Woman sues over exploding lemonade bottle

bjork

fullstop wrote: »

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

There's thread there>> 38k for falling while over after 10 pints

orchidsrpretty

NachoBusiness wrote: »

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.

Some mothers do 'av 'em!!

fullstop

bjork wrote: »

There's thread there>> 38k for falling while over after 10 pints

It's ridiculous rulings like this that are fuelling this compo culture shyte.

fullstop

fullstop wrote: »

It's ridiculous rulings like this that are fuelling this compo culture shyte.

Oh great.

Someone who knows what she got despite the confidentiality clause.

So...tell us.

And if two parties settle a claim, why is the ruling ridiculous?

bjork

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh great.

Someone who knows what she got despite the confidentiality clause.

So...tell us.

And if two parties settle a claim, why is the ruling ridiculous?

Because as soon as she was asked to determine if she was a member, the claim was suddenly dropped.

Makes me think that they'd hoped the insurance company/court would pay out without too many questions. Did her pain and suffering, all 38k she claimed for, suddenly disappear?

Pumpkinseeds

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

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.

Because the person owned a premises into which children were allowed and this owed them a duty of care?

Why would the kid be penalised and not allowed to claim against the negligent party because the parents drank? I've never heard that one.

ohnonotgmail

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

plus the hole that shouldnt have been there

bjork

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

plus the hole that shouldnt have been there

plus the 10 pints she shouldn't have drunk...

ohnonotgmail

bjork wrote: »

Because as soon as she was asked to determine if she was a member, the claim was suddenly dropped.

Makes me think that they'd hoped the insurance company/court would pay out without too many questions. Did her pain and suffering, all 38k she claimed for, suddenly disappear?

The claim was dropped? she got paid so how was it dropped?

bjork

bjork wrote: »

Because as soon as she was asked to determine if she was a member, the claim was suddenly dropped.

Makes me think that they'd hoped the insurance company/court would pay out without too many questions. Did her pain and suffering, all 38k she claimed for, suddenly disappear?

But that's a complete non point.

No one says pain and suffering disappear because a technical defence is raised, did they? They are two separate matters. If I drive into a wall I may have great pain and suffering but a claim could not be sustained.

bjork

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The claim was dropped? she got paid so how was it dropped?

The mutually agreed when the judge sent them out to determine if she was a club member or not. The parties settled outside the court

bjork

Deleted User wrote: »

But that's a complete non point.

No one says pain and suffering disappear because a technical defence is raised, did they? They are two separate matters. If I drive into a wall I may have great pain and suffering but a claim could not be sustained.

It might be worth you while to trying pulling a fast one on your insurance company though

ohnonotgmail

bjork wrote: »

The mutually agreed when the judge sent them out to determine if she was a club member or not. The parties settled outside the court

that isnt the same as the claim being dropped

bjork

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that isnt the same as the claim being dropped

Well Money was paid to stop it going further. Near enough. They assessed the situation and decided that would be best for both parties. One side paid some monies, the other side got cured.

ohnonotgmail

bjork wrote: »

Well Money was paid to stop it going further. Near enough. They assessed the situation and decided that would be best for both parties. One side paid some monies, the other side got cured.

bizarre

markfinn

NomadicGray wrote: »

She was so shaken up they had to wait for her to settle

They should've tapped her on the lid a few times...

Pumpkinseeds

Deleted User wrote: »

Because the person owned a premises into which children were allowed and this owed them a duty of care?

Why would the kid be penalised and not allowed to claim against the negligent party because the parents drank? I've never heard that one.

The welfare of the child is the parents responsibility. They failed to keep their child safe, failed to supervise his behaviour and as a result of that the child injured himself. They benefited financially from their lack of care and that is morally wrong.

Pumpkinseeds

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

The welfare of the child is the parents responsibility. They failed to keep their child safe, failed to supervise his behaviour and as a result of that the child injured himself. They benefited financially from their lack of care and that is morally wrong.

I must admit, I have never seen or heard of the chapter in books of tort law that says "but the duty of care is totally different for young people with parents".

And as a matter of fact there was clearly a finding that the owner of the premises was negligent, and as a result of that the child injured himself.

"They benefitted financially"? Do you know the first thing about what you are saying? How would they have accessed the money that the Courts Service holds until the child turns 18? Break into the Courts Service safe?

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.

