response was if you chose not to insure yourself its your problem not the ratepayers'.

Agree with you 100%...

 

[oz_mark]

Perhaps I should have also said I work for a rural Council - so my response was if you chose not to insure yourself its your problem not the ratepayers'.

Again, it depends on what exactly was tripped over. The courts do not expect footpaths and roads to be maintained with the smoothness of a bowling green. Having said that, the councils do have responsibilities towards safety.

 

[Mal]

Costs of treatment only imho. And that 3000 saved would likely cover that j fare home.

There is sure to be legal precedent that can be used for guidance.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using AustFreqFly

 

[spudseamus]

but I pay my rates so that the pavement should be in sound condition -- if they are not and they cause me to fall over I will sue ---if I dont pay my rates and fall over I have no right to sue !

 

[oz_mark]

but I pay my rates so that the pavement should be in sound condition -- if they are not and they cause me to fall over I will sue ---if I dont pay my rates and fall over I have no right to sue !

They may also rule that you should watch where you are going!

 

[BAM1748]

Councils pay out regularly for trips and falls on badly maintained footpaths, for an 85 yo or a small child they would probably even make an offer to settle to save the extra costs involved with court. But of course this would take weeks if not months to arrive at, so the claimant would be out of pocket until the payment.

If you have any insurance and make a claim, your insurer will see if another party is at fault and recover their payout to you via them.

Matt

 

[The Rok]

There are a couple of things that might affect a payout.

1. Was there a defect in the footpath
2. Was the council informed of or did they know about the defect
3. If the council knew of the defect, how long did they know
4. Was there warning signed, barriers, cones, tape etc warning of the defect pending repairs
5. Was the footpath recently repairs, modified, altered or in any way interfered with by a 3rd party, i.e Telstra, Water Corp, home owner


There are so many other things that could impact weather there are any grounds for a law suit. Regardless of weather or not you pay your rates the council cannot be expected to have every single piece if infrastructure in 100% working order 100% of the time. In this case it would come back to point 2.

For example, if the defect occurred on a friday night as a result of a car accident or a fallen tree, and the council was only made aware on Monday morning, but somebody fell on Saturday morning then the council could not reasonably be found to be negligent. The only time a payout will occur is when the council IS negligent. In this case there is no evidence to suggest there is or is not negligence on the councils behalf.

For all we know the 80 year old had a dizzy spell as a result of all the travelling and fell over and hurt himself, how can the council be responsible for that?

 

[BAM1748]

While the talk is on did the council know, the issue is it is the council that OWNS the footpath. It doesn't matter if they knew or not it was lifting because of a tree root, they own it. (and likely built it)

Matt

 

[oz_mark]

While the talk is on did the council know, the issue is it is the council that OWNS the footpath. It doesn't matter if they knew or not it was lifting because of a tree root, they own it. (and likely built it)

There is an awful lot of case law on these matters and the pendulum has swung back and forth over time about who is liable. It is not possible to say one way or the other who would be liable in this case, as it depends on what caused the trip. However, an uneven surface may not make the council liable.

Example:

• “In general, [pedestrians] are more able to see and avoid imperfections in a road surface. It is the nature of walking in the outdoors that the ground may not be as even, flat or smooth as other surfaces … [P]ersons ordinarily will be expected to exercise sufficient care by looking where they are going and perceiving and avoiding obvious hazards, such as uneven paving stones, tree roots or holes. Of course some allowance must be made for inadvertence. ”

 

[The Rok]

While the talk is on did the council know, the issue is it is the council that OWNS the footpath. It doesn't matter if they knew or not it was lifting because of a tree root, they own it. (and likely built it)

Matt

In the eyes of a court owning it is not enough of a reason to be negligent. You need to prove negligence, and it's not as easy as you think. The courts are of the opinion that each person on this planet needs to take reasonable steps to ensure their own safety. If you actively walk into a restricted and cordoned off danger zone and fall and hurt yourself then the council could be negligent by not providing enough of a hazard warning, however if you scaled a security fence and did there same injury then you were not taking appropriate steps to ensure your own safety and YOU were negligent, not the council.

Like I said before, without all the facts its very hard to determine, but the council just owning the footpath is not enough justification for a compensation claim.

 

[BAM1748]

In the eyes of a court owning it is not enough of a reason to be negligent. You need to prove negligence, and it's not as easy as you think. The courts are of the opinion that each person on this planet needs to take reasonable steps to ensure their own safety. If you actively walk into a restricted and cordoned off danger zone and fall and hurt yourself then the council could be negligent by not providing enough of a hazard warning, however if you scaled a security fence and did there same injury then you were not taking appropriate steps to ensure your own safety and YOU were negligent, not the council.

Like I said before, without all the facts its very hard to determine, but the council just owning the footpath is not enough justification for a compensation claim.

I guess I'm talking pre court settlement. It costs x amount (say $20K to $30K) so if you get a claim for $2K there would be an investigation and payout. you wouldn't bother going to court, just sign the deed with no admission of liability and post a cheque.

If you drive past a road work site and stone kicks up and cracks your windshield you can claim off road owner for a new windscreen. New windscreen $500 versus going to Court $20K. Just document the roadworks (photos are good with a witness statement), find out who owns the road and send it in with a bit of follow up you'll be right.

What I'm trying to get at, it has nothing to do with right and wrong, hazard warnings and the like, it's got to do with a making a modest claim against the owner and knowing what the line is for the defendant to go to court over it.

Matt

 

[serfty]

Don't forget that if the £3K was spent and the TI taken out, the underwriters would certainly consider pursuing the Council for cost recovery in any case.

 

[nickykim]

Just to let you know where it will probably go - sent the engineer out to photograph the alleged "defect" with ruler along side. Will refer to our insurers for a decision. I think we will deny liability but offer an ex gracia payment. The insurers make the call on the basis of cost of defending etc.

I like that the forum has so many diverse people and opinions.

As a aside my mother at 83 no longer travels beyond NZ and Australia because of the travel insurance cost.

 

[spudseamus]

" take reasonable steps" ohhhh a great pun Rok!!!

 

[Moopere]

As a aside my mother at 83 no longer travels beyond NZ and Australia because of the travel insurance cost.

Its very interesting this. I can see the train of thought. TI is too expensive, I'm relatively fit and able-bodied, therefore make a judgement call to not get insurance and sue for whatever unexpected stuff might happen.

Ultimately, I guess we all have this choice all of the time. TI policies might be no more than "less hassle" capped worst case - particularly in the developed countries where the state is unlikely to let you die in the street if you don't have any money.