Can we sue the county council?

Olong

Wondering if you can offer some advice. My husband tripped on a tree stump that was fairly well hidden in a Dublin park. He split his knee open when landing on another tree stub. He thinks we should let it be, and that he should have been more careful. But I'm wondering could we take a claim against the council given all the time he's missed from work to recover plus hospital visits etc...

schemingbohemia

Yeah go for it and let's have all our parks closed down because people don't expect to have to look where they're going.

Bepolite

Hardly a consumer issue tbh.

How where the council negligent?

Plek Trum

Are you actually serious? Please say you are american and have moved to Ireland.
Hows about your husband take responsibility for watching where he is walking (Whichm tbhm he sounds like he is!)

Sue, sue sue sue. Sweet lord. Have people no responsibility for themselves?

Unless this collection of tree stumps was located on a tarmac pathway or walkway then I dont know what you would have expected the Council to do? Put up signs everywhere - 'Danger - Tree's ahead'?

Linka

Olong wrote: »

He split his knee open when landing on another tree stub. He thinks we should let it be, and that he should have been more careful.

Listen to your husband, it sounds like he had the sense to know he was in the wrong.

Bepolite

Another thing to be wary of is the falling off one's high horse.

Olong

Bepolite wrote: »

Hardly a consumer issue tbh.

How where the council negligent?

No signs to highlight the cluster of small stumps and they were completely camouflaged by woodland debris. This was right beside a playground only a few meters away...

athtrasna

Olong wrote: »

No signs to highlight the cluster of small stumps and they were completely camouflaged by woodland debris. This was right beside a playground only a few meters away...

Were you on a path? If not it would be at your own risk

Bepolite

Olong wrote: »

No signs to highlight the cluster of small stumps and they were completely camouflaged by woodland debris. This was right beside a playground only a few meters away...

Speak to a solicitor and get pics of the area. If it's reasonably foreseeable people are going to use the area getting too and from the play round then there may be grounds for compensation, it entirely depends on the circumstances, however.

You can simply follow the PIAB procedure if you don;t want to see a solicitor, but they would be better placed to advise you on whether or not a claim should go ahead.

Bepolite

athtrasna wrote: »

Were you on a path? If not it would be at your own risk

No you wouldn't.

Scrappychimow

They should remove the tree stubs and plant trees and let the trees grow.

Paulw

Olong wrote: »

No signs to highlight the cluster of small stumps and they were completely camouflaged by woodland debris. This was right beside a playground only a few meters away...

So, he intentionally walked through woodland debris? :eek:

Meters from the playground, but not in the playground?

So, it was not on a path, not in a walkway and was clearly woodland debris, but the actual stumps were not directly visible?

Maybe they need a new sign - "Careful, nature about".

Lu Tze

Look to the future land owners, if the right to roam crowd ever get there way - this is what you have to look forward to

Larbre34

I have a brother in commercial insurance and we were talking about PI claims recently. He tells me the Councils are fighting every single claim, spurious or otherwise, all the way to a judgement. Its not the gravy train it used to be and even if claimants win, the costs do not always go their way. He might get a moral victory, in about 4 years, but your family could be out far more than the time off work and doctors costs to patch up his knee.

kingtut

Your husband was the one who had the fall and he wants to leave it be.
Why not take his advice and do just that?!

slimjimmc

Note a consumer issue. Moved to Legal Discussion, please abide by their charter.

Pov06

What a joke of an idea.

Why don't you board up your house and keep the front door locked. It might prevent you from harming yourself outside.

He fell over because he didn't look where he is going so it's his own fault. Ridiculous idea to sue somebody for something like that...

UserNo1

Wouldnt it be funny and weird looking if the councils had all the tress wrapped in protective padding like rugy goal posts.



Are people becoming drones in modern society where basic logic goes out the window.



OP If there was a tree that was half cut down and left like that and your husband walked past and tree fell on him then you could sue see the difference ????

conorh91

Olong wrote: »

Wondering if you can offer some advice. My husband tripped on a tree stump that was fairly well hidden in a Dublin park. He split his knee open when landing on another tree stub. He thinks we should let it be, and that he should have been more careful. But I'm wondering could we take a claim against the council given all the time he's missed from work to recover plus hospital visits etc...

