Paid for your own stupidity..

woodoo

What is going on with people suing and getting big payouts for their own stupidity these days? This bimbo climbed a closed gate and when she fell and injured herself sued and got €75,000. How is that anyone's fault but her own. Do people need signs and instructions for everything they do now. I suppose we are all paying for this through our insurance premiums.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/concertgoer-gets-75000-after-impaling-arm-on-spike-of-gate-30051915.html

Is there no such thing as personable responsibility and common sense.

shedweller

Solicitors.

wendell borton

I propose implementing the policy of "sh:t happens" in law.

michael999999

wendell borton wrote: »

I propose implementing the policy of "sh:t happens" in law.

Or stupidity happens.

The Diabolical Monocle

The law has been too lazy in not bothering to make differentiation's.

They're inventive when they want to be. They're cynical and pedantic when they deem it necessary.

Cases like this should be separated into a troll bucket and involve a jury.

The civil court of buffoonery asshat-ery and public tomfoolery.

jane82

Ah come off it you cant be having 80 000 or so drunk people over and have spikey fences. Its common sense somebody drunk will try climb it.
Trying to save money by using dangerous barriers gets you sued eventually.

blaze1

Sure why hold yourself accountable when you can blame other people for your own stupid actions!

4m High! seriously, judge needs to cop the fcuk on IMHO

Borderfox

The article in the indo is a thinly veiled " I was in the vip section "

Who took the case Lionel Hutz?

Pumpkinseeds

So she trespassed in an area she shouldn't have been in, then climbed a ridiculously high security gate and injures herself, yeah we really need to reward stupidity. Of course she knew she was going to get a large award or she wouldn't have flown back from Australia:rolleyes: We can only hope a shark gets her.

Sir Arthur Daley

They should build them in concrete, concrete built is better built.

The Aussie

wendell borton wrote: »

I propose implementing the policy of "sh:t happens" in law.

I had someone run into me 2 years ago and they tried to say "it was an act of God", hilarity ensued when I asked him if his god was stupid and made him drive to fast for conditions...

He would have been better off with a "SH!T happens" law.

The Aussie

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Of course she knew she was going to get a large award or she wouldn't have flown back from Australia:rolleyes: We can only hope a shark gets her.

Or a Dingo eats her

just kidding

Ahoy Ahoy

The world we live in unfortunately!!!!!! It was her own fault for been so stupid

dxhound2005

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

The law has been too lazy in not bothering to make differentiation's.

They're inventive when they want to be. They're cynical and pedantic when they deem it necessary.

Cases like this should be separated into a troll bucket and involve a jury.

The civil court of buffoonery asshat-ery and public tomfoolery.

If you had been on a jury for this case you would have given her nothing. But how do you know what other members of the jury would have decided? The highest damages by far have been awarded in cases where there was a jury.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/courts_system/high_court.html

In certain civil cases, such as defamation, assault and false imprisonment, a judge will sit with a jury in the High Court. In all cases, a majority vote of nine of the twelve jurors is sufficient to determine the verdict.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1330503/Naked-sleepwalker-wins-Jury-grants-Donal-Kinsella-record-8-5m-payout.html

Even the judge was taken aback when a jury awarded €10million (£8.51million) to a company boss who sleepwalked naked to a female colleague's bedroom.

woodoo

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Cases like this should be separated into a troll bucket and involve a jury.

Yeah have a day where all those cases are before a jury and let the jury decide if people are acting the goat.

darkpagandeath

Something something legal system........

coolbeans

quote="jane82;89250637"]Ah come off it you cant be having 80 000 or so drunk people over and have spikey fences. Its common sense somebody drunk will try climb it.
Trying to save money by using dangerous barriers gets you sued eventually.[/quote]

Come off it yourself. Not everyone was drunk and those who were are responsible for their actions. Being in a state of inebriation doesn't give you a free pass for being an idiot. So ****ing tired of this nauseating Irish attitude towards alcohol and personal responsibility.

Peregrine

jane82 wrote: »

Trying to save money by using dangerous barriers gets you sued eventually.

How were they trying to save money?

jane82

coolbeans wrote: »

quote="jane82;89250637"]Ah come off it you cant be having 80 000 or so drunk people over and have spikey fences. Its common sense somebody drunk will try climb it.
Trying to save money by using dangerous barriers gets you sued eventually.

