Boys being boys

A 12-year-old schoolboy, who suffered injuries after he fell 12 feet to the ground from scaffolding, was yesterday awarded €25,000 damages in the Circuit Civil Court.
Counsel James O’Donnell told the court that on June 22, 2012, Alex Sheridan was playing with friends near the Hardwicke St, Dublin, apartment of his mother, Vicky Sheridan.
Mr O’Donnell said Alex and his friends managed to climb onto a wheelie bin and then hauled themselves over an eight feet high barrier into a construction site situated at Greenville St Flats.
After climbing through vertical bars onto a flat roof, Alex and his friends then climbed on a ladder to go on scaffolding. Alex had fallen to the ground after a plank on the scaffolding broke under his weight.
Judge Sarah Berkeley heard that Alex, who was nine-years-old at the time, hit his head in the fall and lost consciousness temporarily. He had then complained of pain in his left knee and ankle.
An ambulance had been called by a local resident who had witnessed the accident. Alex was taken to the emergency department of Children’s University Hospital, Temple Street, Dublin.
He suffered cuts and abrasions to his body and a laceration to the right side of his scalp, which had required gluing. The wound left a visible 2cm scar on his scalp.
Through his mother, Vicky, Alex sued Dublin City Council; Townlink Construction Ltd, with an address at Greenhills Business Park, Tallaght, Dublin, and also Netwatch Ireland Ltd, of Curam House, Athy Road, Carlow, Co Carlow, for negligence and breach of duty.
He claimed the defendants had failed to ensure that children would not enter the construction site, which he alleged had no adequate security system in place.
Mr O’Donnell said that liability was a significant issue in the case. He said a €25,000 settlement offer had been made on behalf of the defendants and he was happy to recommend acceptance of it to the court. Judge Berkeley approved it.

I read this case report today. Several things strike me about it.

1. Is an 8 foot high barrier really considered inadequate?
2. Is 25,000 Euro considered an appropriate compo for these injuries?
3. Is the settlement agreed actually a reflection of legal fees that might be incurred if the case went to trial, rather than the merits of the case itself (go away money)?

Do we need reform?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Do we need reform?

Of fence heights? Absolutely.

Help!!!!

What next? burglars suing homeowners for falling while in the process of robbing them

blackbird 49

Help!!!! wrote: »

What next? burglars suing homeowners for falling while in the process of robbing them

I could actually see this happening

Kimbot

Help!!!! wrote: »

What next? burglars suing homeowners for falling while in the process of robbing them

Actually if I remember rightly there is a load of these cases been won all over the world and I think a few have been brought to the courts in Ireland aswell.

http://www.herald.ie/news/homeowner-sued-for-175k-by-burglar-now-on-trial-for-alleged-assault-on-him-28000806.html

Help!!!!

jonny24ie wrote: »

Actually if I remember rightly there is a load of these cases been won all over the world and I think a few have been brought to the courts in Ireland aswell.

http://www.herald.ie/news/homeowner-sued-for-175k-by-burglar-now-on-trial-for-alleged-assault-on-him-28000806.html

I know, crazy world we live in

Kintarō Hattori

jonny24ie wrote: »

Actually if I remember rightly there is a load of these cases been won all over the world and I think a few have been brought to the courts in Ireland aswell.

http://www.herald.ie/news/homeowner-sued-for-175k-by-burglar-now-on-trial-for-alleged-assault-on-him-28000806.html

In fairness there the homeowner left the grounds of his house, followed the burglar and struck him with his car..... so not really a case of defending you/your family in your home.

Valetta

I presume the building owners are suing young Alex, through his mother, for unlawful trespass and criminal damage to a scaffolding plank.

obriendj

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

In fairness there the homeowner left the grounds of his house, followed the burglar and struck him with his car..... so not really a case of defending you/your family in your home.

Chasing after someone who broke into your house and stole from you - Just let them get away with it? you sound like another soft judge who puts criminals on a pedestal.

