Fall on Wicklow Way, 7 stitches, 60k please!

Halloween Jack

Sorry, I'm not sure how to add links, but I've pasted a url below:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/dublin-woman-sues-parks-service-over-fall-on-wicklow-way-1.2519391

This woman deserves nothing but scorn in my opinion, hillwalking is inherently risky and all participants should be aware of this, experienced ones doubly so.

Alun

I agree, people should take some personal responsibility.

However, having said that, it is true that some of the original reclaimed railway sleepers both on the WW and the trails around Glendalough are in an atrocious condition. They appear to be rotting from within where the bolt holes were and some large foot-sized holes have developed in them in places. The pressure treated "fake" sleepers used on newer boardwalks will hopefully not suffer the same fate.

Halloween Jack

Alun wrote: »

I agree, people should take some personal responsibility.

However, having said that, it is true that some of the original reclaimed railway sleepers both on the WW and the trails around Glendalough are in an atrocious condition. They appear to be rotting from within where the bolt holes were and some large foot-sized holes have developed in them in places. The pressure treated "fake" sleepers used on newer boardwalks will hopefully not suffer the same fate.

Yep, they can also be incredibly slippy when wet, I've come a cropper on them a couple of times, however had I broken my leg, I wouldn't have looked to sue as I'm aware that what I'm doing has attendant risks, it's this individuals mentality that I find loathsome.

KilOit

What sort of repercussion would occur if she wins a case like this? could it mean some private land being closed to the public like carrantuohill. This sort of selfish behavior could ruin it for all hill walkers

hmmm

KilOit wrote: »

What sort of repercussion would occur if she wins a case like this? could it mean some private land being closed to the public like carrantuohill. This sort of selfish behavior could ruin it for all hill walkers

The problem with this sort of thing is that whether she wins or not, the prospect of having to fight a case like this at all worries many landowners. Better to close access to your land rather than having to worry that you might have to go to court if someone falls off a stile/trips over a stone on your land.

Alun

Again I must stress that I don't agree with her claim, but I think the difference legally here is that infrastructure (i.e. the boardwalk) was provided, and if you do provide something like that, then it's incumbent on you to maintain it properly.

BreadnBuddha

May she reap what she sows.

Sow.

A fitting word indeed.

These things happen. She cut herself and needed a tetanus injection. Just like many thousands every year in every walk of life, if you'll pardon the pun.

Despite all of the enjoyment she has inevitably taken from her outdoor sporting activities, she thinks it's fitting to sue the NPWS and each and every one of us by proxy, simply because she had an accident.

The railway sleepers are there for specific purposes, not one of which is to cause harm to anyone. That said, anyone with half a brain would know they should take care and that ultimately the decision rests with you to decide if walking on the sleeper or alongside it is the safest path.

Someone with 40 years of hillwalking experience (including to Everest base camp) should have ample understanding of this fact. No by-law required her to use the boardwalk. Nobody insisted that she proceed without exercising due care and attention to the nature of the materials which have already been exposed to decades of weathering and the effects of natural decay.

She's....well....I'll stop there. I'd love to have the opportunity to tell her exactly what I think of her response to this claim. What an awful waste of time and expense on the part of the state in defending against such a load of BS. Opportunistic so and so.

ricardo1

Solicitors, barristers, court room clerk, court room reporter,judge etc all get paid.

It's a win win for all those.

I hope your one loses!

One More Toy

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Yep, they can also be incredibly slippy when wet

Giggidty

HeidiHeidi

Alun wrote: »

Again I must stress that I don't agree with her claim, but I think the difference legally here is that infrastructure (i.e. the boardwalk) was provided, and if you do provide something like that, then it's incumbent on you to maintain it properly.

I fear this is the case.

I also fear she'll win, and be awarded some money.

I have never hoped more that I'm completely and utterly wrong!

unkel

I hope she loses the case and all costs are awarded against her. Hopefully that will deter another selfish person like her from trying to spoil it for the rest of us. Not to mention making us, the taxpayers, pay her the €10 grand per stitch :rolleyes:

Orion

unkel wrote: »

I hope she loses the case and all costs are awarded against her. Hopefully that will deter another selfish person like her from trying to spoil it for the rest of us. Not to mention making us, the taxpayers, pay her the €10 grand per stitch :rolleyes:

Come on - be fair. It's only 8517 per stitch :pac:

On a serious not this could have major repercussions for hillwalking if she wins. The boardwalks make areas accessible to people who wouldn't be up for cross country hiking. If a judgement goes in her favour it could prevent further ones being put in for casual hikers. It could also prevent any remediation work being carried out on eroded areas in case that leads to more lawsuits. And, cause landowners to close access to their land for fear of liability.

imo she's a selfish **** who needs to harden the fcuk up and accept that it was an accident with no blame. I sincerely hope that this is reflected in the judgement.

