Claim for fall on ice???

Loopsie

OK this may be completely the wrong forum and mods feel free to move.......
On tuesday morning i walked out of my apt door and slipped on the ice and have managed to fracture my hand I ended up with a lovely bill for €235.00 for x-rays, tetanus (i also split my hand open) and consultation.
I rang the management company to tell them as my flatmate also slipped on this particular spot and the girl in there was like'oh sorry to hear that i thought we had gritted that???!' EH OBVIOUSLY NOT!!
Anyways like everyone else at the mo money is tight and im wondering can i claim from them for my expense for my fall.........seens as i do pay them about 1800 a year to MAINTAIN the place........

Sorry if i sound like a complete scrooge i just really dont have 235.00 to spare at mo........
any advice from anyone????
L x

Bonito

Msg Mods:Move to legal discussions?

Op, if you're paying 1800 a year to "maintain" the place and you're injured by a fall which could have been prevented by appropriate actions of the landlord/management company then you're entitled to have the medical expenses/physio etc paid for.

Also under Tenancy regulations I believe that all private rented properties must have personal liability insurance? So it wouldn't cost them by pocket, they can claim off insurance, before seeking a solicitor I would run by your management company covering expenses for you. If they refuse then take it to a solicitor (most will give you an assessment for free if you have a good case) and take it to court for both compensation and moneys to cover for medical expenses. It wasn't your fault the ground at the door way was icy. I'd also believe this was a fire hazard as the exit would have been blocked? (Tenants rushing from the building if god forbid there was a fire, i'm sure most would have fallen on the ice in the panic to exit the building)

Zaph

Moved from PI

Loopsie

Bonito thanks for your reply.........ive just put a call into the management company so await to hear back from them. I own the apt i live in so i wouldnt be claiming from any landlords, does this make a difference?? Im absolutely useless when it comes to things like this but needless to say being out of pocket just after xmas isnt nice!!!!

Bonito

It being an apartment block means many others have the same entrance,exit and pathways as you. With you all paying a yearly fee to the management company whether you rent or buy you are, in my opinion and to my knowledge, well within rights to put your hand out to help for paying for costs of your medical treatment. Don't demand moneys though, just politely ask the management company do they have some form of insurance to cover you.

I know that since it it private property there is most likely a sign up somewhere saying management are not responsible for loss or damage to persons and/or personal items or something along those lines. But this only applies to tresspassers I think. You being a tenant and/or visiting a tenant by invitation the management company would have to have some form of insurance in case there was ever an accident which injury was caused.

If management refuse to compensate or say they don't have insurance then inform politely whoever is on the phone that you'll have to speak to your solicitor to find out where you stand because the fact of the matter is the pathway should not have been frozen over, especially when it's at an exit, and it's not your fault you and your flatmate fell.

seamus

Nonfeasance (again).

Unless your management agent are contracted to keep the common areas clear of ice, then you have no case.

The management company equally will have a leasing contract with all of the tenants and unless that lease requires the management company to keep the common areas clear of ice, then you have no case.

Bonito

Considering when the Op contacted them the 1st time they replied "oh we thought we gritted that" then presuming there is a contract with the management company to keep pathways etc clear and ice free? Suggest digging out the Op's contract stating what her 1800 euro a year management fee goes towards?

seamus

Bonito wrote: »

Considering when the Op contacted them the 1st time they replied "oh we thought we gritted that" then presuming there is a contract with the management company to keep pathways etc clear and ice free? Suggest digging out the Op's contract stating what her 1800 euro a year management fee goes towards?

D'oh, missed that.

Probably no need to dig out the contract. Since the management company have taken responsibility for gritting the common areas, then it's a case of misfeasance here - they failed to grit the common areas correctly, resulting in the spill. You could argue that the girl over the phone admitted liability, but she may not have the authority to do that.

I would be surprised if they don't have public liability insurance to cover the common areas. I would contact them again and ask them about their public liability insurance and make it clear that you expect them to pay your medical bills. If they refuse to do so, contact your local FLAC to get some free advice.

Reloc8

seamus wrote: »

Nonfeasance (again).

Unless your management agent are contracted to keep the common areas clear of ice, then you have no case.