Peregrinus

Valetta wrote: »

I presume the building owners are suing young Alex, through his mother, for unlawful trespass and criminal damage to a scaffolding plank.

The scaffolding plank broke under the weight of a nine-year old boy. I think the building managers (a) should be slow to draw too much attention to the kind of scaffolding they consider to be adequate, and (b) should be thanking their lucky stars that the scaffolding only gave rise to a €25,000 claim. If the plank had broken under the weight of a workman who then fell with greater momentum than a nine-year old boy, you'd probably be looking at much greater injuries, a greater claim for pain and suffering and of course a large claim for loss of earnings. Alex has done them a substantial favour.

Huntergonzo

25k for being an idiot, I'm fairness that's not a bad deal, seems having sense is a handicap these days.

Carawaystick

If the plank broke under a boys weight, then it would have been rotten and a liability for the actual workers there. Iff it was put there by trained scaffolders and not the lads themselves etc.

If a man fell 12 foot, much more serious injuries would likely have happened.

blinding

Peregrinus wrote: »

The scaffolding plank broke under the weight of a nine-year old boy. I think the building managers (a) should be slow to draw too much attention to the kind of scaffolding they consider to be adequate, and (b) should be thanking their lucky stars that the scaffolding only gave rise to a €25,000 claim. If the plank had broken under the weight of a workman who then fell with greater momentum than a nine-year old boy, you'd probably be looking at much greater injuries, a greater claim for pain and suffering and of course a large claim for loss of earnings. Alex has done them a substantial favour.

With the way modern health and safety works they would probably be able to twist it around and blame it on the worker or some other worker.

A lot of people seem very naive about this health and safety stuff.
It is all about protecting the companies and transferring all of the blame to the employees and all this under the guise of supposedly protecting the workers. In some ways you have to admire the way they pull the wool over so many peoples eyes.

professore

Alex had fallen to the ground after a plank on the scaffolding broke under his weight.

I smell a rat. A scaffolding plank not strong enough to support a 9 year old boy? I don't buy it. I bet the plank was added after the fact.

MarkAnthony

In before the OMGZZZZ JUDGESZZZ.

Please bear in mind this was a settlement.

OP you answer your own question in your title to a certain extent. Boys will indeed be boys, it's therefore reasonably foreseeable you're going to get kids playing on your scaffolding. All the more reason to get the job done and the scaffolding down. Let's also not forget there are questions raised here about the safety of the scaffolding as detailed above.

Take an alternative scenario, the boy fell off perfectly sound scaffolding it 11pm at night. 30 minutes after the security guard went home. Is it reasonably foreseeable that a 9 year old would be out and about at that time - probably not. Would it change the outcome? Who knows but I make the point to illustrate each case turns on it's own facts; you're out of your mind if you think you get a full picture from a newspaper report - especially of a settlement.

Peregrinus

professore wrote: »

I smell a rat. A scaffolding plank not strong enough to support a 9 year old boy? I don't buy it. I bet the plank was added after the fact.

Plus, I bet the nine-year old boy was actually a 38-year old Hungarian woman who makes a living as an attendant at a Turkish baths! And she didn't fall; she flung herself off in an act of existential despair and as protest against the heartless frivolity of modern life! And she wasn't injured at all, because angels appeared to carry her safely to the ground, so the whole claim was fraudulent!

Sadly, though, the courts don't give judgment based on what you or I would bet, but based on the evidence put before them.

Peregrinus

obriendj wrote: »

Chasing after someone who broke into your house and stole from you - Just let them get away with it? you sound like another soft judge who puts criminals on a pedestal.

Yeah, what kind of a world are we living in where if you drive after somebody that you have a grievance against and run them over, that's an actionable wrong?

It's political correctness gone mad, I tell you.

MarkAnthony

obriendj wrote: »

Chasing after someone who broke into your house and stole from you - Just let them get away with it? you sound like another soft judge who puts criminals on a pedestal.

There was no need to let them get away with it. The person could have used reasonable force to effect an arrest. You think the guards would have been justified or let off so lightly if they'd have just mowed down the suspect.

