€40,000 for falling down an escalator

Diemos

independent.ie - woman-who-fell-on-escalator-at-dublin-airport-awarded-40k-by-court

This type of story disgusts me, at what point does personal responsibility come into play?
Dumbass falls over, wasn't holding the hand rail, yet somehow it's the DAA's fault.
The neck on this one for even trying to bring a claim......which I'm sure is the first one she's ever made.

The fact that she actually won just makes me despair for this country's future.
</rant>

DoYouEvenLift

Could be worse, could be like USA

darkpagandeath

Wtf no sign for a lift is a factor ???? There is no sign on my kettle to not chuck the hot water in my face either.

UCDVet

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Could be worse, could be like USA

It seems like we're rapidly headed in that direction.

Banjo String

Mr Justice Michael Hanna said he was satisfied if Elizabeth Lavin (69) had taken the airport lift no accident would have taken place involving "an unfortunate neophyte in the ways of escalators."
He also said had sufficient signs been available at the time of the accident four years ago, Mrs Lavin probably would have availed of the lift to departures at Terminal 2.
In 2013, there was a change in signage at Terminal 2 with a sign erected to showing there was a lift, he said.
However, at the time of the accident there was such no sign. Signage and available advice, the judge said are the best options when accommodating mass transit.

I'll go with the judges assessment if it's all the same with you op.

PandaPoo

You could kick me up and down an.escalator for €4,000 never mind €40,000.

Paz-CCFC

Banjo String wrote: »

I'll go with the judges assessment if it's all the same with you op.

Why would you trust a judge with decades of specialised knowledge and experience in tort law when you have the expert opinion of an AH user who's read an entire Irish Independent article on the subject?

darkpagandeath

Banjo String wrote: »

I'll go with the judges assessment if it's all the same with you op.

What happens if the person tripped over their bag and fell on the floor walking to the lift ? That's the problem with Accidents they are just that.

SpaceTime

All this will mean is more of those bloody bollards to prevent you walking on with a bag and being told over and over again to use the lift.

darkpagandeath

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

Why would you trust a judge with decades of specialised knowledge and experience in tort law when you have the expert opinion of an AH user who's read an entire Irish Independent article on the subject?

Would that be the same experts that award money for climbing over railing designed to keep Knight out of a castle ?

My name is URL

The story directly underneath that one -

Denis O'Brien seeking High Court injunction against RTE in bid to prevent report being broadcast

I know which one I'd 'despair' about more.

Of course that isn't as high up on the page as the nobody that was awarded some money. This country needs to get its fcuking priorities in order!

anncoates

'A neophyte in the way of escalators' .

WTF

my friend

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Could be worse, could be like USA

You are aware that this country is as litigious?

catallus

She deserved every penny, OP, what are you complaining about?

Magico Gonzalez

..and yet a simple sign would have stopped DAA from being liable. One would assume that DAA would have been aware, or at least been made aware by a health & safety consultant versed in the weird world of public liability.

The woman is daft and lucky to have found a good lawyer, but someone failed to do their job by identifying the need for a sign. It's crazy, but that's how the health and safety industry works.

darkpagandeath

anncoates wrote: »

'A neophyte in the way of escalators' .

WTF

Yeah they are a brand new invention don't you know. Not that they have been around since what the 1800s ?

Diemos

Banjo String wrote: »

I'll go with the judges assessment if it's all the same with you op.

But they are MASSIVE,wrapped in blue glass......and there's 2 sets of them.
How could you not see them?

househero

She fell on her face! Have u seen the spikes on an elevator, she might have sustained serious injury (as suggested by the 60k damages) and she was held 33% responsible. And given 40k

Newspaper's make me sick. Not injured people.

my friend

Banjo String wrote: »

I'll go with the judges assessment if it's all the same with you op.

That's the can't pay, won't pay, will sue attitude.
You probably hate Dennis O'Brien too?
You're a gem.

Magico Gonzalez

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What happens if the person tripped over their bag and fell on the floor walking to the lift ? That's the problem with Accidents they are just that.

true, but DAA have a legal obligation to mitigate against avoidable accidents, in this case by ensuring a fairly stupid and clumsy women was directed (by a simple sign!) away from the escalator to the lift.

In order to cover your ars3 you need to accommodate the weakest of the herd, treat them like a baby basically.

All they had to do was demonstrate to this "victim" how to safely use an elevator or guide her to a safer alternative and they would be in the clear

Gatling

The payment is on hold or part of it is pending an appeal by the DAA but yet the judge ordered €25 k be paid immediately

Tarzana2

Amazed she was awarded if she wasn't holding the rail, unless there was no sign instructing people to do so. There usually is signs like that, but no mention in the article. Just that there was no signs indicating that there was a lift.

