Woman (with drink in her) trips over wall and drowns in canal - coroner's reaction

Seth Brundle

I note from this Irish Times article that a woman tripped over a 1m high wall and fell into the canal and tragically died.

However, the coroner is going to "write to Waterways Ireland for the matter of the height of the wall to be evaluated in the public interest".

This pathway runs between the canal and a busy road. Should the coroner write to the council to have a big wall put up in case someone else with drink on them staggers onto the road and gets hit by a car?

Is the coroner right in this occasion to lobby for some kind of change to the wall? Should the wall be raised "in the public interest"?

Squeeonline

Oh please, not the "somebody think of the children" argument.

We shouldn't be a society that blunts every sharp corner with inches of padding.

*insert nanny state argument*

edit: huh, the post I was referring to has been removed

nokia69

its sad that the woman died but the coroner is wrong in this case

we can't be building walls along every canal or river

FloatingVoter

Woman with drink on her bangs head against wall. Sues DCC. Lives happily ever after.

Dyr

nokia69 wrote: »

its sad that the woman died but the coroner is wrong in this case

we can't be building walls along every canal or river

I don't think the coroner suggested that

knird evol

They could attach springs to the wall so that free wandering dipsos will bounce back the way they came.

ceadaoin.

Well it does say in the article that 'a lot' of people have fallen in there. That's the victims sister saying that though so not sure how accurate that is. I suppose if it's happening frequently then maybe it should be looked at.

The Backwards Man

The Coroner said that they should evaluate it as it was a factor in the death. That's his job, to determine cause of death and the factors contributing to it. He did his job, and you're all whining about it.

Did none of ye ever watch Quincy? It's high time ye did.

Dyr

They'll be putting seatbelts in car's next. Nanny state gone mad.

suicide_circus

The wall is at that height so people can see and enjoy the canal. It's sad for this lady's family that she was in the habit of walking drunk beside the canal.

super_furry

If a wall is small enough for someone to trip over, sober or otherwise, it’s a danger.

Seth Brundle

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Did none of ye ever watch Quincy? It's high time ye did.

Different jurisdiction so doesn't apply (although loved it when I was younger) - the closest coroner-on-tv thing we have here is Marie Cassidy doing "The restaurant"

conorh91

There's no way that part of the canal wall is 1 metre high from the pavement.

I have often walked along there in the ice, and had to cross the street, because if I tripped, I'd have fallen in. It is noticeably low. I'd be wary of letting kids ride bikes along it. It is similarly low further up as you approach Leeson Street.

This would be a fairly cheap construction job. As someone familiar with this road, I'd be in favour of it.

Here's an image of the wall in question. As you cans see it's very low. A man died by falling into the same spot on Christmas morning, 2008 or 2009.

nokia69

drinking too much booze is what caused this womans death

Darwin strikes again

paddydriver

OK, so we can see the kerb.. where's the wall?

seamus

Actually having run along the grand canal a lot beside those low walls (the one on grove road where she died is less than half a metre), I've often thought how easy it would be to end up in the canal if you tripped on a dodgy paving stone or bumped into someone.

At the same time however, most of the opposite side is completely unguarded so it would be even easier to fall in there.

As the backwards man says, it's the coroner's job to list factors in the death, and the fact that there was a low wall around a body of water is a relevant fact.

In this case, it seems to have been just a series of unfortunate circumstances. She fell in at a time when no-one saw her (odd that nobody saw her on a busy road at 12:30am on a Saturday morning, but not impossible), and she couldn't swim. If the wall actually had been 1m high, she may have been OK.

Bit tasteless to make jokes about "dipsos" or criticising her because she was drunk. Jaysus knows I've been utterly trollied around that part of the city plenty of times in my life, no doubt came close to falling in a couple of times unbeknownst to myself. Anyone in Dublin can probably say the same.

Twould be a shame to have higher walls or railings along the canal though, it's a lovely public amenity.

NachoBusiness

super_furry wrote: »

If a wall is small enough for someone to trip over, sober or otherwise, it’s a danger.

Sure there are lots of things the same height as that wall that you can trip over.

The Dublin Bike holding device machine thingamajigs for example.

Someone could easily come along, trip on one and then stumble into the liffey here.

Turtwig

This thread is a complete over reaction generated strawman that sadly is becoming all too common in this web age. Instead of looking to ridicule something instead, stop, and think if your understanding the story correctly first before producing ridiculous back slapping hyperbole.

The coroner has to establish all factors relevant in an individuals death. They did that. They then requested that people responsibile for these factors determine whether these factors can or should be reduced. An analogy would be an aviation accident. Once the cause is discovered it might not actually be realistic to prevent the risk of such causes further that doesn't mean the initial investigators shouldn't pose the question to those with knowledge and responsibilities to make that call. The coroner like those initial investigators is just doing the job as required.

seamus

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Someone could easily come along, trip on one and then stumble into the liffey here.