For a bit of balance though I bet it was worth every penny.

Greenmachine

Should not have been there. I'll admit as a kid, I fooled around on construction sites myself but, my parents would never have though of suing the builder for my own messing. In fact when I was a kid I was messing around with sand on the side of the road. I lifted a hinged shore which managed to close down on my thumb. To be perfectly frank it was my own fault, I was taken for an x-ray and that was the end of it.

obriendj

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yeah, what kind of a world are we living in where if you drive after somebody that you have a grievance against and run them over, that's an actionable wrong?

It's political correctness gone mad, I tell you.

A grievance is not the correct term to use in this case.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

There was no need to let them get away with it. The person could have used reasonable force to effect an arrest. You think the guards would have been justified or let off so lightly if they'd have just mowed down the suspect.

For a bit of balance though I bet it was worth every penny.

How else to detain him? He is 20 years his senior. should he just ask him politely to stop? Grab him by the scruff of the neck? Use a gun?

Please tell me a better way to stop the man from getting away that will keep himself safe?

Kintarō Hattori

obriendj wrote: »

Chasing after someone who broke into your house and stole from you - Just let them get away with it? you sound like another soft judge who puts criminals on a pedestal.

Not at all. I loathe our soft justice system. Rather I pointed out that whether you or I like it or not, the law isn't forgiving to someone who chases an intruder from their property and injures them with a car.

Just because someone has pointed out why the home owner was sued..... doesn't mean they agree with it.

MarkAnthony

obriendj wrote: »

How else to detain him? He is 20 years his senior. should he just ask him politely to stop? Grab him by the scruff of the neck? Use a gun?

Please tell me a better way to stop the man from getting away that will keep himself safe?

One doesn't have the option to run someone over, neither are they 'powerless' as you asserted. As always it about balance and nuance rather than the After Hours crap. You might not like that but that's the way it is, thankfully.

Uno my Uno.

The occupiers liability act 1995 is the relevant legislation, it essentially puts the onus on the occupiers of a property to ensure that that property doesn't pose a danger to anyone on it regardless of how they came to be there. It has its pros and cons and came about in part to redress the law after a hard case which saw a young boy seriously injured while trespassing in an ESB substation.

A building site left in an unsafe manner (ie dangerous scaffolding) is bad news for an occupier but add in a minor plaintiff and you would be keen to settle.

BoatMad

blinding wrote: »

With the way modern health and safety works they would probably be able to twist it around and blame it on the worker or some other worker.

A lot of people seem very naive about this health and safety stuff.
It is all about protecting the companies and transferring all of the blame to the employees and all this under the guise of supposedly protecting the workers. In some ways you have to admire the way they pull the wool over so many peoples eyes.

what nonsense,

BoatMad

Originally Posted by MarkAnthony View Post
There was no need to let them get away with it. The person could have used reasonable force to effect an arrest. You think the guards would have been justified or let off so lightly if they'd have just mowed down the suspect.

For a bit of balance though I bet it was worth every penny.

I dont believe you have any rights in relation to civil arrest . You do have certain rights in protecting yourself within the bound sod your curtilage. I dont believe you can use force to detain a person against their will

OP here. I didn't really give my views but here they are;

1. An eight foot fence should have been enough to safeguard the site owners. There is a saying that hard cases make bad law and the ESB case was one of those.
2. On the compo side, the injuries were the normal injuries that all boys suffer if they are allowed to be boys, basically some grazes and no bones broken. He would have been right as rain in no time. 25k compo would, before tax, come to nearly 50k that somebody would have to earn, perhaps a years work. Accepting this as suitable compo for these injuries is just ridiculous. In fact, if the kid was actually given compo, I think 50 quid would be appropriate.
3. Just wondering, how much of the 25k would have gone to legal fees?