The management company equally will have a leasing contract with all of the tenants and unless that lease requires the management company to keep the common areas clear of ice, then you have no case.

Nonfeasance is only relevant in respect of public authorities & roads.

seamus

Reloc8 wrote: »

Nonfeasance is only relevant in respect of public authorities & roads.

It depends on the context. While it's most commonly used in that context, as a general legal idea it can be applied in any context.

Loopsie

Thanks for all the replies guys
ive been talking to management company and they have told me to send in copies of any medical invoices etc and they will look after it!

Del2005

Bonito wrote: »

It being an apartment block means many others have the same entrance,exit and pathways as you. With you all paying a yearly fee to the management company whether you rent or buy you are, in my opinion and to my knowledge, well within rights to put your hand out to help for paying for costs of your medical treatment. Don't demand moneys though, just politely ask the management company do they have some form of insurance to cover you.

I know that since it it private property there is most likely a sign up somewhere saying management are not responsible for loss or damage to persons and/or personal items or something along those lines. But this only applies to tresspassers I think. You being a tenant and/or visiting a tenant by invitation the management company would have to have some form of insurance in case there was ever an accident which injury was caused.

If management refuse to compensate or say they don't have insurance then inform politely whoever is on the phone that you'll have to speak to your solicitor to find out where you stand because the fact of the matter is the pathway should not have been frozen over, especially when it's at an exit, and it's not your fault you and your flatmate fell.

I always though that trespassers could sue if they injure themselves on your property. Isn't that why landowners are so annoyed when people walk on their land, as they can be sued, as well as leaving gates open and worrying animals.

Jo King

Trespassers and other uninvited people can sue. The only difference is the duty of care. Bonito is obviously not a qualified lawyer and English is not his native tongue. There is no harm in asking the management company to admit liability and pay the medical bill. If they pay up, well and good
I cannot imagine the management company would want to claim from their insurers for such a small amount. If they refuse to pay there would have to be a claim to PIAB. There is an application fee, and a medical report on the injury must be submitted. It is far too much bother for the cost of medical treatment. It is highly unlikely any solicitor would be interested in this without money up front.

St James

They may pay the incurred expenses as a good will gesture. it is NOT an admission of liability.

being 'devils advocate' - if you knew your friend had slipped there, then you should have taken more care.

being a simple person - you slipped. many others have too. has it come to pass that someone else MUST be responsible for your misfortune? if you slipped inside the apartment, perhaps on a childs toy, or on a marble or on a wet bathroom floor, whose 'fault' would it be?

misfortune/bad karma befalls us all at times - its life!

if they pay the bills, all the better.

thebiglad

St James wrote: »

They may pay the incurred expenses as a good will gesture. it is NOT an admission of liability.

being 'devils advocate' - if you knew your friend had slipped there, then you should have taken more care.

being a simple person - you slipped. many others have too. has it come to pass that someone else MUST be responsible for your misfortune? if you slipped inside the apartment, perhaps on a childs toy, or on a marble or on a wet bathroom floor, whose 'fault' would it be?

misfortune/bad karma befalls us all at times - its life!

if they pay the bills, all the better.

This years estate fee €1,800 - next year €1,850? - these claims do not pay themselves.

Why must someone be at fault - the ice was forseeable, very unfortunate you fell and sustained nasty injuries but...

havana

Remember if 'they' pay it is you and your fellow owners that are paying. You are the management co. (Assuming handover has occured) so you will pay in some way, be it increased insurance premiums or whatever

Mr Ed

I cannot understand why anyone would claim for slipping on ice, should we just wrap you up in cotton wool should anything else happen?

Seriously, absolute joke.

Paulw

havana wrote: »

Remember if 'they' pay it is you and your fellow owners that are paying.

That's what so many people fail to consider. The OP will certainly now have an increase in management fees to pay this (and any other) cost.

Loopsie

My flatmate left the building 10 mins before me and slipped, it was only later i found out.......when i have a mishap i dont let everyone i know know about it.........


It is not a case that it suddenly froze on monday night and nobody forsaw the weather conditions, it has been freezing since before xmas. The management company have received many complaints about this certain part of the path which is lethal when wet/ice over the latter few years.
It was their responsibility to grit this already dangerous piece of path.

