Woman sues over exploding lemonade bottle

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

Jesus.

I'll spoonfeed it.

You, as Bucketybuck, cannot sue claiming Bucketybuck was defamed. Because Bucketybuck doesn't exist and has no reputation to defame.

However, the person referred to in the OP can sue, as she is identifiable. And hiding behind "Bucketybuck" in that case is no defence.

Do you get it?

And what does this have to do with anything I said?

ohnonotgmail

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Well, a good way to start is by throwing out nonsense cases, such as people claiming for being hit on the leg with a plastic bottle.:)

how do you know it is a nonsense? All you have to go on is a newspaper article. As we all know the standards of court reporting in this country is never anything but stringent and exacting in detail. The case wouldnt be in the high court if there was nothing to evidence her claim. so let the court do its work. its very simple.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

And what does this have to do with anything I said?

It's one thing explaining the law to you, it's another having to explain your own posts to you.

But I will.

You implied that this woman has made a fraudulent claim and I objected. You replied that this was a serious innuendo about you.

bucketybuck wrote: »

Thats a serious allegation that I take offence to, perhaps you should be more careful about anonymous innuendo.

I pointed out that you, as Bucketybuck, have no basis for an objection. You then thought that your objection was as legitimate, or otherwise, as mine.

bucketybuck wrote: »

So what was your purpose in writing this? It appears you knew it was meaningless dribble and yet wrote it anyway.

And I pointed out that you don't know the first thing that you are talking about if you do not grasp the difference.

Pumpkinseeds

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

how do you know it is a nonsense? All you have to go on is a newspaper article. As we all know the standards of court reporting in this country is never anything but stringent and exacting in detail. The case wouldnt be in the high court if there was nothing to evidence her claim. so let the court do its work. its very simple.

If you bear in mind that the woman got hit in the leg with a plastic bottle, then it's quite obvious that the case is nonsense. Any legal team worth their salt will be able to spin a case for compensation. No doubt hers have done just that. For goodness sake we've had cases of people impaling themselves on 10 foot high fences, while trespassing on private property, who are being awarded compensation from the High Court. It's absurd.

You have to remember that barristers are paid for their time, not just in court but for the hours they put into the case. Engineers are paid for their reports. Doctors are paid to conduct a medical and also for their reports. The vast majority of these cases seem to be claims for damages for soft tissue injuries which is probably due to the fact that it's impossible to prove or disprove.

ohnonotgmail

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

If you bear in mind that the woman got hit in the leg with a plastic bottle, then it's quite obvious that the case is nonsense. Any legal team worth their salt will be able to spin a case for compensation. No doubt hers have done just that. For goodness sake we've had cases of people impaling themselves on 10 foot high fences, while trespassing on private property, who are being awarded compensation from the High Court. It's absurd.

You have to remember that barristers are paid for their time, not just in court but for the hours they put into the case. Engineers are paid for their reports. Doctors are paid to conduct a medical and also for their reports. The vast majority of these cases seem to be claims for damages for soft tissue injuries which is probably due to the fact that it's impossible to prove or disprove.

there you go again with the psychic ability. its quite impressive really.

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

It's one thing explaining the law to you, it's another having to explain your own posts to you.

But I will.

You implied that this woman has made a fraudulent claim and I objected. You replied that this was a serious innuendo about you.



I pointed out that you, as Bucketybuck, have no basis for an objection. You then thought that your objection was as legitimate, or otherwise, as mine.



And I pointed out that you don't know the first thing that you are talking about if you do not grasp the difference.

I think you should try reading for comprehension, because you seem to have read everything backwards. Which is amusing to me considering the smug tone of your posts. You clearly do not know what the course of the conversation was, would you like to try again?

Pumpkinseeds

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there you go again with the psychic ability. its quite impressive really.

Nope, it's just realism. Perhaps you could give it a try, maybe take a day off from aiming sarcastic posts at people who don't share your naivety?

ohnonotgmail

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Nope, it's just realism. Perhaps you could give it a try, maybe take a day off from aiming sarcastic posts at people who don't share your naivety?

no naivety here my friend. i'm aware that the world is full of frauds and charlatans. Where we differ is that i believe that the proper arena for deciding same is a court of law that has full possession of the facts. If everything is so "obvious" why do we need courts at all?

ScumLord

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

Jesus this happened in July 2010. why the big delay.

Solicitors and barristers dragging it out to maximise profits.

Streetwalker

Dave0301 wrote: »

I hate seeing this claims based nature becoming more prevalent.

Pure greed.

Monkey see monkey do. People see the greed of bankers, developers, politicians etc.. and they want a piece of the pie. Everything trickles down.

bucketybuck

ScumLord wrote: »

Solicitors and barristers dragging it out to maximise profits.

Hey, if those solicitors did not completely believe her they would not have brought the case!!! Its not their fault a case of a bottle hitting a woman in the ankle has been dragged to the high court, I'm sure they would rather be anywhere else than sitting there watching the billable hours mount up.

Pumpkinseeds

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no naivety here my friend. i'm aware that the world is full of frauds and charlatans. Where we differ is that i believe that the proper arena for deciding same is a court of law that has full possession of the facts. If everything is so "obvious" why do we need courts at all?

Not everything is obvious. We need the Court system for serious matters, not for quick compensation for the greedy.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

I think you should try reading for comprehension, because you seem to have read everything backwards. Which is amusing to me considering the smug tone of your posts. You clearly do not know what the course of the conversation was, would you like to try again?

You have said the woman is a fraudster and then you spluttered that there was a slur cast on your character here. I was laughing at your ignorance of the law, in addition to your previous efforts to replace our Courts with your beliefs.