I actually didn't get to read your post in context as I was on my phone. While I still assert you are quite right that there are, on odd occasions, a no fault accident I find it a bit galling you think something like a light fitting (or mirror as was the situation in one real case) falling and killing a child can ever be a no fault accident. If it was inspected and in good repair it wouldn't have fallen now would it?

In 99% of cases something is definitely someone's fault. In the case of this thread it was the person operating the checkout for not making sure customers had placed items securely on the belt.

It wasn't the plaintiff that placed the item on the belt but another customer. Now can the defendant have the customer joined to the action, of course they can, they won't due to the poor publicity it would generate.

There are genuine spurious claims, they go on all the time, very few in court I would imagine, you only need to see what being on the receiving end of a cross examination is like to realise that. Most of the 'claims' AH likes to get their knickers in a twist over are settled very quietly out of court. That's what's jacking up your insurance premiums, not the ones that you ever read about.

Pumpkinseeds

Deleted User wrote: »

I must admit, I have never seen or heard of the chapter in books of tort law that says "but the duty of care is totally different for young people with parents".

And as a matter of fact there was clearly a finding that the owner of the premises was negligent, and as a result of that the child injured himself.

"They benefitted financially"? Do you know the first thing about what you are saying? How would they have accessed the money that the Courts Service holds until the child turns 18? Break into the Courts Service safe?

Oh, I'm sorry that my lack professional knowledge is so annoying to you. If you are looking for a debate on 'duty of care' perhaps you could toddle off to the Law forum and argue with people who have read books on tort law, unlike myself. While you're there you could practice some professional courtesy, since you certainly aren't showing any courtesy here.

MojoRisinnnn

This makes me soda-mn angry

ohnonotgmail

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Oh, I'm sorry that my lack professional knowledge is so annoying to you. If you are looking for a debate on 'duty of care' perhaps you could toddle off to the Law forum and argue with people who have read books on tort law, unlike myself. While you're there you could practice some professional courtesy, since you certainly aren't showing any courtesy here.

so you're annoyed because you have been shown to be wrong? not a very adult reaction is it?

mikom

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI8SRcctQZY

Pumpkinseeds

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Oh, I'm sorry that my lack professional knowledge is so annoying to you.

But if you admit that you don't know what you are talking about, then you should not make utterly false and reprehensible suggestions, such as that the parents of a child who was injured benefitted financially from a payout.

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

They benefited financially from their lack of care and that is morally wrong.

So perhaps instead of getting annoyed that I have pointed out that your post was rubbish, and not holding your hand and being courteous about it, the best thing might be for you to simply correct yourself. And stop digging.

Hococop

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Because the person owned a premises into which children were allowed and this owed them a duty of care?

Why would the kid be penalised and not allowed to claim against the negligent party because the parents drank? I've never heard that one.

Out of curiosity, what your opinion on someone breaking into a house, gets injured while robbing the place and claims against the owners?

MarkAnthony

Hococop wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what your opinion on someone breaking into a house, gets injured while robbing the place and claims against the owners?

Makes a good plot in a legal drama/comedy but rarely happens, if it does there are extrodinary cirumstances. In Ireland the only one I'm aware of is Johhny burglar being run over, off of the victims property, funny but understandable why damages were given.

When it does happen it's usually in the states which still have juries in civil cases so it's the population of AH making these decision there rather than a Judge.

ohnonotgmail

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Makes a good plot in a legal drama/comedy but rarely happens, if it does there are extrodinary cirumstances. In Ireland the only one I'm aware of is Johhny burglar being run over, off of the victims property, funny but understandable why damages were given.

When it does happen it's usually in the states which still have juries in civil cases so it's the population of AH making these decision there rather than a Judge.

a terrifying prospect indeed

MarkAnthony

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a terrifying prospect indeed

Insurance would be cheap, wouldn't cover anything mind.

Pumpkinseeds

Deleted User wrote: »

But if you admit that you don't know what you are talking about, then you should not make utterly false and reprehensible suggestions, such as that the parents of a child who was injured benefitted financially from a payout.



So perhaps instead of getting annoyed that I have pointed out that your post was rubbish, and not holding your hand and being courteous about it, the best thing might be for you to simply correct yourself. And stop digging.

Some people might suggest that you change your user name to Thrush, as they might find you to be an irritating cnut, but not me though, I'd never say something like that.:D

bjork

ray darcy talking about it now