BoatMad

Deleted User wrote: »

OP here. I didn't really give my views but here they are;

1. An eight foot fence should have been enough to safeguard the site owners. There is a saying that hard cases make bad law and the ESB case was one of those.
2. On the compo side, the injuries were the normal injuries that all boys suffer if they are allowed to be boys, basically some grazes and no bones broken. He would have been right as rain in no time. 25k compo would, before tax, come to nearly 50k that somebody would have to earn, perhaps a years work. Accepting this as suitable compo for these injuries is just ridiculous. In fact, if the kid was actually given compo, I think 50 quid would be appropriate.
3. Just wondering, how much of the 25k would have gone to legal fees?

The problem is that the courts are very biased when it comes to " hard pressed families" versus " big nasty insurance companies". its seen as a no victim judgement

Kintarō Hattori

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

In fairness there the homeowner left the grounds of his house, followed the burglar and struck him with his car..... so not really a case of defending you/your family in your home.

I remember a case in the US recently where some burglars were surprised and hid in a cupboard. The house owner knowing they were there peppered it with bullets and killed them both.

He wasn't charged on the basis that nobody had a right to be in his house and if they crossed his threshold knowing that, they deserved what they got. (the owner claimed he was afraid that the burglars might shoot him through the door)

I'm not advocating the death penalty but I do have more sympathy for the owner than the burglars. How many times would a burglar need to be caught red-handed here before they would do real jail time?

Uno my Uno.

Deleted User wrote: »

OP here. I didn't really give my views but here they are;

1. An eight foot fence should have been enough to safeguard the site owners. There is a saying that hard cases make bad law and the ESB case was one of those.

I don't disagree with you re the ESB case but here it might seems that the boys were able to gain access to the Building site with ease regardless of the height of the fence.

Deleted User wrote: »

2. On the compo side, the injuries were the normal injuries that all boys suffer if they are allowed to be boys, basically some grazes and no bones broken. He would have been right as rain in no time. 25k compo would, before tax, come to nearly 50k that somebody would have to earn, perhaps a years work. Accepting this as suitable compo for these injuries is just ridiculous. In fact, if the kid was actually given compo, I think 50 quid would be appropriate.

According to the report he lost consciousnesses and required hospital treatment which is more than grazes or typical injuries from playing. Having said that I don't think we know enough about the case to really comment on the level of compensation. In the run of things I would consider €25k to be a fairly low settlement.

Deleted User wrote: »

3. Just wondering, how much of the 25k would have gone to legal fees?

Depends if the settlement was "all in" or not. if it wasn't all in then the legal costs would usually be paid on top of that amount.

BoatMad

Deleted User wrote: »

I remember a case in the US recently where some burglars were surprised and hid in a cupboard. The house owner knowing they were there peppered it with bullets and killed them both.

He wasn't charged on the basis that nobody had a right to be in his house and if they crossed his threshold knowing that, they deserved what they got. (the owner claimed he was afraid that the burglars might shoot him through the door)

I'm not advocating the death penalty but I do have more sympathy for the owner than the burglars. How many times would a burglar need to be caught red-handed here before they would do real jail time?

many US states have the concept of "felonious intent ", essentially you can assume that someone entering your home is out to hurt you and you can respond on that assumption .

In ireland , we do not have that position, in common with many European states, we do have a right too protect oneselves, ( only in the home ) , and we can assume that any attack may be lethal and respond accordingly , but we must have a reasonable assumption that the person intended us harm in the first place. So seeing an armed burglar hiding and you firing on them may be one thing, simply shooting a burglar because he is a burglar is likely to land you in jail.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Johnboy1951

BoatMad wrote: »

many US states have the concept of "felonious intent ", essentially you can assume that someone entering your home is out to hurt you and you can respond on that assumption .

In ireland , we do not have that position, in common with many European states, we do have a right too protect oneselves, ( only in the home ) , and we can assume that any attack may be lethal and respond accordingly , but we must have a reasonable assumption that the person intended us harm in the first place. So seeing an armed burglar hiding and you firing on them may be one thing, simply shooting a burglar because he is a burglar is likely to land you in jail.

Probably an option that a lot of us would be glad to have the opportunity to take.