Unluckiest man alive

marienbad

This guy has slipped in a garden centre , in a bathtub, on gravel , knocked off his bike twice , had food poisoning, attacked by a dog and is suffering from asbestos poisoning and has had is claim against Homebase dismissed and is liable for costs .

Is the system stacked against the little guy ??:rolleyes:

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/local-news/limerick-shop-slip-compensation-claim-dismissed-1-6222337

Hande hoche!

"he could no longer enjoy swimming or set dancing as he did before the incident."

Now that's just tragic.

Lapin

On March 23, 1994, a medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a gunshot wound of the head caused by a shotgun. Investigation to that point had revealed that the decedent had jumped from the top of a ten-story building with the intent to commit suicide. (He left a note indicating his despondency.) As he passed the 9th floor on the way down, his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast through a window, killing him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the decedent was aware that a safety net had been erected at the 8th floor level to protect some window washers, and that the decedent would most likely not have been able to complete his intent to commit suicide because of this.

Ordinarily, a person who starts into motion the events with a suicide intent ultimately commits suicide even though the mechanism might be not what he intended. That he was shot on the way to certain death nine stories below probably would not change his mode of death from suicide to homicide, but the fact that his suicide intent would not have been achieved under any circumstance caused the medical examiner to feel that he had homicide on his hands.

Further investigation led to the discovery that the room on the 9th floor from whence the shotgun blast emanated was occupied by an elderly man and his wife. He was threatening her with the shotgun because of an interspousal spat and became so upset that he could not hold the shotgun straight. Therefore, when he pulled the trigger, he completely missed his wife, and the pellets went through the window, striking the decedent.

When one intends to kill subject A but kills subject B in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject B. The old man was confronted with this conclusion, but both he and his wife were adamant in stating that neither knew that the shotgun was loaded. It was the longtime habit of the old man to threaten his wife with an unloaded shotgun. He had no intent to murder her; therefore, the killing of the decedent appeared then to be accident. That is, the gun had been accidentally loaded.

But further investigation turned up a witness that their son was seen loading the shotgun approximately six weeks prior to the fatal accident. That investigation showed that the mother (the old lady) had cut off her son's financial support, and her son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that the father would shoot his mother. The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus.

Now comes the exquisite twist. Further investigation revealed that the son, Ronald Opus himself, had become increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to get his mother murdered. This led him to jump off the ten-story building on March 23, only to be killed by a shotgun blast through a 9th story window.

The medical examiner closed the case as a suicide.

smash

I used to say "I'm so unlucky that after I die I'll be reincarnated as myself" but this man completely shadows my fcuk ups in comparison!

2011

It is very unusual for a claim such as this to be dismissed.

This bit really surprised me:
"Evidence was heard at Limerick Circuit Court of several other personal injury and other cases taken by Mr Kelly in recent years". I did not think that previous claim history could be taken into account.

I would like to think that this is the beginning of a new trend.
Sadly I doubt this is the case.

handlemaster

No court ruled business wasnt liable end of.

Stheno

Lapin wrote: »

On March 23, 1994, a medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a gunshot wound of the head caused by a shotgun. Investigation to that point had revealed that the decedent had jumped from the top of a ten-story building with the intent to commit suicide. (He left a note indicating his despondency.) As he passed the 9th floor on the way down, his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast through a window, killing him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the decedent was aware that a safety net had been erected at the 8th floor level to protect some window washers, and that the decedent would most likely not have been able to complete his intent to commit suicide because of this.

Ordinarily, a person who starts into motion the events with a suicide intent ultimately commits suicide even though the mechanism might be not what he intended. That he was shot on the way to certain death nine stories below probably would not change his mode of death from suicide to homicide, but the fact that his suicide intent would not have been achieved under any circumstance caused the medical examiner to feel that he had homicide on his hands.

Further investigation led to the discovery that the room on the 9th floor from whence the shotgun blast emanated was occupied by an elderly man and his wife. He was threatening her with the shotgun because of an interspousal spat and became so upset that he could not hold the shotgun straight. Therefore, when he pulled the trigger, he completely missed his wife, and the pellets went through the window, striking the decedent.