Magico Gonzalez

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yeah they are a brand new invention don't you know. Not that they have been around since what the 1800s ?

Neither here nor there if the court accepted she had never used one, as is evident by the judge's statement.

Who is stupider, the woman for falling over or DAA for not putting up a sign which would have saved them 40k?

darkpagandeath

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

true, but DAA have a legal obligation to mitigate against avoidable accidents, in this case by ensuring a fairly stupid and clumsy women was directed (by a simple sign!) away from the escalator to the lift.

In order to cover your ars3 you need to accommodate the weakest of the herd, treat them like a baby basically.

All they had to do was demonstrate to this "victim" how to safely use an elevator or guide her to a safer alternative and they would be in the clear

I suppose, But is the person Foreign and unable to converse in English and ask if there are lifts ? You know to one of them people in airport attire ?

househero

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I suppose, But is the person Foreign and unable to converse in English and ask if there are lifts ? You know to one of them people in airport attire ?

Signs should be a symbol not a word. Everybody can understand a picture. Regardless of native tongue.

Magico Gonzalez

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I suppose, But is the person Foreign and unable to converse in English and ask if there are lifts ? You know to one of them people in airport attire ?

That's exactly why she was assessed to have some responsbility, i.e. "contributory negligence" for the fall.

Basically it's not quite as simple as guilty / not guilty.

DAA should have provided signage or somehow stopped someone they suspected of being a walking disaster from incorrectly using the escalator (bags behind them etc) , signage being the easy way out.

Her negligence to the fall was assessed as having contributed to the severity of the incident, not holding on. Damages were set at 60k and 1/3 of those damages subtracted due to the fact that she has partially contributed to her own demise.

Quite how the judge assesses this negligence to be 33% and not more is beyond me. Surely even a fool would have the basic instinct of self preservation and hold on to something!

Cork Soccer SixaSide

She was hardly going to fall up it now was she?

darkpagandeath

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

That's exactly why she was assessed to have some responsbility, i.e. "contributory negligence" for the fall.

Basically it's not quite as simple as guilty / not guilty.

DAA should have provided signage or somehow stopped someone they suspected of being a walking disaster from incorrectly using the escalator (bags behind them etc) , signage being the easy way out.

Her negligence to the fall was assessed as having contributed to the severity of the incident, not holding on. Damages were set at 60k and 1/3 of those damages subtracted due to the fact that she has partially contributed to her own demise.

Quite how the judge assesses this negligence to be 33% and not more is beyond me. Surely even a fool would have the basic instinct of self preservation and hold on to something!

I guess but I bet there were signs for stairs. Which a person is well acquainted with.

Magico Gonzalez

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I guess but I bet there were signs for stairs. Which a person is well acquainted with.

she'd have probably sued for straining her back as no one told her she wouldn't be able to carry luggage up it.

You've got to cater to the real morons and chancers in public liability situations.

People rabbit on about the nanny state and excess litigation, but simply put there are enough chancers out there that if you dont cater for the stupidest possible scenario someone will take you for it.

Pumpkinseeds

These cases just make me want to facepalm. The stories of people being awarded tens of thousands of euro in compensation for being injured as a result of their own stupidity or through ridiculous awards for minor injuries are on the increase.

darkpagandeath

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

she'd have probably sued for straining her back as no one told her she wouldn't be able to carry luggage up it.

You've got to cater to the real morons and chancers in public liability situations.

People rabbit on about the nanny state and excess litigation, but simply put there are enough chancers out there that if you dont cater for the stupidest possible scenario someone will take you for it.

That's a personal responsibility issue not a intelligence one. No one made them pack their own bags that heavy.

Magico Gonzalez

darkpagandeath wrote: »

That's a personal responsibility issue not a intelligence one. No one made them pack there own bags that heavy.

It's a legal issue, a glut of health and safety legislation exists because of case history. The "personal responsibility argument is long since done from a legal perspective.

Each claim inspires more new legislation to mitigate risk and reduce insurance or civil claims.

We're at the stage now were you need to find a ridiculous loophole (such as no sign "indicating" that a lift is an available option if you are incapable of not falling over your baggage on an escalator) to be successful.

Public liability is just that, the airport is liable for the public safety and must mitigate against the potential for people to act and behave in unfathomably stupid ways.

Pumpkinseeds

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Could be worse, could be like USA

It is like America. We have ambulance chasing solicitors running 'where there's blame there's a claim' adverts.

Zaph

She was 65 at the time of the fall and that apparently was her first time ever using an escalator. I'm sorry, but that really doesn't seem likely at all.

Banjo String

my friend wrote: »

That's the can't pay, won't pay, will sue attitude.

I know nothing about the woman tbh. I doubt you do either, I'm only going by a judge's (who presided over the case) opinion. strange attitude you have tbh.

