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

Aer Lingus sued after child 'disfigured and scarred' by hot tea

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Nesta99
    Registered Users Posts: 1,068 ✭✭✭Nesta99


    I haven't read through the entire thread so apologies if this or similar was mentioned.

    Flight attendants are well trained in the safe serving of any foodstuffs if there is potential risk, a standardised training afaik. Similarly when retrieving something from an overhead locker if at all possible the F/A jumps to help and so minimisng risk of injury.

    Without fully reading the thread, the only grounds to sue as I see it is not having a medical team waiting and ready to roll when the plane landed.


  • Options
    #63
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    Changes come because of lawsuits. It's beyond me why the small indent in the tray isn't a hole to rest the cup in; perhaps there is some engineering reason.

    Easily foreseeable accident, risk reduction is easy, they should be compensated for medical bills with a very minor award for distress.


  • Options
    #64
    slimjimmc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭slimjimmc


    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    Changes come because of lawsuits. It's beyond me why the small indent in the tray isn't a hole to rest the cup in; perhaps there is some engineering reason.

    Easily foreseeable accident, risk reduction is easy, they should be compensated for medical bills with a very minor award for distress.
    I've no idea if this is the reason for the design but an indent eliminates the risk of a child getting their hand stuck in the cupholder hole and not being able to sit down properly and put the tray up for landing.


  • Options
    #65
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    Changes come because of lawsuits. It's beyond me why the small indent in the tray isn't a hole to rest the cup in; perhaps there is some engineering reason.
    We'll end up with warm, not hot water.


  • Options
    #66
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,712 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    dats_right wrote: »
    This sounds like a case where strict liability will apply pursuant to the Montreal Convention. As such the normal rules of negligence have no application as the injury occurred aboard a commercial aircraft.

    Will you go way with your actual knowledge of the law fs.

    Arts 17, 20 and 21 are most pertinent for those wanting to give this a gloss over: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:22001A0718(01):en:HTML

    It does allow for contributory negligence and under its terms, that can result in "exoneration" of the carrier. But only where >113,000SDR is sought.

    So, now we can fight over whether a minor has the capacity to be contributorily negligent.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,179 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    just a thought on this. If they had holiday insurance (and for a trip to the US i assume they did given the cost of medical care there) then the insurance would have covered their medical bills. would the insurance company then seek to recover the money paid from any settlement?


  • Options
    #68
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


Advertisement