Cookie_Monster

How did she get off the mountain, no mention of it. Because unless she was airlifted out / mountain rescue (which surely would have been mentioned as relevant) she walked off, in which case how can there be any impact to her?

ricardo1

ricardo1 wrote: »

Solicitors, barristers, court room clerk, court room reporter,judge etc all get paid.

It's a win win for all those.

I hope your one loses!

Well...obviously. Just like teachers, nurses, doctors, binmen etc.

The Courts are not a charity. They are a critical part of any democracy. And access to Courts is one of the pillars of democracy, it's a fundamental freedom enshrined in our democracy, when access is restricted or removed it is a threat to individual rights.

So she's entitled to take her case. But for all that, as someone who uses the great outdoors a lot...I hope she does not succeed.

bucketybuck

Alun wrote: »

Again I must stress that I don't agree with her claim, but I think the difference legally here is that infrastructure (i.e. the boardwalk) was provided, and if you do provide something like that, then it's incumbent on you to maintain it properly.

And so the bodies involved will stop providing things like that, so as to protect against further spurious litigation. That will be just great for everybody else won't it, many thanks to this....woman.

Um. I'll make the point I actually made again.

Judges, barristers etc. get paid because the Courts are a pretty fundamental aspect of a functioning democracy. And access to the Courts is indeed very crucial to our democracy, even if you yourself may be dismissive about it.

I never suggested that this meant every single case was crucial to democracy.

How would you limit access to the Courts? And why? What is so wrong with using costs to penalise the spurious claim?

Cookie_Monster

Alun wrote: »

Again I must stress that I don't agree with her claim, but I think the difference legally here is that infrastructure (i.e. the boardwalk) was provided, and if you do provide something like that, then it's incumbent on you to maintain it properly.

so styles, gates, fences, walls, water pipes & hoses etc on anybody land suddenly (may) become liable to the same nonsense. You can easily understand why any private landowner would suddenly object to hikers and so forth on thier land should she succeed.

Cookie_Monster

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so styles, gates, fences, walls, water pipes & hoses etc on anybody land suddenly (may) become liable to the same nonsense. You can easily understand why any private landowner would suddenly object to hikers and so forth on thier land should she succeed.

But that may be the law at the moment. I know landowners who haven't prevented access to their land because of Section 4 of the Occupier's Liability Act...

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1995/act/10/section/4/enacted/en/html

Halloween Jack

Deleted User wrote: »

Um. I'll make the point I actually made again.

Judges, barristers etc. get paid because the Courts are a pretty fundamental aspect of a functioning democracy. And access to the Courts is indeed very crucial to our democracy, even if you yourself may be dismissive about it.

I never suggested that this meant every single case was crucial to democracy.

How would you limit access to the Courts? And why? What is so wrong with using costs to penalise the spurious claim?

Access to the courts in this type of thing is already completely limited, if you can't afford to hire a lawyer or can't find somebody to operate I a no win no fee basis you're out no?

Macy0161

This is probably the crux of the argument in court, but that boardwalk isn't provided as infrastructure for walkers, it's to protect the ground from erosion. Most likely outcome if successful is restricted access for all, rather than boardwalk/ infrastructure improvements imo.

For what it's worth, up to the Malone monument would be a regular walk of ours - my now 7 and 8 year olds have been doing it for several years without snotting themselves on it!

Halloween Jack

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Access to the courts in this type of thing is already completely limited, if you can't afford to hire a lawyer or can't find somebody to operate I a no win no fee basis you're out no?

If you can use Google or the Golden Pages, you'll get a Solicitor to take a negligence claim on a no foal no fee basis.

But I was, of course, referring to the types of claim, rather than the cost. One could say access to health and education is limited by how much one can pay for consultants or private schools, but the fact remains that we do have access to both. And we have access to the Courts. And people can claim for negligence. And this walker is perfectly entitled to do so. Even if I hope she loses.

Incidentally, if she succeeds, that would not be the fault of Judges or Solicitors or the Courts. It would be simply the way the legislation is framed. At the moment, every Solicitor in the country who is faced with a client who says their land is modified to encourage invitees has to advise them that they face the risk of a claim if there is an injury. If people don't like it, they lobby their local TD.

Mycroft H

She's a wagon. End of. I hope she doesn't get a penny. Should have been paying attention to where she was stepping, anyone with sense would, let alone the walker that's supposedly walked in the Himalayas.

Pat Mustard

Thread reopened following judgment.

Down South

http://www.thejournal.ie/wicklow-way-lawsuit-2717464-Apr2016/?utm_source=twitter_self

HeidiHeidi

:mad:

Alun

Words fail me.

Down South

Isn't access a big enough issue as it is

Polo_Mint

This is why we cant have anything nice

Orion

What a f**king joke. She got just under 6k per stitch!

