€257,000 compo ~ but why?.

arybvtcw0eolkf

STORY HERE.

A COUNCIL worker who tripped over an electrical cable while carrying a ladder has been awarded €257,000 damages by the High Court.

The award to Liam Murray (55) was reduced from €342,799 to just over €257,000 after a judge found him one-quarter liable for the accident due to contributory negligence.

Mr Murray, Cleggan Road, Ballyfermot, Dublin, had to give up deep sea fishing and playing the bagpipes after hurting his right shoulder and neck in the accident, the court heard.

Mr Murray, a Dublin City Council employee, had sued the ESB as a result of the accident at Beech Road, Sandymount, Dublin on August 17,2009.

He had claimed he was walking along the road when he fell on cabling emerging from under the path at the base of a street lamp.

He claimed the ESB was negligent in allowing electrical cable to be present on the pathway and allegedly permitting a trap or a nuisance to be on the path.

The ESB admitted liability but claimed there was contributory negligence on the part of Mr Murray.

It was claimed that a day after the incident, he noticed pain radiating from the right side of his neck into his elbow and attended St James Hospital for an x ray.

He claimed if he tilts his head to the right his symptoms are aggravated and if he tilts to the left, they are relieved.

He said he later suffered persistent neck pain radiating in to his right arm and hand and had to undergo surgery two years ago.

In her judgement, Ms Justice Mary Irvine said Mr Murray who worked with the Council lighting department had tripped on electrical cable during the course of his employment.

She said Mr Murray on the day of the accident had parked his van and was carrying an extension ladder when for some unexplained reason he did not see a large spool of cable in front of him.

Everybody, she said, must take reasonable care for their own safety as footpaths can be hazardous. Pedestrians, she said and are not entitled to blindly proceed on the assumption they will be safe.

Mr Murray, she said,would have been required to report dangers to his employers and would have been more aware than most.She said he should have seen the spool of electrical cable and applied a 25pc reduction for contributory negligence.

The judge said he fell on his shoulder but was, after treatment, able to continue work that day and to later take photographs of the scene.

Mr Murray, she said, had made little effort to return to gainful employment after his accident.

The judge accepted he could not do heavy lifting but she said he could do some jobs such as a car park attendant.

He's not crippled, or brain damaged in any way. And by all accounts he's happy to sit back on his arse and wait for some compo as he's never made any attempts to get back into gainful employment after the accident.

Me finks someone's a cute ol' whore!.

juan.kerr

Well as long as the system 'works' the way it does people will take advantage if it.

Samich

If you can get it, why not take it. Not his fault.

TeddyTedson

Sounds like a case of a very good barrister/solicitor.
Not quite as mental as some cases you read about in the states from time to time where a judge awards 15million to a child for falling of a neighbors wall and break a wrist, but still seems extremely excessive. Judge Judy would never award that though.
Anyone know what legal firm he used :P

mauzo

Had to give up the bagpipes???

Id say his neighbours are delighted, probably pushed him

Varied

had to give up deep sea fishing and playing the bagpipes

What a ****.

MrGeneric

Samich wrote: »

If you can get it, why not take it. Not his fault.

A scumbag's mantra.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Varied wrote: »

What a ****.

Hilarious isn't it!.

I'm actually dumb founded.

The judge almost comes right out and tells the guys its him own bloody fault and to watch where he's going in future, then awards him a quarter of a million!.

BehindTheScenes

Because L'Oreal told the judge 'he's worth it'.

bijapos

So many things that are wrong with this country are contained in that article.

-Crazy amount of compo
-can't be arsed working, probably still on a full wage
-sounds like he didn't do much to prevent the accident but still gets a huge payout for it.

And people wonder why insurance is so fcuking expensive in this country. :mad:

Samich

MrGeneric wrote: »

A scumbag's mantra.

There's more money going to scumbags in the dail than a once off payment who is deemed to be deserving of it.

My name is URL

Maxim Witty Bomb wrote: »

He claimed if he tilts his head to the right his symptoms are aggravated and if he tilts to the left, they are relieved.

That gave me a good giggle for some reason...

Sounds like an excessive amount of money for what's made known in the article. A lad I know was only awarded €15,000 after he went into a rain-filled pothole on his motorbike and then had a car drive over his knee.. it didn't even put a dent in his medical bill.

bijapos

Samich wrote: »

There's more money going to scumbags in the dail than a once off payment who is deemed to be deserving of it.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Neither those in the Dail nor this guy should be getting anywhere near what they are getting.