But we are both amused by each other. And that is good.

ohnonotgmail

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Not everything is obvious. We need the Court system for serious matters, not for quick compensation for the greedy.

you're just not getting it. so i'm going to stop trying.

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

I was laughing at your ignorance of the law, in addition to your previous efforts to replace our Courts with your beliefs.

So yet again you parrot this inaccuracy, despite it already being shown to you that I never said nor even implied anything about replacing the courts or rejection of a court system. Once again you really seem to struggle with what people actually say, is English your first language?

Cee-Jay-Cee

MarkAnthony wrote: »

How are they responsible for the aisles? How are they responsible for the light fittings? How are they responsible for the shelving?

Not sure why your quoting my comment and asking that? I never said they were responsible. I said staff shouldn't be responsible on the conveyor belt and by staff I mean the person at the till or would you rather have the person on the till come out from behind their desk to ensure each customers goods are stacked properly???

bucketybuck

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

Not sure why your quoting my comment and asking that? I never said they were responsible. I said staff shouldn't be responsible on the conveyor belt and by staff I mean the person at the till or would you rather have the person on the till come out from behind their desk to ensure each customers goods are stacked properly???

The unintended consequence of this cash grab will probably be that the shop/server is indeed responsible for the goods placed on the conveyor. To avoid future liability shops may decide to remove the conveyor completely, slowing the entire process for everybody.

ScumLord

bucketybuck wrote: »

The unintended consequence of this cash grab will probably be that the shop/server is indeed responsible for the goods placed on the conveyor. To avoid future liability shops may decide to remove the conveyor completely, slowing the entire process for everybody.

They can just put a sign up saying the customer is responsible for the product they place on the conveyor and to be aware of falling items.

TwoShedsJackson

Here's another one for you to enjoy: Woman settles 38k claim after breaking her ankle falling into a pothole, having drunk ten pints

eamonnq

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Here's another one for you to enjoy: Woman settles 38k claim after breaking her ankle falling into a pothole, having drunk ten pints

Bit of a difference there, if the pothole had not been there she presumably would have been ok walking along (even with the ten pints on her).

MarkAnthony

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

Not sure why your quoting my comment and asking that? I never said they were responsible. I said staff shouldn't be responsible on the conveyor belt and by staff I mean the person at the till or would you rather have the person on the till come out from behind their desk to ensure each customers goods are stacked properly???

Quite, that's exactly what you said. The point I was making, which was pretty obvious, is that if a light fitting fell and killed your child would you be suggesting that it was no one's fault? H&S is the responsibility of all staff on site.

You don't know what the situation is with the plaintiff.

NachoBusiness

Was at a gig in the Olympia, first row in the balcony, and a large bottle of Dr.Pepper I had slipped out my backpack as I picked it up mid gig. Fcuker hit the floor exploding on impact and sprayed the legs of a few people beside us. Few standing on the ground floor got some too and didn't look at all happy. Like Frank Spencer I am when I go out.

darkpagandeath

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Quite, that's exactly what you said. The point I was making, which was pretty obvious, is that if a light fitting fell and killed your child would you be suggesting that it was no one's fault? H&S is the responsibility of all staff on site.

You don't know what the situation is with the plaintiff.

If it was shown to be well maintained and in good repair then it would be an accident. Not everything is someone's fault.

darkpagandeath

darkpagandeath wrote: »

If it was shown to be well maintained and in good repair then it would be an accident. Not everything is someone's fault.

The duty of care in a premises where children have access and may be exposed to a danger is particularly high. I'd say if a light fitting fell on a kid in a shop, the argument about liability would be fairly muted. Accidents are of course possible, but not sure that would cover falling fittings.

Pumpkinseeds

Deleted User wrote: »

The duty of care in a premises where children have access and may be exposed to a danger is particularly high. I'd say if a light fitting fell on a kid in a shop, the argument about liability would be fairly muted. Accidents are of course possible, but not sure that would cover falling fittings.

Where kids are concerned common sense doesn't seem to come into it. I vaguely remember a recent case where the parents of a kid allowed it to run around in a pub, the kid fell and had a cut head and the Landlord was ordered to pay compensation. So, parents are drinking, not giving a rats arse what their kid is doing and the child has an accident as a result of his unsupervised behaviour, how is that the Landlords fault I don't think kids should be allowed in bars.

MarkAnthony

darkpagandeath wrote: »

If it was shown to be well maintained and in good repair then it would be an accident. Not everything is someone's fault.

Quite right. However I don't think it's unreasonable for a plaintiff to be allowed to state their case in court. Especially as one has to seek leave from the PIAB to even get there!

Which incidentally will be one of the reasons for delay. That's designed as a lawyer free process.

fullstop

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

some do. some dont. each case must be taken on its merits.

So how can you decide that being hit by the bottle was enough force to knock the lady in question over? Have you seen the last? Are you related...guessing you probably are with some of the ****e you're posting in here

fullstop

Cats fur sale wrote: »

A simple genuine apology and maybe a 50 euro voucher probably would have been enough for the lady. Unfortunately Dunnes Stores have no integrity and don't do apologies. I hope she takes them to the cleaners.

What would they apologise for? Gravity?

bjork

fullstop wrote: »

What would they apologise for? Gravity?

A woman was paid out €38,000 becasue of gravity and alcohol. Maybe it should apologise to the rest of us for costing us so much

fullstop

bjork wrote: »

A woman was paid out €38,000 becasue of gravity and alcohol. Maybe it should apologise to the rest of us for costing us so much

What case was that? The one that was climbing the gate in Slane?