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

Dog bit postmans finger - now Im being sued

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    So, say, if the postman wins the case against the OP and the postman is awarded compensation, will the OP have to pay it out of their own pocket? Maybe that's why he's going after the home owner rather than the tenants!


  • Options
    #33
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #34
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    That's a judges job based on the evidence given in court. If the people in number 2 want to give evidence that it was their dog then that can be said in front of the judge.


  • Options
    #35
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    sopretty wrote: »
    So, say, if the postman wins the case against the OP and the postman is awarded compensation, will the OP have to pay it out of their own pocket? Maybe that's why he's going after the home owner rather than the tenants!

    No use going after a person with deep pockets unless they are liable.


  • Options
    #36
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    infosys wrote: »
    No use going after a person with deep pockets unless they are liable.

    That's true!

    Maybe the postman doesn't know the house is rented out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,334 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    The postman can say that he was bitten at no 2 - he was (obviously) a witness to the bite.

    The people at no 2 can say that he could have been bitten at another house. But they can't say that he was bitten at no. 12 unless they saw him being bitten there. And they can't say that he wasn't bitten at no. 2 unless they were saw him delivering the letters that day, and leaving unbitten.

    Assuming they didn't actually witness these things, they're going to have to come up with some fairly elaborate lies in order to give that kind of evidence. And elaborate lies are, of course, usually fairly easily exposed.

    Even if they do come up with elaborate lies which are not exposed, it then comes down to the question of whose evidence the judge fiinds more credible. And while the postman has no incentive to invent a story in which his bite was incurred in a house full of uninsured renters, the uninsured renters have every motivation for inventing a story in which he was bitten in another house.


  • Options
    #38
    Doop
    Registered Users Posts: 1,468 ✭✭✭Doop


    The Mustard
    I'm guessing that you didn't take out insurance. Correct me if I'm wrong. If you did take out insurance, you could check the policy to see what is covered and you could also check to see if there is an obligation to notify the insurance company in early course.
    Doop
    What sort of insurance are you on about?
    contents insurance?
    Dog biting postman insurance?

    infosys wrote: »
    Nope I assume its public liability insurance any good house policy should have it.

    Tenant cant take out home insurance on a house he doesn't own.....


  • Options
    #39
    234
    Registered Users Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭234


    Doop wrote: »
    Tenant cant take out home insurance on a house he doesn't own.....

    Yes he can. A contractual interest in property is a sufficient insurable interest.


  • Options
    #40
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Doop wrote: »
    Tenant cant take out home insurance on a house he doesn't own.....

    No but he can insure contents and public liability.


  • Options
    #41
    234
    Registered Users Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭234


    infosys wrote: »
    No

    Tenants can insure the property itself. In fact, they can even insure the freeholder's interest and the freeholder can potentially claim on that policy.

    Church and General Insurance Co v Connolly High Court (Costello J) 7 May 1981 unrep.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    Has the OP emigrated lol? No word from him since.


  • Options
    #43
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    Doop wrote: »
    What sort of insurance are you on about?

    contents insurance?
    Dog biting postman insurance?

    Yes, it's almost like car colliding into pedestrian insurance, except for people who live in houses.


  • Options
    #44
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    sopretty wrote: »
    Has the OP emigrated lol? No word from him since.

    Probably busy pulling out the dogs teeth with a pliers........ #dentalrecords.


  • Options
    #45
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    234 wrote: »
    Tenants can insure the property itself. In fact, they can even insure the freeholder's interest and the freeholder can potentially claim on that policy.

    Church and General Insurance Co v Connolly High Court (Costello J) 7 May 1981 unrep.

    While correct, I would think the law does not allow a Tenant to insure the building at the same time the landlord has the building insured. I would think it is possible for a tenant to have as part of the lease that has insurance on the building to the benefit of the landlord. But I do not think the case above allows for what could in effect be double insurance. But it would not to the best of my knowledge be normal in the general scheme of things for a residential tenancy to require a tenant to insure the risks in relation to the building.


  • Options
    #46
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    I'm a council tenant (not sure if we're treated differently to private tenants) and when you sign the lease, you get a reminder letter that the Council only insures the 'building' against fire and floods I think, and reminds you that you are responsible for organising your own personal contents insurance. I've never gotten contents insurance, so I don't know if you would also have the option of having public liability type insurance along with it? To be honest, I would imagine very few tenants would even think of such a thing!


  • Options
    #47
    234
    Registered Users Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭234


    infosys wrote: »
    While correct, I would think the law does not allow a Tenant to insure the building at the same time the landlord has the building insured. I would think it is possible for a tenant to have as part of the lease that has insurance on the building to the benefit of the landlord. But I do not think the case above allows for what could in effect be double insurance. But it would not to the best of my knowledge be normal in the general scheme of things for a residential tenancy to require a tenant to insure the risks in relation to the building.