Culleeo

That's an obscene amount of money to get, typical Ireland, as was stated, there was negligence on his part too, I think he should be more accountable than 25%. One of the first rules of manual handling training is to assess the environment around you, so he should have assessed the area before he started walking with the ladder to ensure there was no hazards in the way. Fcuking knacker.

hondasam

He said he later suffered persistent neck pain radiating in to his right arm and hand and had to undergo surgery two years ago.

He must have had some injury considering he had surgery. The pay out does seem excessive.

Ghandee

Further proof (if it were needed) we live in one seriously, focked up wee island.

Deepsea fishing and bagpipes me hole..........

He claimed if he tilts his head to the right his symptoms are aggravated and if he tilts to the left, they are relieved.

Theres your answer so......


Sellotape the clumsy fcukers head to a pendulum.:rolleyes:

Scioch

I'd take the money if someone said it was on offer and so would everyone else here. Anyone who says any different is a liar or already loaded.

mikemac1

This is the same judge that awarded 11.5 million to a family when the mother crashed an uninsured car in Loughrea and injured her son.


We had a thread on it a few months back

Cullen suffered devastating injuries after what the court heard was a "momentary lapse of concentration" by his mother Margaret when, distracted by him while driving him to school on May 5th, 2008, her uninsured car veered onto the wrong side of the road and collided head-on with another car.

Cullen, suing through his grandmother Monica Kennedy, had brought proceedings against his mother and the Motor Insurance Bureau of Ireland (MIBI). Under the agreed settlement,the MIBI will pay the judgment sum.

Id bet the f***ing ranch, he'll be back fishing and playing the Bags the day after the check is cashed.

I predict a complete recovery as soon as the money is sitting hot in his bank account.

Ghandee

Ghandee wrote: »

Further proof (if it were needed) we live in one seriously, focked up wee island.

Deepsea fishing and bagpipes me hole..........




Theres your answer so......


Sellotape the clumsy fcukers head to a pendulum.:rolleyes:

Brilliant, that creased me :D:D

Culleeo

LordSmeg wrote: »

I'd take the money if someone said it was on offer and so would everyone else here. Anyone who says any different is a liar or already loaded.

Of course we would take the money but I wouldn't put in the claim in the first place unless I was seriously injured.

Ficheall

LordSmeg wrote: »

I'd take the money if someone said it was on offer and so would everyone else here. Anyone who says any different is a liar or already loaded.

I'd be too embarrassed to bring the case to court in the first place, I think.
And I'd be ever so ashamed of what my fellow AHers would think of me.

Samich

LordSmeg wrote: »

I'd take the money if someone said it was on offer and so would everyone else here. Anyone who says any different is a liar or already loaded.

I agree fully.

mauzo

My name is URL wrote: »

That gave me a good giggle for some reason...

He'll have to keep his wallet in his left pocket, he'll be grand then!

Scioch

Ficheall wrote: »

I'd be too embarrassed to bring the case to court in the first place, I think.
And I'd be ever so ashamed of what my fellow AHers would think of me.

I'd do whatever the solicitor says to do to be honest and if I was having persistent pains to the point of needing an operation I'd certainly be contacting one.

Dyr

Personal opinion: if you leave cabling trailing across the ground then you should be liable for any accidents that ensue, you could have taken simple measure's to ensure that no-one trips over it but you didn't.

Littlehorny

Jake1 wrote: »

Id bet the f***ing ranch, he'll be back fishing and playing the Bags the day after the check is cashed.

I predict a complete recovery as soon as the money is sitting hot in his bank account.

If i had 257,000 given to me i wouldnt give a fook if i ever say a rod or a set of bagpipes again!:)

PC CDROM

It is OK to laugh at the guy and assume he is taking the p1ss but what if it happened to you and a sport you loved?

I know if I fuked upped my shoulder I'd be p1ssed of due to a sport I have persused and invested over the years

the groutch

typical "gimme gimme gimme" attitude of a PS worker

ejmaztec

No pain no gain.

SusieBlue

I study Law and we see cases like this all the time.

A similar, very memorable one, is one when a 12 year old boy walked 25 minutes from his home, climbed a 6ft wall, jumped over a wired fence, past lots of "danger signs" and climbed up one of those electrical tower things. Poor boy got electrocuted.

His family managed to sue the ESB for millions due to negligence. I feel bad that he got electrocuted, but he clearly went out of his way to climb the thing and at 12 I think he should have had more sense not to.

Cases like that are won every day. Its ridiculous.

Sleepy

Until reading this thread, I'd have accepted the condition as the consequences of my own fucking stupidity for not looking where I was going.

