€37,000 for a fall of the bike...

Tenzor07

Wow, nice payout... compo culture gone mad!

grandmother-gets-37k-over-mountain-bike-fall-on-obstacle-course-

Zyzz

"The prize for best competitor was a new bike."

"The court heard that almost as soon as she got on the bicycle she had fallen off it."

shaka

Jeez get on a bike and fall off gets you 37k .... A lot of people here needs to talk to her solicitor

kumate_champ07

was the bike faulty or course unsafe? seems silly, she didnt have a gun put to her head and told she had to cycle a bike

Tenzor07

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

was the bike faulty or course unsafe?

Highly doubtful there was anything wrong with the bike, I would say just a few cones around a small area of a car-park..


Reports say the Lotto win...compensation was broken down like this:
€10,000 for a Oopsie..
€15,000 for an Ouchie
€12,000 for a boo-boo

CamperMan

some people are born lucky

cycleoin86

The Judge must have been seriously impressed with the injury - he literally couldn't have given her any more compensation - the upper jurisdiction the Judge would have had in this case is shy of €38K...!

lennymc

Is that not a bit harsh on the woman - she was genuinely injured. She didnt go out to get injured, and the company accepted liability. Cruciate ligament is a nasty oul injury by all accounts.

uberwolf

I knew I couldn't do it but...

...at 54 years of age I still do as others tell me.

kencoo

looks like there was no health and safety done prior to accident hence liability. Expensive mistake.

Tenzor07

kencoo wrote: »

looks like there was no health and safety done prior to accident hence liability. Expensive mistake.

Where'd you read that?

Tenzor07

uberwolf wrote: »

...at 54 years of age I still do as others tell me.

54 is hardly ancient, but old enough to know better...

Ms Roche told the Herald that she only agreed to the challenge after she was coerced by staff. "I was only looking at it because it was one of the few things there in the RDS that was free and looked like a bit of fun," the professional bookkeeper.

Rte news: "I eventually gave it a go following strong encouragement from a staff member who said he would walk alongside me while I was on the course and promised he would catch me if I fell," she said.

longhalloween

uberwolf wrote: »

...at 54 years of age I still do as others tell me.

In fairness though, if I was encouraged by staff to do take part on the understanding they'd keep me safe, and I got seriously hurt, I'd probably be looking for compensation too.

An injury at 54 can last a long time.

€37k is a bit steep though. That's a years wage before tax for most people.

Gongoozler

When I read about it I thought it seemed like the money was given because of the 'promise' that your man would stay beside her and catch her if she fell.

Nasty sounding injury but still think she's a tit for actually prosecuting over this. I'd be embarrassed to be related.

uberwolf

longhalloween wrote: »

In fairness though, if I was encouraged by staff to do take part on the understanding they'd keep me safe, and I got seriously hurt, I'd probably be looking for compensation too.

An injury at 54 can last a long time.

€37k is a bit steep though. That's a years wage before tax for most people.

I get that, and it does sound like she fell into railings and other materials which should have been no where near where the bikes were being ridden. She is wise enough to be master of her actions. If she felt she was likely to fall it was foolhardy to ignore that sense, imo.

Beasty

OK, so which one of you lot persuaded me to take up racing?

StevieGriff

Jaysus, if I got 37k everytime I fell off a bike I'd have a lot more bikes to fall off.

manafana

end day doesnt matter what we think all we do is pay for claims like this, why is 37k compensation how has this crash caused her a loss of 37k, compo these days is mad, shes part to blame covering all medical costs and couple of k to cover loss of earnings seem about right.

Wishbone Ash

StevieGriff wrote: »

Jaysus, if I got 37k everytime I fell off a bike I'd have a lot more bikes to fall off.

Her compensation was for injuries sustained - not for falling off a bike.

spoke2cun

Imagine getting compo for being injured through no fault of your own!