Come off it yourself. Not everyone was drunk and those who were are responsible for their actions. Being in a state of inebriation doesn't give you a free pass for being an idiot. So ****ing tired of this nauseating Irish attitude towards alcohol and personal responsibility.[/quote]
If you are organising an event and put a bar on with 80 000 people you do a risk assessment. In any country in the world 80 000 people coming together where drink is being served will result in some drunkenness.
Why is there spikrs on the gate? To injure people trying to climb over. If concert organisers had a man with a shotgun shooting people climbing over itd be terrible but its ok here for them to stick steel spikes in them according to the people here.
If they paid 200 euro to have a big strong man removing the fence climbers instead of spikes they would have saved a substantial sum of money.

darkpagandeath

If you are organising an event and put a bar on with 80 000 people you do a risk assessment. In any country in the world 80 000 people coming together where drink is being served will result in some drunkenness.
Why is there spikrs on the gate? To injure people trying to climb over. If concert organisers had a man with a shotgun shooting people climbing over itd be terrible but its ok here for them to stick steel spikes in them according to the people here.
If they paid 200 euro to have a big strong man removing the fence climbers instead of spikes they would have saved a substantial sum of money.

How tall was the fence again ..... Risk assessments don't cover and should not cover idiots.... It's like boarding a plane from the outside the terminal. Why the barriers around the engines ? If you want to walk into an engine be my guest it's called natural selection. Your personal safety is not everyone's else's responsibility.

woodoo

jane82 wrote: »

If you are organising an event and put a bar on with 80 000 people you do a risk assessment. In any country in the world 80 000 people coming together where drink is being served will result in some drunkenness.
Why is there spikrs on the gate? To injure people trying to climb over. If concert organisers had a man with a shotgun shooting people climbing over itd be terrible but its ok here for them to stick steel spikes in them according to the people here.
If they paid 200 euro to have a big strong man removing the fence climbers instead of spikes they would have saved a substantial sum of money.

Some things just shouldn't need telling. And people climbing a 4 meter fence is one of them. What else should they be advised on.. not to jump and land their head on the hard ground. Not to jump of a height and break their leg.

coolbeans

jane82 wrote: »

Come off it yourself. Not everyone was drunk and those who were are responsible for their actions. Being in a state of inebriation doesn't give you a free pass for being an idiot. So ****ing tired of this nauseating Irish attitude towards alcohol and personal responsibility.

If you are organising an event and put a bar on with 80 000 people you do a risk assessment. In any country in the world 80 000 people coming together where drink is being served will result in some drunkenness.
Why is there spikrs on the gate? To injure people trying to climb over. If concert organisers had a man with a shotgun shooting people climbing over itd be terrible but its ok here for them to stick steel spikes in them according to the people here.
If they paid 200 euro to have a big strong man removing the fence climbers instead of spikes they would have saved a substantial sum of money.[/quote]

You're generally correct in what you say as regards requirements but in my benevolent dictatorship nobody should pay for that girl's stupidity but herself. I think it's fundamentally wrong to absolve people of their responsibility in this way and I've seen far too many cases of this type in Ireland to change my mind.

jane82

People are saying the fence was 4 metres so having spikes on it shouldnt matter.
Why have the spikes then. Very few people could climb a 4 metre fence. One security man could have been better than spikes at 200 euro a day. That is why Id imagine she won the award.
Sure lets give the police spikes and if anybody fails to do what their told they can use them.

darkpagandeath

jane82 wrote: »

People are saying the fence was 4 metres so having spikes on it shouldnt matter.
Why have the spikes then. Very few people could climb a 4 metre fence. One security man could have been better than spikes at 200 euro a day. That is why Id imagine she won the award.
Sure lets give the police spikes and if anybody fails to do what their told they can use them.

4 metres without spikes and she falls off it ? should she get compo as well ? No. Spikes were not the problem.

dxhound2005

jane82 wrote: »

People are saying the fence was 4 metres so having spikes on it shouldnt matter.
Why have the spikes then. Very few people could climb a 4 metre fence. One security man could have been better than spikes at 200 euro a day. That is why Id imagine she won the award.
Sure lets give the police spikes and if anybody fails to do what their told they can use them.

You shouldn't have to ask why it was a spiked gate if you read the story in the link.

The judge apportioned blame to Ms McCormack of 20pc for the accident after she climbed the four-metre high gate with spikes on top of it. The court heard the gate was originally designed to keep knights and soldiers out of the grounds during wartime.

jane82

dxhound2005 wrote: »

You shouldn't have to ask why it was a spiked gate if you read the story in the link.