Now I know I can get the price of a house out of it, I think I'd contact a solicitor fairly sharpish.

Ludicrous that we pay people for being idiots but my first duty is to my kids and that sort of cash would put a nice roof over their heads.

Is it possible that the amount was so inflated in order to cover crazy medical bills? Or was he treated on his own health insurance / the HSE and this is simply money "for his troubles" :rolleyes:

juan.kerr

Bambi wrote: »

Personal opinion: if you leave cabling trailing across the ground then you should be liable for any accidents that ensue, you could have taken simple measure's to ensure that no-one trips over it but you didn't.

You are right, and that is why we should be able to sue. However it isn't the idiot who left the cable trailing that is getting sued - it's his employer. I doubt that his union in the ESB would allow a mention of this on his permanent record so he won't be punished in any way while the ESBs customers pick up the tab.

Samich

Sleepy wrote: »

Until reading this thread, I'd have accepted the condition as the consequences of my own fucking stupidity for not looking where I was going.

Now I know I can get the price of a house out of it, I think I'd contact a solicitor fairly sharpish.

Ludicrous that we pay people for being idiots but my first duty is to my kids and that sort of cash would put a nice roof over their heads.

Is it possible that the amount was so inflated in order to cover crazy medical bills? Or was he treated on his own health insurance / the HSE and this is simply money "for his troubles" :rolleyes:

Welcome back from 2005 :P

Sleepy

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I study Law and we see cases like this all the time.

A similar, very memorable one, is one when a 12 year old boy walked 25 minutes from his home, climbed a 6ft wall, jumped over a wired fence, past lots of "danger signs" and climbed up one of those electrical tower things. Poor boy got electrocuted.

His family managed to sue the ESB for millions due to negligence. I feel bad that he got electrocuted, but he clearly went out of his way to climb the thing and at 12 I think he should have had more sense not to.

Cases like that are won every day. Its ridiculous.

On what grounds were the ESB negligent? And did they counter-sue the kids parents for their negligence which resulted in damage to their property?

mikemac1

Next thing you'll be telling me that primary schools ban running in the yard to avoid injuries and claims

JONJO THE MISER

Fair play to him.

Sleepy

Samich wrote: »

Welcome back from 2005 :P

€250k would buy a fairly nice house in Swords or Raheny. Do me fine

Dyr

mikemac1 wrote: »

Next thing you'll be telling me that primary schools ban running in the yard to avoid injuries and claims

Mine did and that was back in the 80's

JONJO THE MISER

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Fair play to him.

I bet you'll be sickened if he turns out to be a foreigner.

hondasam

the groutch wrote: »

typical "gimme gimme gimme" attitude of a PS worker

ffs it's not limited to PS workers.

juan.kerr

Sleepy wrote: »

On what grounds were the ESB negligent? And did they counter-sue the kids parents for their negligence which resulted in damage to their property?

I was going to ask the same thing but though it might be considered poor taste.

hondasam

mikemac1 wrote: »

Next thing you'll be telling me that primary schools ban running in the yard to avoid injuries and claims

I thought they did this now.

mikemac1

Yes, it's gone on for a long time in schools

I've used the wrong smilie maybe or my post wasn't clear

juan.kerr

Is it an unlucky co-incidence that he worked for the lighting department and the cabling was from a lamp, possible the very lamp he was about to work on with his ladder? Sounds like a setup.

TeddyTedson

hondasam wrote: »

ffs it's not limited to PS workers.

Isn't everyone working a PS worker though...

allthedoyles

He was right to claim , but Justice Mary Irvine was wrong to award such a large amount

Ficheall

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I study Law and we see cases like this all the time.

A similar, very memorable one, is one when a 12 year old boy walked 25 minutes from his home, climbed a 6ft wall, jumped over a wired fence, past lots of "danger signs" and climbed up one of those electrical tower things. Poor boy got electrocuted.

His family managed to sue the ESB for millions due to negligence. I feel bad that he got electrocuted, but he clearly went out of his way to climb the thing and at 12 I think he should have had more sense not to.

Cases like that are won every day. Its ridiculous.

Are the claimants ever smacked upside the head and told to cop the **** on?

juan.kerr

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Isn't everyone working a PS worker though...

Isn't that an oxymoron?

mikemac1

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers

Shakespeare was a wise man

juan.kerr

Ficheall wrote: »

Are the claimants ever smacked upside the head and told to cop the **** on?

Probably not because they have a habit of being litigious. So it might not be cost effective...