I have sought legal advice and am well within my rights. I highly doubt the fees will be going up due to me claiming 250 euro from them.
You people are unreal.
Mods please close this thread as i have gotten my answer.

Loopsie

just to add that i am ONLY looking for my medical fee to be covered IE the visit to the hospital. I am NOT trying to extort for personal damages or ludicrous amounts of money.
Also to answer someones question if i fell in my own house yes it would be my fault as it is MY responsibility to make sure my own home is safe. I pay the maintenance to make sure the grounds are maintained and safe/acceptable for me to live in so yes they are liable for my fall.

tenchi-fan

Loopsie wrote: »

just to add that i am ONLY looking for my medical fee to be covered IE the visit to the hospital. I am NOT trying to extort for personal damages or ludicrous amounts of money.
Also to answer someones question if i fell in my own house yes it would be my fault as it is MY responsibility to make sure my own home is safe. I pay the maintenance to make sure the grounds are maintained and safe/acceptable for me to live in so yes they are liable for my fall.

If I was the manager of the management company I wouldn't even pay the price of your taxi to the hospital. Unless your contract specifically states "we will grit outside the door before one particle of ice forms" I would just say you should have been more careful and perhaps wore footwear more appropriate to the icy conditions. It's one thing if they stopped collecting your rubbish but it's a bit of a stretch to expect them to stop you slipping on ice!

Sorry, don't take it personally, that's just my view on things. Maybe the legal situation is more black and white but I doubt it.

metrovelvet

Is it true if you grit your driveway and path and someone slips you are liable but if you dont you are not?

Jimmyboss

A friend of mine slipped and fell at a road junction on Thursday, breaking her leg in 3 places.
Does she have any grounds to claim from the local council, seeing that the footpath she slipped on had not been treated, or is there an 'act of God' loophole in this situation?

seamus

metrovelvet wrote: »

Is it true if you grit your driveway and path and someone slips you are liable but if you dont you are not?

That sounds right correct. That's the difference between nonfeasance and misfeasance. You cannot be sued for not doing something (i.e. not gritting your driveway) - nonfeasance - but if you don't do it correctly, you can be sued for misfeasance.

It's a thorny one though - if you gritting/cleared a specific pathway through your driveway and someone walked outside of that that pathway and slipped, I don't think they can sue.

Jimmyboss wrote: »

A friend of mine slipped and fell at a road junction on Thursday, breaking her leg in 3 places.
Does she have any grounds to claim from the local council, seeing that the footpath she slipped on had not been treated, or is there an 'act of God' loophole in this situation?

Nonfeasance again. Unless they had failed to treat the path correctly (i.e. some parts of the path were cleared by the council and others weren't), she has no case against the council.

maidhc

seamus wrote: »

That sounds right correct. That's the difference between nonfeasance and misfeasance. You cannot be sued for not doing something (i.e. not gritting your driveway) - nonfeasance - but if you don't do it correctly, you can be sued for misfeasance.

I wonder if/when it comes up in Court will "public policy" make a guest appearance and steal the show. I think it may well do.

stepinnman

seamus wrote: »

That sounds right correct. That's the difference between nonfeasance and misfeasance. You cannot be sued for not doing something (i.e. not gritting your driveway) - nonfeasance - but if you don't do it correctly, you can be sued for misfeasance.

It's a thorny one though - if you gritting/cleared a specific pathway through your driveway and someone walked outside of that that pathway and slipped, I don't think they can sue.

Nonfeasance again. Unless they had failed to treat the path correctly (i.e. some parts of the path were cleared by the council and others weren't), she has no case against the council.

It's not quite correct that you can't be sued for not doing something in this instance. It's more true to say that you may have a defence should someone sue you.

Local Authorities will also of course claim that the Plaintiff has a heightened duty of care to themselves in the present weather conditions and that therefore there is a higher degree of contributory negligence.