The judge apportioned blame to Ms McCormack of 20pc for the accident after she climbed the four-metre high gate with spikes on top of it. The court heard the gate was originally designed to keep knights and soldiers out of the grounds during wartime.

They should have been made safe so before it was deemed to charge 80 000 people for being there.

Peregrine

jane82 wrote: »

Why is there spikrs on the gate? To injure people trying to climb over. If concert organisers had a man with a shotgun shooting people climbing over itd be terrible but its ok here for them to stick steel spikes in them according to the people here.

jane82 wrote: »

Trying to save money by using dangerous barriers gets you sued eventually.

jane82 wrote: »

People are saying the fence was 4 metres so having spikes on it shouldnt matter.
Why have the spikes then. Very few people could climb a 4 metre fence. One security man could have been better than spikes at 200 euro a day. That is why Id imagine she won the award.
Sure lets give the police spikes and if anybody fails to do what their told they can use them.

Did you even read the article? Or at least the first line of it?

It's a feckin castle.

It even says this:

The court heard the gate was originally designed to keep knights and soldiers out of the grounds during wartime.

jane82 wrote: »

If they paid 200 euro to have a big strong man removing the fence climbers instead of spikes they would have saved a substantial sum of money.

You're not mad about preserving 18th century sites, are you?

coolbeans

darkpagandeath wrote: »

4 metres without spikes and she falls off it ? should she get compo as well ? No. Spikes were not the problem.

Being a dopey, shameless, grasping, irresponsible drunk was the problem.

coolbeans

jane82 wrote: »

They should have been made safe so before it was deemed to charge 80 000 people for being there.

They were plenty safe. They were four mètres off the ground. What more do you want? Padding? Hi-vis?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Spikes were not the problem.

Correct.
The problem was a failure by the organizers to meet their legal duty of care.
A mistake I doubt they will make again.

woodoo

jane82 wrote: »

People are saying the fence was 4 metres so having spikes on it shouldnt matter.
Why have the spikes then. Very few people could climb a 4 metre fence. One security man could have been better than spikes at 200 euro a day. That is why Id imagine she won the award.
Sure lets give the police spikes and if anybody fails to do what their told they can use them.

I can only assume you know this girl personally.

MRnotlob606

friend of mine impaled his leg on a fence, and started shouting he got stabbed because it was easier to explain lol.

woodoo

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Correct.
The problem was a failure by the organizers to meet their legal duty of care.
A mistake I doubt they will make again.

What a sign to tell the terminally stupid not to climb the great big 4 metre fence with spikes on top? What age was she.. 4?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

woodoo wrote: »

What a sign to tell the terminally stupid not to climb the great big 4 metre fence with spikes on top? What age was she.. 4?

She won her case, she was in the right.
Get over it.
She was directed down an unlit path to locked gate.
What age were the organizers (and the begrudgers)

darkpagandeath

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Correct.
The problem was a failure by the organizers to meet their legal duty of care.
A mistake I doubt they will make again.

Can I climb a security fence around a commercial/business/castle fall off or impale my self and sue as well then ? No. Would you people be defending some skanger who injured themselves breaking into somewhere ?

coolbeans

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

She won her case, she was in the right.
Get over it.
She was directed down an unlit path to locked gate.
What age were the organizers (and the begrudgers)

Don't call me a begrudger just because I disagree with you. It's mentally lazy and maddening.

ART6

dxhound2005 wrote: »

You shouldn't have to ask why it was a spiked gate if you read the story in the link.

The judge apportioned blame to Ms McCormack of 20pc for the accident after she climbed the four-metre high gate with spikes on top of it. The court heard the gate was originally designed to keep knights and soldiers out of the grounds during wartime.

So it was a security gate, designed to keep people in and out. It was thirteen feet high with spikes on top, yet she elected to climb it and got spiked. It sounds to me as if she was a prime candidate for the Darwin Awards! I increasingly wonder what it is that is needed to protect people from their own stupidity? Oh, of course. It is lawyers.

coolbeans

ART6 wrote: »

So it was a security gate, designed to keep people in and out. It was thirteen feet high with spikes on top, yet she elected to climb it and got spiked. It sounds to me as if she was a prime candidate for the Darwin Awards! I increasingly wonder what it is that is needed to protect people from their own stupidity? Oh, of course. It is lawyers.

Sure you're only a begrudger on the girl's big pay day! ;-)

Dravokivich

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

She won her case, she was in the right.
Get over it.
She was directed down an unlit path to locked gate.
What age were the organizers (and the begrudgers)

She was not forced or advised to climb over the gate. Thats something she did entirely of her own choosing.