Jabel

Although the payment on the face of it seems excessive I can totally understand her inability to kneel down after a cruciate injury. I had mine done about 8 years ago and to this day have problems kneeling or squatting on my hunkers. I can't see this improving anytime soon so she possibly has another 20 years of similar discomfort which puts this payout into perspective.

rollingscone

I'd say that the bulk of the settlement is down to 'pain and suffering' in an incident like this the insurer should have identified the most probable outcome as being settlement early on and offered to cover medical costs and a much smaller sum before a solicitor became involved.


The fact that it got to a full hearing suggests that the plaintiff's council was going for gold in terms of the settlement though.

As is their perogative, at the end of the day they couldn't have gone to court without the plaintiff wanting to.

Still, many Irish people still believe in the wizard like powers and across the board intelligence of solicitors and go to them in cases that don't always require them and often only benefit the solicitor, which is part of the reason we can never have nice things.

noddler

These sort of claims will put an end to all sports !

GoTilUBlow

I got two luxurious nights in Wexford General and all the white bread I could eat when I got skewered in the Des Halnon A1/2. And I was really flying as well cough cough ;P

RobertFoster

I don't understand why her being a grandmother is relevant to the headline.

bucketybuck

rollingscone wrote: »

As is their perogative, at the end of the day they couldn't have gone to court without the plaintiff wanting to.

She didn't want to go to court, but eventually gave it a go following strong encouragement from a staff member.

laraghrider

RobertFoster wrote: »

I don't understand why her being a grandmother is relevant to the headline.

Likely as that was one of the main points of her argument. She can't play with her grand children properly anymore.

While the amount may be excessive and we can call it compo culture all we like ultimately she was talked into something that she was reluctant to do. Now granted she should have gotten on the bike taken one look and said No, I can't do this and gotten off the bike. But either way she was pushed into it. the people organizing this should have taken her no at face value and not pushed it.

Pinch Flat

Enough cash for two if these - one for commuting, one for the Sunday spin:

http://italiancyclingjournal.blogspot.ie/2011/03/colnago-c59-150-unification-of-italy.html

And €7,000 left to upgrade the wheels.

endacl

Beasty wrote: »

OK, so which one of you lot persuaded me to take up racing?

'Spin classes', I said! I don't know where you got 'road racing' from that. I suppose somebody told you as well that they'd run along beside you in case you fell off? On rocket-powered roller skates, I presume?

Chancer...

rollingscone

endacl wrote: »

'Spin classes', I said! I don't know where you got 'road racing' from that. I suppose somebody told you as well that they'd run along beside you in case you fell off? On rocket-powered roller skates, I presume?

Chancer...

I want to see the Employers Liability claim for the Rocket Powered Skates crash that inevitably would follow!

One thing I do wonder about, and not to cast aspersions on the plaintiff in this case, but shouldn't people's maintenance of themselves be a factor?

I mean, I take care of myself and am fairly robust (necessarily as I'm a clumsy idiot) so when I slip and fall on rocks, I usually get at worst a bruise, whereas I've encountered people with poor diet, lifestyle etc that break bones stepping off of kerbs etc.

Now medical conditions, advancing age etc are factors, but should it be taken into account when a guy or girl in their 20-30s suffer more severely in a trip, slip or fall scenario due to their own poor maintenance of self?

Lumen

laraghrider wrote: »

..ultimately she was talked into something that she was reluctant to do. Now granted she should have gotten on the bike taken one look and said No, I can't do this and gotten off the bike. But either way she was pushed into it. the people organizing this should have taken her no at face value and not pushed it.

How do you distinguish between genuine encouragement and coercion, legally speaking?

Unless she has an intellectual disability she was exercising her own free will.

Total joke of a situation, as the facts are reported.

shamrock55

I cant fly a plane, but if someone told me hop in there and take her for a quick spin i would:rolleyes:

Lusk_Doyle

I wonder if the amount awarded was reduced for her own contributory negligence which she displayed by her "I knew I couldn't do it" comment.