I would think that one of two approaches will be taken by the Local Authorities in the cases that will inevitably arise out of the present icy conditions. They will either (1) seek to settle them at a very early stage, thereby saving on legal costs etc or (2) as soon as the first one or two come through the door, after PIAB, they'll set it down for hearing for as soon as possible and throw everything at it in an attempt to get the message out there that they're not an easy touch on these cases. The fact of the matter is that the same 15/20 firms of Solicitors in Dublin deal with 80-90% of all P.I. Claims, so word will get around if the Local Authorities are succeeding with the nonfeasance argument.

Unfortunately though (from a Defence point of view) a disproportionate number of Plaintiff's are likely to be of the 'little old lady' varierty, and will more than likley make very sympathetic Plaintiffs, who Judges will use any excuse to give money to, regardless of the resultant costs to the Local Authorities with the knock-on effect that that has in terms of budgets etc.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

thebiglad wrote: »

This years estate fee €1,800 - next year €1,850? - these claims do not pay themselves.

Why must someone be at fault - the ice was forseeable, very unfortunate you fell and sustained nasty injuries but...

Mainly because it is somebody elses fault... simply put. If I pay you a sum of money to look after the area surrounding my property, and your inability to do said job properly, causing me an injury and putting me out of pocket, I have every right to make a claim.

St James wrote: »

They may pay the incurred expenses as a good will gesture. it is NOT an admission of liability.

being 'devils advocate' - if you knew your friend had slipped there, then you should have taken more care.

:rolleyes:

being a simple person - you slipped. many others have too. has it come to pass that someone else MUST be responsible for your misfortune? if you slipped inside the apartment, perhaps on a childs toy, or on a marble or on a wet bathroom floor, whose 'fault' would it be?

Are you seriously asking this question???

Mr Ed wrote: »

I cannot understand why anyone would claim for slipping on ice, should we just wrap you up in cotton wool should anything else happen?

Seriously, absolute joke.

Your post is an absolute joke... It seems that not many people in this thread likes to see another person succeed. The OP fell on ice, in a communal part of the apartment complex, which is to be maintained by a property management company, which the OP has paid a fee to. Said property was not managed correctly which resulted in a pretty serious injury to the OP. People then think the op doesn't have a case? That the OP should not take a case because this increases maintanance premiums? Are the same people asking these questions taking the piss?

Paulw wrote: »

That's what so many people fail to consider. The OP will certainly now have an increase in management fees to pay this (and any other) cost.

This is not a certainty, you have created a possibility, however slight, from nothing... please don't.

So you're suggesting that people should pay their premiums, and if anything ever happens, they should stfu and pay it themselves? Is this how you view the insurance industry??? lol :rolleyes:

Premiums are there to protect people. The management company did not use the fees collected properly and therefore will have to cough up. Cutting responsibility to create more revenue is not a good thing and should not be tolerated...

Boston

Let me get this straight, because the management company gritted the area one day, but didn't or couldn't come back and grit it on a subsequent day, they are liable. But if they never gritted at all, they would be fine.

Thats pretty messed up, and explains why the councils have been so reluctant to grip footpaths.,

Paulw

Mayson Microscopic Mail wrote: »

This is not a certainty, you have created a possibility, however slight, from nothing... please don't.

So you're suggesting that people should pay their premiums, and if anything ever happens, they should stfu and pay it themselves? Is this how you view the insurance industry??? lol :rolleyes:

Premiums are there to protect people. The management company did not use the fees collected properly and therefore will have to cough up. Cutting responsibility to create more revenue is not a good thing and should not be tolerated...

The management company may not have budgeted for gritting at all. So, any spending on grit would have to come from the sinking fund. This will also need to be replenished, by increasing fees.

The management company need to increase management fees, to pay for all expenses incurred. So, if the management company have to pay for the medical expenses, then this cost must be made up from the fees of all shareholders. Therefore, management fees increase. This is a fact.

In a not too dissimilar way, if you claim from your insurance policy, your premium then increases.

Management companies are not designed to make profit, but the finances for any output has to come from the shareholders.

I am certainly NOT saying that you shouldn't claim. I am just stating that when there is any claim against the management company (not specifically claims against their insurance policy), the claimant must consider that their own management fees will, most likely, increase to pay for such claims.

Shared financial responsibility is what a management company is - all shareholders pay a fixed percentage of the annual budget, and any increase needed.