Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets

  • 01-05-2015 2:50pm
    #1
    z6vm1dobfnca3x
    Closed Accounts Posts: 237 ✭✭


    Hi,

    Just studying for my Tort exam and am trying to join up the dots in the case of Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets.

    I understand that the plaintiff fell down steps because she was wearing bifocal lenses while she had a neck brace. But who exactly was liable for the plaintiff's injury?

    The carpet company?

    Would the hospital not be liable for fitting the plaintiff's neck brace?

    Thanks,
    Hugo


Comments

  • #2
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,773 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    I'm going to be quite brutal about this.

    Liability was not an issue in this case. You are completely wasting your own time worrying about liability after you read the sentence "the defendant admitted liability".

    This is a similar waste of valuable energy, imo, as is trying to remember what the case of Smith v. Smith was about. It's a nonsense.

    The important aspect is the legal principle that the case establishes. That alone is the reason you need to know the case.

    What is the legal principle here?


  • #3
    z6vm1dobfnca3x
    Closed Accounts Posts: 237 ✭✭z6vm1dobfnca3x


    Hullaballo,

    I don't appreciate your condescending tone here at all.

    Makes me wonder why someone with that sort of attitude is a moderator.


  • #4
    CIARAN_BOYLE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,599 ✭✭✭✭CIARAN_BOYLE


    Ahmad Greasy Figurine wrote: »
    Hullaballo,

    I don't appreciate your condescending tone here at all.

    Makes me wonder why someone with that sort of attitude is a moderator.
    Listen to what you are being told don't just hear?


    It doesn't matter who is liable, the defendant admitted liability therefore became liable. That is the legal principle you are studying in the case.

    Please note that I am not a lawyer, nor did I study the case in question. I just read Hullaballo's helpful post and interpreted it to someone who didn't read it and thought it was being talked down to.


  • #5
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,773 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    I don't think I was being in any way condescending. I was being intentionally harsh because it's an important lesson for any student that efficient learning is key.

    If you're getting het up about things that are for all practical purposes, totally irrelevant, I think it's beneficial for someone to point it out to you and my way of pointing these things out is to dispense with the subtlety.

    Do with that what you will.


Advertisement