When one intends to kill subject A but kills subject B in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject B. The old man was confronted with this conclusion, but both he and his wife were adamant in stating that neither knew that the shotgun was loaded. It was the longtime habit of the old man to threaten his wife with an unloaded shotgun. He had no intent to murder her; therefore, the killing of the decedent appeared then to be accident. That is, the gun had been accidentally loaded.

But further investigation turned up a witness that their son was seen loading the shotgun approximately six weeks prior to the fatal accident. That investigation showed that the mother (the old lady) had cut off her son's financial support, and her son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that the father would shoot his mother. The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus.

Now comes the exquisite twist. Further investigation revealed that the son, Ronald Opus himself, had become increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to get his mother murdered. This led him to jump off the ten-story building on March 23, only to be killed by a shotgun blast through a 9th story window.

The medical examiner closed the case as a suicide.

That's a hoax

marienbad

2011 wrote: »

It is very unusual for a claim such as this to be dismissed.

This bit really surprised me:
"Evidence was heard at Limerick Circuit Court of several other personal injury and other cases taken by Mr Kelly in recent years". I did not think that previous claim history could be taken into account.

I would like to think that this is the beginning of a new trend.
Sadly I doubt this is the case.

Yeah I though exactly the same , be great if it was allowed , put a stop to all this .

darkpagandeath

We used to have Junkies coming into the Tesco I used to work in, in my late Teens, They would try slip fall bounce of anything they could. Is deliberate actions considered unlucky ? You know to get compo.

Reformed Character

History of previous claims/behaviour has always been allowed in civil cases.

porsche959

Real life example of Agrajag?

http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Agrajag

or Rob McKenna, the Rain God.

http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Rob_McKenna

pablo128

I know someone who was arrested and after a motor accident, and the reason given was that the other 2 people involved were known for having a lot of personal injury claims.

tayto lover

Are you the same Albert Gladstone Trotter ..................

mad muffin

marienbad wrote: »

This guy has slipped in a garden centre , in a bathtub, on gravel , knocked off his bike twice , had food poisoning, attacked by a dog and is suffering from asbestos poisoning and has had is claim against Homebase dismissed and is liable for costs .

Is the system stacked against the little guy ??:rolleyes:

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/local-news/limerick-shop-slip-compensation-claim-dismissed-1-6222337

This is what happens when the father doesn't eat the caul…

C.M_jc

tayto lover wrote: »

Are you the same Albert Gladstone Trotter ..................

He's been down more holes than Tony Jacklin!

Birneybau

This guy, was in both Hiroshima AND Nagasaki when both bombs went off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi

My name is URL

Reformed Character wrote: »

History of previous claims/behaviour has always been allowed in civil cases.

And rightly so. It's unfortunate that such histories are not always taken into account in these cases.

Timmyctc

Lapin wrote: »

On March 23, 1994, a medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a gunshot wound of the head caused by a shotgun. Investigation to that point had revealed that the decedent had jumped from the top of a ten-story building with the intent to commit suicide. (He left a note indicating his despondency.) As he passed the 9th floor on the way down, his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast through a window, killing him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the decedent was aware that a safety net had been erected at the 8th floor level to protect some window washers, and that the decedent would most likely not have been able to complete his intent to commit suicide because of this.

Ordinarily, a person who starts into motion the events with a suicide intent ultimately commits suicide even though the mechanism might be not what he intended. That he was shot on the way to certain death nine stories below probably would not change his mode of death from suicide to homicide, but the fact that his suicide intent would not have been achieved under any circumstance caused the medical examiner to feel that he had homicide on his hands.

Further investigation led to the discovery that the room on the 9th floor from whence the shotgun blast emanated was occupied by an elderly man and his wife. He was threatening her with the shotgun because of an interspousal spat and became so upset that he could not hold the shotgun straight. Therefore, when he pulled the trigger, he completely missed his wife, and the pellets went through the window, striking the decedent.