That would have to be a pretty big stumble. And thats a dock, so tidal, but it doesn't flow like a river does.

In many ways, low walls beside bodies of water are more dangerous than no walls at all.

suicide_circus

Grand so. Build a nice big ugly wall, ruin the tranquil aesthetic which has been a source of calm recreation to countless many for over 200 years

endacl

nokia69 wrote: »

its sad that the woman died but the coroner is wrong in this case

we can't be building walls along every canal or river

We certainly can't. What we could do, at a fraction of the cost, is attach floats to every drunk person. Perhaps give them a whistle too. To attract attention when they sober up and need to be fished out?

kneemos

Concrete over the bastard and run the Lewis on it.

super_furry

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Sure there are lots of things the same height as that wall that you can trip over.

The Dublin Bike holding device machine thingamajigs for example.

Someone could easily come along, trip on one and then stumble into the liffey here.

There's a massive distance there. They'd have to do a couple of theatrical rolls on the way down to make it to the water.

super_furry

suicide_circus wrote: »

Grand so. Build a nice big ugly wall, ruin the tranquil aesthetic which has been a source of calm recreation to countless many for over 200 years

If it means saving one life, it's worth it.

knird evol

super_furry wrote: »

If a wall is small enough for someone to trip over, sober or otherwise, it’s a danger.

Even if there was a ditch in front of the wall? With cotton wool bedding in the ditch?

VinLieger

It's called Darwinism

B0jangles

conorh91 wrote: »

There's no way that part of the canal wall is 1 metre high from the pavement.

I have often walked along there in the ice, and had to cross the street, because if I tripped, I'd have fallen in. It is noticeably low. I'd be wary of letting kids ride bikes along it. It is similarly low further up as you approach Leeson Street.

This would be a fairly cheap construction job. As someone familiar with this road, I'd be in favour of it.

Here's an image of the wall in question. As you cans see it's very low. A man died by falling into the same spot on Christmas morning, 2008 or 2009.

That is not a wall, that is a curb with notions about itself.

endacl

kneemos wrote: »

Concrete over the bastard and run the Lewis on it.

The Daniel Day, the Hamilton, or the Lennox?

suicide_circus

super_furry wrote: »

If it means saving one life, it's worth it.

How far down that road are you willing to go. We could be saving millions of lives....but it would mean changing our society pretty profoundly. We could ban booze for instance, which was also a major contributing factor in this case.

conorh91

suicide_circus wrote: »

Grand so. Build a nice big ugly wall, ruin the tranquil aesthetic which has been a source of calm recreation to countless many for over 200 years

Of course not. But either have a wall, or don't. At the moment, you might as well run a bale of twine along the kerb, so easy is it to trip into.

The other side of the canal has no wall, and is an unlikely safety hazard because it has a grass margin, a graduated slope, and vegetation leading into a pool of water that is initially fairly shallow, or at least, easy to pull out from.

This present 'wall' (is it even a wall? it is the height of a cement block) offers no safety at all, and actually impedes someone trying to pull themselves out of the water.

JONJO THE MISER

That's a joke of a wall, you would nearly fall into that if you shoved pass someone.

endacl

super_furry wrote: »

If it means saving one life, it's worth it.

No. No, it's not. Adults have to take responsibility for not falling over.

gctest50

nokia69 wrote: »

its sad that the woman died but the coroner is wrong in this case

really ?
were you there ?
know something they don't ?

contact them with your knowledge - could be very important

Dublin District Coroner: Brian Farrell, M.A. (HSE Law), F.R.C. Path., F.F. Path., B.Sc., Barrister-at-Law
Address: Store Street, Dublin 1.
Telephone: (01) 8746684
Fax: (01) 8742840
Email: coroners@dublincity.ie

http://www.coronerdublincity.ie/contact.htm

nokia69 wrote: »

we can't be building walls along every canal or river

For sure - it might be safer to take away the wall altogether in places and put a nice railing in others

desertcircus

Increasing the height of that wall would ruin precisely zero views. It's barely over a foot tall.

endacl

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

That's a joke of a wall, you would nearly fall into that if you shoved pass someone.

What's a shove pass? Some kind of street rugby thing?

super_furry

suicide_circus wrote: »

How far down that road are you willing to go. We could be saving millions of lives....but it would mean changing our society pretty profoundly. We could ban booze for instance, which was also a major contributing factor in this case.

In this case, as far as heightening a wall beside a river by a foot or so.

suicide_circus

Do we really want insurance companies to be the primary reference point when considering our built environment though?