The courts view people who enter public parks as "recreational users" , and not visitors.

This matters, because it is very difficult to succeed when the claimant is a recreational user of a structure.

The risk has to be substantial. The risk has to be unjustifiable. The local authority must have been made aware of the risk and they must have chosen to disregard that risk. The test for all of this is an objective one.

This may have zero relevance to you personally. but if you want to know what the law says, that's my understanding of it, although I am probably mistaken in some respect.

s.4 of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1995 for more reliable information.

goz83

Sorry that your husband was injured. He knows where the blame is, so at least there was no brain damage.

fineso.mom

"camouflaged by woodland debris."........like twigs,grass and flowers??
I'm sorry your husband got hurt but sometimes stuff happens and people lose out financially. Common sense has to apply or else there would be hundreds of signs in the park warning of every conceivable risk,no matter how small, thus ruining the park for everyone.

Jawgap

Personally, I'd sue the local Ent - they're supposed to look after the trees and if someone has an accident then they've not been doing their job........;)

XxMCRxBabyxX

fineso.mom wrote: »

"camouflaged by woodland debris."........like twigs,grass and flowers??
I'm sorry your husband got hurt but sometimes stuff happens and people lose out financially. Common sense has to apply or else there would be hundreds of signs in the park warning of every conceivable risk,no matter how small, thus ruining the park for everyone.

I foresee a time when they'll need signs to warn people of the risk of signs being ahead.

partyguinness

I just happened to mention this to a solicitor friend of mine and he said that if this couple walked into his office and he would pretty much tell them to 'F Off' or if he was feeling evil, ask for a 5k payment up front to start a civil claim. That usually separates the men from the boys.

partyguinness

Jawgap wrote: »

Personally, I'd sue the local Ent - they're supposed to look after the trees and if someone has an accident then they've not been doing their job........;)

What about Mother Nature? Lets sue her....Troy McLure on the job.

uck51js9zml2yt

You were walking in a woodland area. What did you expect a flower bed?

triple nipple

why where you and your husband hiding in bushes overlooking a playground ???

jimmycrackcorm

Op, if anything you would lose a court case and end up having to pay significant cost because the council providespaths yet your husband chose to ignore them.

nuac

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

I foresee a time when they'll need signs to warn people of the risk of signs being ahead.

I saw a sign on a lawn at an industrial premises in the States

"Grass may be slippery when wet"

It was at the Boeing facility in Seattle

corriefan

Honestly, I have had up to my eyes with people like OP. People who are only out for themselves, who either don't care or realise that claims like these end up costing other people who are just trying to make an honest living. For gods sake, your husband tripped over a bloody tree stump, get real, at least he has some principles.

Bepolite

Ah it's compo culture gone mad Joe!

The reason we have insurance, torts and compensation is a loss distribution mechanism. Conorh has rightly corrected me on the standard of care in this situation but there still is a duty of care (albeit a lower one) required.

If there's been work done and it not properly tidied up and if someone gets hurt it's right that all the facts are looked at and compensation, potentially, granted. This vitriol and popularist rubbish against compensation always makes me laugh, very few of those commenting have any idea of what the 'compo' landscape really is in Ireland. We are not overly litigious compared with the rest of Europe, and our insurance companies, bless their cotton socks, aren't paying out so many claims they don't have a pot to store their gold in.

conorh91

Mark O'Connell BL was on radio yesterday trying to clear up these misunderstandings of "compo culture" with Supermacs owner Pat McDonagh.

Needless to say it fell on deaf ears. Pat seems to think he doesn't owe a duty of care to anyone, which probably explains his success in the obesity industry.

Sala

You can sue anyone you want. Whether you win or not is a different matter. If you lose you will be most likely have to pay your own costs and that of the council defending the claim.

partyguinness

corriefan wrote: »

Honestly, I have had up to my eyes with people like OP. People who are only out for themselves, who either don't care or realise that claims like these end up costing other people who are just trying to make an honest living. For gods sake, your husband tripped over a bloody tree stump, get real, at least he has some principles.

Why did this post receive a warning?

Bepolite

partyguinness wrote: »

Why did this post receive a warning?

Personally attacking the OP I'd assume.