You probably hate Dennis O'Brien too?

What has Dennis OBrien got to do with this case fcukers everywhere so he is:eek:?

You're a gem.

I'm taken. Your flattery will get you nowhere.

TallGlass

Regardless of the bag, sign or what ever.

Even the most simplest of people hold onto the MOVING hand rail when on the escalator, not because a sign tells you to do so but because its a natural reaction to falling over is to grab something or someone to stop yourself.

Could she not have asked someone/anyone where the lift is if it was that important to use it? If she is all about signs, did she not read the signage on how to use the escalator first or again asked someone how you use it? People need to take more personal responsibility in these situations. She sounds like a right idiot, can't see her holding onto the money for that long.

my friend

Cork Soccer SixaSide wrote: »

She was hardly going to fall up it now was she?

That's actually what she did.

Lollipops23

I am so sick of companies having to make allowances for the lowest common denominators of society.

Fair enough, she wasn't used to escalators or just wasn't comfortable on them. Not a crime. Why didn't she take stairs or ask if there was a lift? If I fell off an escalator because I didn't have the common sense to a) hold a handrail or b) not put a heavy bag directly behind me I would be mortified by my own stupidity. I wouldn't have drawn attention to it by filing a claim.

Cookie_Monster

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

Who is stupider, the woman for falling over or DAA for not putting up a sign which would have saved them 40k?

The woman, but unfortunately our society has reached the point where it's always someone elses fault.
DAA should just put up signs prohibiting falling over and sue anyone who breaches them :pac:

One eyed Jack

Anyone remember that 'planking' phenomenon that was all the rage a few years back? You'd to find the most unusual place to lie out flat face down...

I can kind of understand in that case how not being familiar with escalators would have left the poor woman with a face like a cheese grater :pac:

Cold War Kid

Banjo String wrote: »

I'll go with the judges assessment if it's all the same with you op.

I see your point - not a fan of barstool legal experts at all - but is it also not a bit ridiculous that people can even sue for these things in the first place? And be awarded that much of a payout?

JPCN1

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Could be worse, could be like USA

We are getting as bad. Doctor's medical insurance has doubled in the last two years.

An insane award imo.

Paramite Pie

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

..and yet a simple sign would have stopped DAA from being liable. One would assume that DAA would have been aware, or at least been made aware by a health & safety consultant versed in the weird world of public liability.

The woman is daft and lucky to have found a good lawyer, but someone failed to do their job by identifying the need for a sign. It's crazy, but that's how the health and safety industry works.

Nonsense. Even if there was a sign for the lift... a person may still choose to take the escalator. What happens if they fall then? I've never seen a sign that says "Take the lift, it's safer".

Did her injuries amount to €40,000?

I firmly believe people should only be able to sue up to the cost of any expenses incurred by an injury. No more.

kupus

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

It is like America. We have ambulance chasing solicitors running 'where there's blame there's a claim' adverts.

Its all bout the money....

lawyers create ligtinous society
???
profit$

mikom

Boy, that escalated quickly.

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/ef/ef02b4af17582f7a6170122891c468b7be9ea23b0285b06fb6db56ed06b08fe3.jpg

Sam Kade

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

Neither here nor there if the court accepted she had never used one, as is evident by the judge's statement.

Who is stupider, the woman for falling over or DAA for not putting up a sign which would have saved them 40k?

You for using that word it's more stupid.

Cold War Kid

mikom wrote: »

that escalated quickly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMPAH67f4o

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/answers/2229000/2229737_1323418698296.25res_300_378.jpg

Turfcutter

If she had never used an escalator in her life before (must have lived all her life on a remote island) then how would she even know the existence of lifts and how to use them?

bucketybuck

Don't know whats worse, the idiots getting big payouts for being fucking idiots, or the head up their arse posse who think that pathetic judgements like this are just fine and dandy.

JPCN1

bucketybuck wrote: »

Don't know whats worse, the idiots getting big payouts for being fucking idiots, or the head up their arse posse who think that pathetic judgements like this are just fine and dandy.

I'm not sure they understand that the money has to come from somewhere, either through greater insurance premiums or higher airport charges...

Or they could be lawyers.

If you can't negotiate an escalator then perhaps you shouldn't be out on your own .

Constant Curiosity

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

..and yet a simple sign would have stopped DAA from being liable. One would assume that DAA would have been aware, or at least been made aware by a health & safety consultant versed in the weird world of public liability.

The woman is daft and lucky to have found a good lawyer, but someone failed to do their job by identifying the need for a sign. It's crazy, but that's how the health and safety industry works.

you are right, although while studying H&S and attending a few courses I still can't believe what a load of nutella it is at the end of the day, if the person can't step on an escalator properly a sign is not gonna help them...