CardinalJ

If a member of staff convinced 'Granny' she'd catch her if she fell and she subsequently fell, wasn't caught and did her cruciate the company are clearly negligent/liable. The law there is pretty clear.

37k has to take into account physio, going back to see consultants etc, so it probably wasn't just 37k for pain.

It's not like this woman was involved in a tiny fender bender and suddenly has 'hurty neck syndrome'.

CardinalJ

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

I wonder if the amount awarded was reduced for her own contributory negligence which she displayed by her "I knew I couldn't do it" comment.

She said that after the hearing so unless it's appealed I doubt it. the legal costs would be too high.

Tenzor07

There was a different civil case in Northern Ireland, in which the High Court reduced the damages awarded to a cyclist involved in a collision with a car because the judge found that looking at his heart rate monitor amounted to contributory negligence.

The court awarded Conor McAllister over £50,000 in damages after finding that driver John Campbell was responsible for the injuries Mr McAllister sustained when he hit Mr Campbell’s car in November 2009.

But the damages would have been £70,000 if Mr McAllister had been looking where he was going.

Lusk_Doyle

Tenzor07 wrote: »

There was a different civil case in Northern Ireland, in which the High Court reduced the damages awarded to a cyclist involved in a collision with a car because the judge found that looking at his heart rate monitor amounted to contributory negligence.

The court awarded Conor McAllister over £50,000 in damages after finding that driver John Campbell was responsible for the injuries Mr McAllister sustained when he hit Mr Campbell’s car in November 2009.

But the damages would have been £70,000 if Mr McAllister had been looking where he was going.

Something similar down here for the guy who was drunk and fell off his bike and was then hit by a car who then left the scene of the accident. MIB payout with a reduction for contributory negligence on his part.

DaithiMC

RobertFoster wrote: »

I don't understand why her being a grandmother is relevant to the headline.

Her son Stephen and grandson Nicholas were too embarrassed to turn up in court.....

Beasty

endacl wrote: »

'Spin classes', I said! I don't know where you got 'road racing' from that. I suppose somebody told you as well that they'd run along beside you in case you fell off? On rocket-powered roller skates, I presume?

Chancer...

Funnily enough someone "spotted" me on Boards as a person who had recently started cycling and was building up fitness. I was encouraged to come out and do some training over the winter. Some of the other guys who turned up said I really must give the club league a try. I said I didn't like the idea of racing in bunches but that I may try doing the odd TT. Perhaps then looking to do so me track racing, but definitely not road racing. They were however very persuasive (and I still have the PMs from some of them somewhere)...:pac:

laraghrider

Lumen wrote: »

How do you distinguish between genuine encouragement and coercion, legally speaking?

Unless she has an intellectual disability she was exercising her own free will.

Total joke of a situation, as the facts are reported.

By this: "I knew I couldn't do it but the girl there said she'd help me and catch me if I fell."

In a court that stands as the, lets say grandmother here, been given a reassurance of complete safety. For what it's worth I agree with you it's a shocker of a decision but ultimately she was coerced into this by being given an assurance of safety. That's what the court saw and ultimately that's what the defendant legal team saw and backed away from it.

Lumen

laraghrider wrote: »

"I knew I couldn't do it"

Why would you attempt something potentially dangerous that you knew was impossible?

I think perhaps I may have been too swift to exclude intellectual impairment.

Tenzor07

laraghrider wrote: »

By this: "I knew I couldn't do it but the girl there said she'd help me and catch me if I fell."

In a court that stands as the, lets say grandmother here, been given a reassurance of complete safety. For what it's worth I agree with you it's a shocker of a decision but ultimately she was coerced into this by being given an assurance of safety. That's what the court saw and ultimately that's what the defendant legal team saw and backed away from it.