When one intends to kill subject A but kills subject B in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject B. The old man was confronted with this conclusion, but both he and his wife were adamant in stating that neither knew that the shotgun was loaded. It was the longtime habit of the old man to threaten his wife with an unloaded shotgun. He had no intent to murder her; therefore, the killing of the decedent appeared then to be accident. That is, the gun had been accidentally loaded.

But further investigation turned up a witness that their son was seen loading the shotgun approximately six weeks prior to the fatal accident. That investigation showed that the mother (the old lady) had cut off her son's financial support, and her son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that the father would shoot his mother. The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus.

Now comes the exquisite twist. Further investigation revealed that the son, Ronald Opus himself, had become increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to get his mother murdered. This led him to jump off the ten-story building on March 23, only to be killed by a shotgun blast through a 9th story window.

The medical examiner closed the case as a suicide.

Ronald Opus is the subject of a fictional murder case, often misreported as a true story.

Ted_YNWA

tayto lover wrote: »

Are you the same Albert Gladstone Trotter ..................

During the war ...

Banjo String

What about the vicar that was ironing his curtains. Naked. Slipped and landed on an aerosol can that went right up his bum and had to go to the local hospital to get it removed?

Now that was bad luck. Even worse that he was a vicar and so people possibly didn't believe his oh so genuine story.

Poor divil.

Aineoil

He should change his name from Con Kelly to Sue Kelly and listen to Shel Silverstein's song.........A boy named Sue.:P


There are chancers out there but he takes the biscuit.

(Now did he win any of these compo cases?)

The real story behind the headline is the set dancing.

Con Kelly, 66, of Newtown, Castletroy, claimed he still suffered problems with his ankle after slipping in a pool of water at Homebase, Parkway Retail Park, on September 28, 2012, and that he could no longer enjoy swimming or set dancing as he did before the incident.

Has anyone ever seen a set dancer look as though they were enjoying themselves, ever?

Man is an obviously lying, he never enjoyed set dancing and neither has anyone else, ever.

Lapin

Stheno wrote: »

That's a hoax

Timmyctc wrote: »

Ronald Opus is the subject of a fictional murder case, often misreported as a true story.

I know.

But why let the truth get in the way of a good spiel !

padd b1975

Frank Grimes*











*Grimey to his friends.

padd b1975

Banjo String wrote: »

What about the vicar that was ironing his curtains. Naked. Slipped and landed on an aerosol can that went right up his bum and had to go to the local hospital to get it removed?

Now that was bad luck. Even worse that he was a vicar and so people possibly didn't believe his oh so genuine story.

Poor divil.

Derek Mooney.

Amsterdam hotel room.

Blown light bulb.

Broken arm.

Aineoil

Candie wrote: »

The real story behind the headline is the set dancing.

Has anyone ever seen a set dancer look as though they were enjoying themselves, ever?

Man is an obviously lying, he never enjoyed set dancing and neither has anyone else, ever.

They do in Clare. Big time. I don't get it. But then again I am not a Clare person even though I live there.

RhubarbCrumble

Aineoil wrote: »

He should change his name from Con Kelly to Sue Kelly and listen to Shel Silverstein's song.........A boy named Sue.:P


There are chancers out there but he takes the biscuit.

(Now did he win any of these compo cases?)

I think in his case 'Con' is a pretty appropriate name . . .

dxhound2005

Banjo String wrote: »

What about the vicar that was ironing his curtains. Naked. Slipped and landed on an aerosol can that went right up his bum and had to go to the local hospital to get it removed?

Now that was bad luck. Even worse that he was a vicar and so people possibly didn't believe his oh so genuine story.

Poor divil.

Here's another unlucky vicar.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/drunk-pastor-ill-get-ira-to-blow-you-up-said-vicar-who-attacked-paramedics-and-spat-at-police-after-crashing-car-in-drunken-stupor-30483225.html

Aineoil

Aineoil wrote: »

They do in Clare. Big time. I don't get it. But then again I am not a Clare person even though I live there.

I'll never get it.
Most boring form of dance ever, imo.

Tail Docker

“I didn’t actually fall but I got a fair stagger,” Mr Kelly said.

Sounds like a great lad.

Richard

Stheno wrote: »

That's a hoax

It is, but it's an interesting story nonetheless.