Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Public liability

  • 13-04-2012 3:48pm
    #1
    nisio123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26 ✭


    Hi,
    Hypothetical question, woman rents a small chalet, walks back to it (unpaved marked path, slight incline), slips on muddy path while carrying her child (it just rained a little bit) - staff (2 accounts) say she was wearing flimsy shoes, she produces new nike runners in court.
    Im thinking they are both at fault, she for carrying child in uneven conditions, them for not paving the path properly. Also there is no actual loss of earning (she coached hockey and can't really do it anymore but there is no mention of being payed for it)
    Any thoughts, or further reading, or similar cases would be greatly appreciated.
    Cheers,


Comments

  • #2
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    Weir Rogers v SF Trusts [2005] 1 IRLM 471

    Not a negligence case per se but one on occupiers liability - it may give some indication on how parties to a case involving obvious dangers may be treated.

    Beyond that its bog standard look at negligence cases and argue both sides - assuming this is an assignment - which is what it looks like! :P

    EDIT: As for the shoes I thinks that is the obligatory red herring as how is she to prove she was wearing them at the time?


Advertisement