There will certainly be a review into procedures by the company in question after this I would say... Maybe even a disclaimer to be signed by anyone who uses one of there bicycles..

rab!dmonkey

Is there any chance that the award will be covered by insurance, or if that were the case, would they have been the defendants in court?

The 'company in question' trades as Biking.ie, so I think most of you can appreciate the damage it would do to Irish cycling if they were to cease operations.

CardinalJ

rab!dmonkey wrote: »

Is there any chance that the award will be covered by insurance, or if that were the case, would they have been the defendants in court?

The 'company in question' trades as Biking.ie, so I think most of you can appreciate the damage it would do to Irish cycling if they were to cease operations.

If they're insured, which you'd presume they are, the Insurers will probably pick up the tab. Although their premium will go up.

The Insurer's won't be a defendant as they're in no way responsible, they just try and defend the claim or else settle it and pay out.

Jawgap

CardinalJ wrote: »

If they're insured, which you'd presume they are, the Insurers the rest of us who pay insurance premiums will probably pick up the tab. Although their our premiums will go up.

The Insurer's won't be a defendant as they're in no way responsible, they just try and defend the claim or else settle it and pay out.

I take it they denied liability or PIAB would have sorted it before it went to court?

Total joke - but the clown is the unnamed member of staff who invited her to take part.

At the risk of personalising matters (it's not my intention, but there's no way around it) - in what world does someone familiar with cycling look at her and think "Hmmmmm......I reckon there's someone who can handle a mountain bike"

dissed doc

lennymc wrote: »

Is that not a bit harsh on the woman - she was genuinely injured. She didnt go out to get injured, and the company accepted liability. Cruciate ligament is a nasty oul injury by all accounts.

She was genuinely injured after she as an adult genuinely took it upon herself to genuinely get on a bike knowing she couldn't cycle it.

Being encouraged by staff is irrelevant or else we can sue every advertiser for encouraging us to do anything. Ridiculous.

CardinalJ

Jawgap wrote: »

I take it they denied liability or PIAB would have sorted it before it went to court?

Total joke - but the clown is the unnamed member of staff who invited her to take part.

At the risk of personalising matters (it's not my intention, but there's no way around it) - in what world does someone familiar with cycling look at her and think "Hmmmmm......I reckon there's someone who can handle a mountain bike"

Says they didn't deny it so they mustn't have accepted the PIAB award, or else she wanted her day in court.

Fully agree. No disrespect to the woman who claimed, but she's hardly Bike Training Ireland Ltd's target market I'd have thought. Might have just been a promo girl who was just told to get as many people onto the course as possible.

lennymc

Joe "Hey try this jumping off a cliff"
Jane "No thanks, I cant fly"
Joe "But this bungee rope will keep you safe."
Jane "If you're sure. ...."

Splat.
Is Jane at fault for trusting someone in a position of authority in relation to the bungee or is Joe at fault for assuring Jane she would be safe.

Lumen

lennymc wrote: »

Is Jane at fault for trusting someone in a position of authority in relation to the bungee or is Joe at fault for assuring Jane she would be safe.

Does someone have to be at fault?

CardinalJ

Lumen wrote: »

Does someone have to be at fault?

Yes if they're in a trusted 'experts' position, tell someone they'll catch them if they fall and don't catch them.

Jawgap

lennymc wrote: »

Joe "Hey try this jumping off a cliff"
Jane "No thanks, I cant fly"
Joe "But this bungee rope will keep you safe."
Jane "If you're sure. ...."

........

Joe. "Here's all the equipment. It' sound and safe and I'll just attach you properly and professionally"

Joe attaches Jane properly to the bungee chord, taking care to secure things properly.

While waiting to do her jump, Jane trips over her shoe laces. Subsequently ".....the court heard that almost as soon as she got in position to do the bungee jump she fell. Her right arm had struck a metal fence surrounding the course."

It's not like she was half-way around the course and there was a tricky obstacle to negotiate - by all accounts it sounds like she got on the bike and fell immediately.