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

The court heard that an forensic engineer had examined the trampoline and was of the opinion that the method used for securing the safety pad was inadequate.

That seems pretty straight forward to me.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

That seems pretty straight forward to me.

Would it not make more sense for the manufacturer to be held accountable? Surely the likes of Smyths can't run safety tests indvidually on every single product they sell, whereas manufacturers should do this?

That's it. My kids are going to bounce like bejaysus when I get home.

Overflow wrote:

So if i buy a car and i crash it into a wall, breaking my leg, the car dealer is responsible ?

Were the brakes faulty or did you just crash through bad driving?

You think thats bad, look at this absolute joke!

A 66-year-old woman, who claimed she had been wrongly accused of not paying for a bucket and mop, on Tuesday settled her €38,000 damages claim for defamation against Woodies DIY Limited.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/woman-who-claims-she-was-wrongly-accused-of-not-paying-for-bucket-and-mop-settles-case-1.2005746

folbotcar wrote: »

That explains why there were no trampolines for sale in Smyths when I went looking for one. Most trampolines I see have no gaps to put a foot through. Something of design flaw in the one they sold.

As for the compo culture well there was the woman who fell on a Shannon cabin cruiser and broke her wrist. She got paid off. It also turned out to be her third claim in the last few years. Very accident prone it seems.

On the other hand the system encourages claims. Lawyers have a vested interest in encouraging claims.

Wasnt there some court set up a few years back to deal with personal injury claims?

newport2 wrote: »

Would it not make more sense for the manufacturer to be held accountable?

The manufacturer could be a Chinese company that's no longer answering the phone. So there's no one other than Smyths to sue.

I would have thought the manufacturer would be responsible for any design or manufacturing faults. There may be more to the case like Smyths just buying any old cheap crap they come across and have made no efforts to check if it's safe.

That's why I like to buy European products with European safety standards like TUV or the Kitemark, it shows the company involved has made efforts to make their product safe and there is a process already in place should anything go wrong.

Soon enough, as this $hit continues, you'll have to sign release clauses for absolutely everything. Eating in a restaurant, getting a taxi, buying something, going to the cinema, etc, etc.

bobmalooka wrote: »

It's very simple, the contract for the goods was with smyths.

Smyths probably would be able to sue the company who made the trampoline but they won't, they'll get €35k knocked off their next bill instead.

Hopefully the kid is ok and the trampoline manufacturers correct the design issue.

Does it say anywhere how old the trampoline was? I'd have thought any piece of equipment is going to fail at some point, and trampolines typically go through a lot of abuse with little or no maintenance. I'm surprised shops still sell them, given the potential for these kinds of incidents & cases.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Check your car insurance policy to see how much they'd pay out for a missing leg.

Really.


Broken bones heal in 6 weeks. I'd nearly be tempted by such easy money , if you can still buy them.

Cant be that hard to fake an x-ray...