Ash.J.Williams

knird evol wrote: »

They could attach springs to the wall so that free wandering dipsos will bounce back the way they came.

What next.....yoga mats for footpaths

razorblunt

On the North Gate bridge in Cork, directly opposite the cinema the wall to the Lee is about 2 foot tall with a step in front of it that is the start of the footpath going across the bridge.
Myself and a friend were running across one day as the lights were about to go, my friend clipped the step and stumbled into the wall.

Conclusion? He said he'd better be more careful the next time he almost fell in.

knird evol

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

What next.....yoga mats for footpaths

I don't know why we're still messing around with primitive footpaths.
It's high time Moving Walkways are put in place on the road sides of our towns and cities.

slangamerican

Walks to the casino to save on bus fare....priorities

nokia69

gctest50 wrote: »

really ?

yeah really based on the facts

gctest50 wrote: »

were you there ?

no, and I don't need to have been there to hold an opinion

gctest50 wrote: »

know something they don't ?

no, but in my opinion the woman died because she was drunk, its all her own fault, hard luck

gctest50 wrote: »

contact them with your knowledge - could be very important

I have no interest in contacting them, if they want to blame the wall for the death thats their business, I will continue to blame the drunk woman

B0jangles

I would normally be of the school of thought that since the world is most definitely not flat, you'd better watch where you're going, but that tiny wall-thing is more dangerous than having no wall at all.

If there was no wall, you'd probably just stumble straight into the canal feet-first. That's still a bad situation for a non-swimmer I grant you, but that walleen there means you'd probably trip over it and go in head first which is even worse.

rawn

nokia69 wrote: »

drinking too much booze is what caused this womans death

Darwin strikes again

Sober people trip too! Especially in the dark, as it likely was.

fiachr_a

Some of the Liffey wall opposite the old barracks is only knee height.

Snickers Man

Normally I would scoff at "nanny state" recommendations but I know that stretch of canal well and there is no way that wall is 1m high. I would say in most places along that stretch it's less than a foot. And it's on the other side of quite a narrow pavement to a very busy road. You could quite easily be bumped or jostled into tripping over it. Or even blown, on a windy night.

Nothing to be lost by making it just a little bit higher. How much would it cost FFS?

darkpagandeath

-gobbins coast reopening- No no no lads you will never get insurance on this place, Close it down.


Where are these people in the public saftey argument, With them idiots climbing that mountain cos a book said so ?

Kev W

nokia69 wrote: »

yeah really based on the facts



no, and I don't need to have been there to hold an opinion



no, but in my opinion the woman died because she was drunk, its all her own fault, hard luck



I have no interest in contacting them, if they want to blame the wall for the death thats their business, I will continue to blame the drunk woman

I'm starting to think you pushed her and want the whole thing to blow over.

I mean I wasn't there and there's no saying one way or the other but I'd prefer to believe that so I will.

gctest50

nokia69 wrote: »

.........

I have no interest in contacting them, if they want to blame the wall for the death thats their business, I will continue to blame the drunk woman

some sort of delusional retreat from reality pretending the unfortunate event had a single cause rather than a few

Coroner Dr Brian Farrell returned a verdict of death by misadventure, an accident with additional risk factors including the alcohol and the low wall barrier.

a bit better street lighting here n there ( bit better, not someone on top of every building with a SuperTrouperII )
fix the wall up/remove it in places and whatever else someone can think of

no matter what you do, someone will fall in

.

conorhal

Turtwig wrote: »

This thread is a complete over reaction generated strawman that sadly is becoming all too common in this web age. Instead of looking to ridicule something instead, stop, and think if your understanding the story correctly first before producing ridiculous back slapping hyperbole.

The coroner has to establish all factors relevant in an individuals death. They did that. They then requested that people responsibile for these factors determine whether these factors can or should be reduced. An analogy would be an aviation accident. Once the cause is discovered it might not actually be realistic to prevent the risk of such causes further that doesn't mean the initial investigators shouldn't pose the question to those with knowledge and responsibilities to make that call. The coroner like those initial investigators is just doing the job as required.

In fairness though, it's a bit like an air crash investigator finding that one of the major causes of an air crash was gravity and recommending that the relevant authorities should investigate this. Sure it'll keep a few heads in the county counsel busy churning out a report that notes it's impractical to wall every river in the country, but beyond pointless form filling for the sake of it ... why?

Vomit

conorhal wrote: »

In fairness though, it's a bit like an air crash investigator finding that one of the major causes of an air crash was gravity and recommending that the relevant authorities should investigate this. Sure it'll keep a few heads in the county counsel busy churning out a report that notes it's impractical to wall every river in the country, but beyond pointless form filling for the sake of it ... why?

No, it's nothing like that... at all.