AlekSmart

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

She won her case, she was in the right.
Get over it.
She was directed down an unlit path to locked gate.
What age were the organizers (and the begrudgers)

Sir Humf is on the money though.

Whilst Her Majesty's Judges have a quite narrowly defined book of compensatory values applicable to physical injuries,our more socially aware Judiciary have a far less restrictive set of mores,and they readily avail of that freedom from restriction.

We have evolved into a Nation of Adults of infirm minds,sometimes spectacularly incapable of exercising any form of "Common" sense or "Reasonable Behaviour"....what makes us somewhat more different from the other European Peoples is the relative ease with which we can get a substantial payout....allied to the total erasure of the term "Mind Yourself now" from common usage .....:eek:

Sir Humphrey Appleby

coolbeans wrote: »

Don't call me a begrudger just because I disagree with you. It's mentally lazy and maddening.

Was I address you?
Huh?
Huh?

dxhound2005

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

She won her case, she was in the right.
Get over it.
She was directed down an unlit path to locked gate.
What age were the organizers (and the begrudgers)

Not that I want to rehash the whole case again but I think you are making up the part about her being directed to the gate.

MCD contended she passed three main exits before going down the woodland track to the Dublin Road gate.

In her judgment, Ms Justice O'Hanlon said not putting up signs about the Dublin Road gate being closed was ill-conceived. There should have been a person at the entrance to the woodland path leading to the gate and at the gate to alert people, she said.

darkpagandeath

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Not that I want to rehash the whole case again but I think you are making up the part about her being directed to the gate.

MCD contended she passed three main exits before going down the woodland track to the Dublin Road gate.

In her judgment, Ms Justice O'Hanlon said not putting up signs about the Dublin Road gate being closed was ill-conceived. There should have been a person at the entrance to the woodland path leading to the gate and at the gate to alert people, she said.

I can understand that in relation to say a massive hole in the ground. But by the logic there you should have signs and guards around trees saying don't climb up them. Some things don't need to be said/signed/guarded if she had climbed up say 13 feet of drain pipe and fell off would she have got compo...

coolbeans

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Was I address you?
Huh?
Huh?

You were obviously addressing those who disagree with you.

woodoo

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

She won her case, she was in the right.
Get over it.
She was directed down an unlit path to locked gate.
What age were the organizers (and the begrudgers)

I'm glad you are happy to pay higher insurance premiums to foot the bill for a broken system like we have here.

darkpagandeath

woodoo wrote: »

I'm glad you are happy to pay higher insurance premiums to foot the bill for a broken system like we have here.

wonder how long till restaurants have to supply you with a armbands when eating soup for your own safety.

Sir Arthur Daley

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

She was directed down an unlit path to locked gate.

Was she?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Not that I want to rehash the whole case again but I think you are making up the part about her being directed to the gate.

MCD contended she passed three main exits before going down the woodland track to the Dublin Road gate.

In her judgment, Ms Justice O'Hanlon said not putting up signs about the Dublin Road gate being closed was ill-conceived. There should have been a person at the entrance to the woodland path leading to the gate and at the gate to alert people, she said.

Ms McCormack said when her group came out of the castle she asked a security guard how to get out and was told to go to the top of the field and turn right, which they did.
She said she did not see exits and she went where she was told to go.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/concertgoer-sues-after-impaling-her-arm-on-gate-spike-at-slane-30048930.html

darkpagandeath

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Ms McCormack said when her group came out of the castle she asked a security guard how to get out and was told to go to the top of the field and turn right, which they did.
She said she did not see exits and she went where she was told to go.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/concertgoer-sues-after-impaling-her-arm-on-gate-spike-at-slane-30048930.html

She went Down a clearly unlit path with no signs saying exit unlike the one the guard was maybe talking about that would have been clearly lit and signed. Even if the story is accurate that fact of coming to a dead end with a massive security gate/fence would say you went the wrong way. It would not lead you to believe oh yeah this must be the way out over this 13 foot fence with spikes.....

wendell borton

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

She won her case, she was in the right.
Get over it.
She was directed down an unlit path to locked gate.
What age were the organizers (and the begrudgers)

The actions of these people was an effect on the quality of life the non-idiot decent percentage of the population. Not only with increased insurance and fees, but also the H&S red tape in place to protect said idiots makes life just a bit more annoying for the rest of us to go about our lives.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

WikiHow wrote: »

Was she?

That was the evidence given in court, and it was accepted by the court.