    Double insurance is completely normal in the industry. The contribution principle just means that claims are allocated pro rata based on the value of the policies so that double recovery cannot happen.


  • Options
    #48
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,205 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    234 wrote: »
    Double insurance is completely normal in the industry. The contribution principle just means that claims are allocated pro rata based on the value of the policies so that double recovery cannot happen.

    The Landlord is required to have insurance under the Residential Tenancies Act. The tenant in a commercial building will insure the building in situations where there is a repairing covenant in place. Most commercial leases are full repairing and insuring.


  • Options
    #49
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users Posts: 18,326 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    Out of curiosity, what if the OP simply said that they didn't have a dog, therefore this couldn't have happened?

    Assuming of course that the OP has in the meantime gotten rid of said dog, how could the postman prove that the incident happened at this particular house, a house that when searched has no sign of a dog at all?


  • Options
    #50
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #51
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users Posts: 18,326 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I asked about proof, not perjury.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    bucketybuck wrote: »
    I asked about proof, not perjury.

    The postman could ask other neighbours to give evidence/testimony that the house in question had a dog there.


  • Options
    #53
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users Posts: 18,326 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    sopretty wrote: »
    The postman could ask other neighbours to give evidence/testimony that the house in question had a dog there.

    Testimony against which of the four tenants? All of whom deny not only owning a dog, but that there ever was a dog?


  • Options
    #54
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #55
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users Posts: 18,326 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Are all four tenants jointly liable?


  • Options
    #56
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    bucketybuck wrote: »
    Testimony against which of the four tenants? All of whom deny not only owning a dog, but that there ever was a dog?

    I think the evidence of independent witnesses, or witnesses with no vested interest in a case, tends to hold more weight with a judge than evidence from an involved party.


  • Options
    #57
    sopretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭sopretty


    bucketybuck wrote: »
    Are all four tenants jointly liable?

    That's a good question! The legislation relating to dogs, seem to refer to an occupier. Whether that is the leaseholder only, or all four jointly, is an interesting question! Assuming all four aren't on the lease obviously!


  • Options
    #58
    FurBabyMomma
    Registered Users Posts: 774 ✭✭✭FurBabyMomma


    In this era of Health and Safety in the workplace I'm surprised An Post haven't been sued for failing to provide adequate training on how to deliver letters without inserting fingers into a post box...


  • Options
    #59
    Jake Rugby Walrus666
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 528 ✭✭✭Jake Rugby Walrus666


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    Won't work as the Postman's evidence will be believed.

    As said earlier, why would he lie about the dog? The tenants who are uninsured have every reason to lie.

    so if the post man said fred swanson bit me. the judge should say the post man has no reason to lie. lets put fred down. crazy world that would be.


  • Options
    #60
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,334 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Jake Rugby Walrus666 wrote: »
    so if the post man said fred swanson bit me. the judge should say the post man has no reason to lie. lets put fred down. crazy world that would be.

    No, think for a minute. The medical evidence wil show that the postman was bitten. Given the choice between suing the occupiers of the house where he was bitten and the occupiers of a completely different house, why would he sue the wrong people? Especially if, as they claim, they don't even have a dog? It makes no sense for the postman to lie in this circumstance; he can only damage his prospects of recovering damages by lying. Whereas the tenants have every reason to lie. So the postman will be judged the more credible witness.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users Posts: 18,326 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    No, think for a minute. The medical evidence wil show that the postman was bitten. Given the choice between suing the occupiers of the house where he was bitten and the occupiers of a completely different house, why would he sue the wrong people? Especially if, as they claim, they don't even have a dog? It makes no sense for the postman to lie in this circumstance; he can only damage his prospects of recovering damages by lying. Whereas the tenants have every reason to lie. So the postman will be judged the more credible witness.

    But all this is just supposition. It might seem like the logical answer, but what can the postman actually prove in court?

    Surely it takes more to convict somebody than a simple "Why would the postman lie"? Surely the burden of proof needs more than just assumptions?

    As I see it, the postman can get a medial report confirming he was bitten.

    He might be able to get witness statements saying he was bitten at house X, though equally how can any witness know what really happened? Almost by definition they cannot see the dog, so perhaps the injury was caused by the shutter of the letterbox snapping down. And thats if there even was a witness, how many people watch the everyday occurrence of a postman doing his rounds? They may have seen him walk away holding his hand but did they really see the incident happen at that particular house?

    If there are witnesses, then next is the question of who is liable? All four occupants say they don't have a dog. If the dog is proven to exist, which of the four is actually liable for the dog, all four equally? If the case is proven who is the judgement made against?


Advertisement