Boy awarded €35K for Broken Leg, suffered falling through trampoline

Pro Hoc Vice · 27-11-2014 3:09pm

Greenmachine wrote: »

I had intended to link to the article. Judge are idiots. I am not debating the fact that she was injured.. The article fails horrendously to quantify what her serious head injuries were. That could mean anything, like a laceration to the ear, a concussion, or even an acquired injury.
I was pointed out the fact that from the article the judge seem to have given not enough weight to the client negligence being a contributory factor in her injuries.

it amazes me that people think judges dont hear any evidence and just pluck figures out of the air. How is a newspaper Article being bad the fault of the Judge, if the journalist decides to leave important bits out of the report, then ya just jump to the conclusion that the judge is an idiot, clever that.

1 A plaintiff must prove negligence on behalf of the defendant to the civil standard of proof. Usually done with the Plaintiffs evidence and expert evidence.
2 The Plaintiff must prove injury again by their own evidence and a doctors evidence.
3 The Plaintiff must allow the Defendant access to a lot of personal information including past injuries and accidents aswell as medical records.
4 The Defendant can produce evidence to prove no negligence or no or little injury.
5 Finally its open to the Defendant to prove contributory negligence.

When all that evidence is presented to the court the Judge makes a decision. Most court reports in news papers are inaccurate or a downright lie. When giving out about a decision at least have all the evidence like the judge did.

Grab All Association · 27-11-2014 8:43pm

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

Seems a pretty standard compensation sum for the injury. The Injury's Board have a range of €15,400 to €35,600 for a fractured lower leg if it has "substantially recovered". It includes fractures to both the fibula and tibia (the latter being more serious). The child had both, taking nine months to recover, so it would be on the upper end of the scale.

To go through the IB/PIAB, the party has to have admitted liability, and only be disputing the amount. There's no need for solicitors, it's a fairly modest fee. It would've all been sorted at least a year earlier, too. Smyth's chose to dispute the negligence claim, however, and it ended up costing them more in the long run (settled for slightly more in the end, solicitor costs etc.).

But there was a mention of a "severe head injury". You also left out some key elements of that article, which you conveniently didn't give a link for.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/settlement-of-178m-approved-for-girl-who-fell-from-school-bus-window-30777360.html

"a young girl sustained a severe head injury when she fell out of the back window of a school bus"

"Four girls - Sarah Lawlor, Claire McGrath, Bernadette Nicholson, and Saoirse McWalters - fell onto the road as the back window fell out and crashed onto the road."

"Judge Fahy found Bus Eireann guilty of being the owner of a vehicle with a defect that was a danger to the public and that could have been discovered through the exercise of ordinary care.

She did not accept that pressure by the children alone would have been enough to cause the window to slip out."

It seems that she's very lucky to be alive, never mind without serious brain damage.

After the bus stopped to let one boy off at his home at Ballymara, the girls decided to stand up on the seat, link arms, and sway against the movement of the bus as it rounded corners.

If they had of remained seated it wouldn't have happened.

Paz-CCFC · 27-11-2014 9:52pm

Greenmachine wrote: »

You have raised some very good points.

It's something to always be mindful. And if the judgment is available, it is best to read it before making your mind up. It's the best way to make an informed opinion.

Chris___ wrote: »

After the bus stopped to let one boy off at his home at Ballymara, the girls decided to stand up on the seat, link arms, and sway against the movement of the bus as it rounded corners.

If they had of remained seated it wouldn't have happened.

You were there, were you? Or you've read over the evidence presented by the experts? Seeing as you seem so sure about it, moreso than the court...

The judges in both the District and High Courts decided, based on the full set of evidence provided by both parties, that the window would have fallen off and that they would have been injured regardless of standing up on the seats. They examined the evidence and give a reasoned judgment - they didn't spout an ad hoc opinion like yourself.

As Pro Hoc Vice said, the burden is on the plaintiff. They had to prove that there was a duty of care owed by Bus Éireann - there was, BÉ owe a duty of care towards their passengers. Then they must prove that that duty was breached - it was, as the bus was not kept to an adequate standard and was a danger to its passengers. Then, a causal link between the negligent act and the injury suffered by the plaintiff - but for the bus being kept to a proper standard, they would not have suffered such injuries/there was proximity between negligence and injury. And then actual damage - serious head injuries. There's also public policy considerations which may defeat/mitigate a claim - say, if the compensation was so much that it would have the effect of bankrupting BÉ, that would not be good for the country's transport infrastructure. And they can claim contributory negligence, which can also be mitigatory.

So, there's a number of hurdles which they must clear before being successful. All the defendant has to do is bring them down on one of those hurdles and the claim will fail.

Capt'n Midnight · 28-11-2014 2:41am

I'll just leave this here

https://i.imgur.com/hS0zJCe.jpg

Boy awarded €35K for Broken Leg, suffered falling through trampoline

Comments