UK▸ high court judges, do to an extent, actually MAKE the law.
UK law is not always as clear as it might be, especially when dealing with incidents involving new inventions, or processes.
Judges make decisions largely based on legal precedents, or similar previous cases.
In cases like this one there will be relatively few similar precedents and the judge must therefore decide on the basis of very general laws and precedents that are perhaps not directly relevant.
I am not aware of any UK legislation that says "if you suffer injury from riding on the outside of a tram, this is your fault"
Neither am I aware of any specific law that entitles one to a pay out for injuries received when so doing.
There IS a general requirement under health and safety law to take "reasonable care" to prevent injury or worse to others. Legal arguments over what is reasonable can be prolonged.
In this case I feel that the judge has made the wrong decision.
And by setting a LEGAL PRECEDENT the judge has in effect slightly changed the law by increasing the chances of similar claims succeeding in future.
The legal representatives of future claimants will refer to this case.
Hm.
The legal system in Ireland does indeed bear many similarities to those of the UK, especially that of England and Wales. From the time of Cromwell to 1922, it was part of the same system, with the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords as the ultimate appellate court. Laws enacted during that time, and not repealed, remain in force, and decisions made on Irish cases during that period could set precedents binding in English cases even today. The two systems went their separate ways after 1922, with the Irish Supreme Court becoming the last chance saloon with the adoption of the constitution in 1937. BUT the High Court does not make law on either side of the sea.
Decisions made by the High Court are at least theoretically binding on itself. So any subsequent case involving similar facts should end with the same result. In practice, though, another High Court judge could "distinguish" his case by finding some small difference, enough to make the earlier verdict not binding on the case they have.
Decisions made by the Court of Appeal bind itself and all lower courts. It could "make" law by ruling in a later case, or even this one if someone appeals, that personal injury law does not apply if the tram is late, for instance (it wouldn't). Subsequent High Court cases would have to be decided with this in mind.
Until, that is, someone takes a case to the Supreme Court. What it says, except in the very limited instances where the European Courts could intervene, is the final answer, and will apply to all cases at every level.
It is important to note that the Courts can only "make law" by interpretation of existing law. They are good at it, though, and have been known to make judgments that effectively render the written law useless. If the government of the day doesn't like that, their only option is to pass a new law.
The tram operator could appeal. The old legal principle of
volenti non fit injuria faded from sight with the move away from using Latin in court, but if it's your own fault then you take the consequences. The court in this case may have found that the company had done or failed to do something that would have prevented the incident, though, so an appeal could cost even more. They may have taken steps to avoid a repetition, so may leave it lie.
Stupid girl.
Click on the map to explore geographics