The 59-year-old Co Dublin housewife, of Rathingle Cottages, Swords, told the court she had climbed in the Himalayas and to base camp on Mount Everest and could no longer hill climb or run marathons.

First World Problems.

Tigerandahalf

Polo_Mint wrote: »

This is why we cant have anything nice

To be fair there probably was a liability. If the npws installed sleepers to create a boardwalk it would need to be maintained to a safe standard. Having nails or pins sticking out of them is a trip hazard.

The downside is that areas of soft ground will be less likely to have sleepers put across and walkers will have to go through mud.

The wicklow way should be a big enough tourist attraction for it to be properly maintained.

mollser

That is a disgraceful judgement, I hope the NPWS appeal with the best barristers in the land and get awarded the costs of both trials, no less than she deserves IMO.

groovyg

This is just unbelievable ! compo culture alive and well in this country. If she was so badly injured why didn't she call mountain rescue. She was able to walk off the mountain with the help of her husband and make her way to the swiftcare clinic for stitches which probably did more harm than good and now she's getting 40K for it!!!! This is just going to open up the flood gates to all sorts of claims, will it come to a point where you will have to pay to go for a walk/run/ in the national parks?

Pat Mustard

Threads merged

StupidLikeAFox

She did cut her knee on a rusty nail that was put there by someone and was sticking out. €40k was probably excessive though


[/devils advocate]

hmmm

Well that's the entire mountain access strategy screwed - there won't be a stile or a path left in the country as a consequence of this, just in case someone trips over a daffodil and scratches themselves.

ganmo

Who would let walkers in now.

I'd expect coilte's public liability insurance to rocket after this

knucklehead6

enjoy your hikes this weekend folks. Expect PRIVATE PROPERTY. NO ACCESS ALLOWED. TREASPASSERS WILL BE PROSECUTED. signs all over the hills by next weekend

AlanG

Terrible decision or else terrible legislation. This has the potential to ruin many outdoor pursuits and see a lot of land closed off.

Alun

I can't see it affecting normal access on tracks, paths or over open countryside. Doesn't the occupiers liability act or whatever it's called already cover that?

What's different here is that the NPWS erected a "structure", i.e the boardwalk, and didn't maintain it properly if at all. Many of the older sections that were built using genuine reclaimed sleepers are falling to bits now and probably should have been replaced years ago.

Note I'm not in any way condoning what happened here, just pointing out a salient point.

knucklehead6

Alun wrote: »

I can't see it affecting normal access on tracks, paths or over open countryside. Doesn't the occupiers liability act or whatever it's called already cover that?

What's different here is that the NPWS erected a "structure", i.e the boardwalk, and didn't maintain it properly if at all. Many of the older sections that were built using genuine reclaimed sleepers are falling to bits now and probably should have been replaced years ago.

Note I'm not in any way condoning what happened here, just pointing out a salient point.

But what landowner is going to take that risk? What landowner is going to take the risk that he doesn't come up against some crackpot judge just cos someone fell and broke a fingernail??

I'll be honest, if I owned land I'd be seriously considering removing access.

Alun

knucklehead6 wrote: »

But what landowner is going to take that risk? What landowner is going to take the risk that he doesn't come up against some crackpot judge just cos someone fell and broke a fingernail??

I'll be honest, if I owned land I'd be seriously considering removing access.

I thought that had all been covered by the act I mentioned? There's also been a court case that has confirmed that there's no liability in such cases.

The difference here is that a structure, i.e. a boardwalk was provided and not maintained, just like lots of public infrastructure in this country, not just that provided for outdoor recreation.

Down South

What if the farmer puts up a stile to stop his fence being damaged?

What if someone walks into one of his gates!!

knucklehead6

Alun wrote: »

I thought that had all been covered by the act I mentioned? There's also been a court case that has confirmed that there's no liability in such cases.

The difference here is that a structure, i.e. a boardwalk was provided and not maintained, just like lots of public infrastructure in this country, not just that provided for outdoor recreation.

What about a fence? Someone climbs over a fence between fields. A fence is a structure.

Alun

Down South wrote: »

What if the farmer puts up a stile to stop his fence being damaged?

Well, if he puts it up then he should maintain it. Again lots of examples around Wicklow where such stiles have been erected and left to rot.

Alun

knucklehead6 wrote: »

What about a fence? Someone climbs over a fence between fields. A fence is a structure.

I'd imagine the difference would be that the fence wasn't provided for people to climb over, so wasn't provided for that purpose.

ganmo

knucklehead6 wrote: »

What about a fence? Someone climbs over a fence between fields. A fence is a structure.

You should never climb a fence, you'd possibly be liable to damage to the fence

DubOnHoliday

so what next? All sleepers and meitheal shelters to be removed?

Alun

DubOnHoliday wrote: »

so what next? All sleepers and meitheal shelters to be removed?

That'd be a bit of a kneejerk reaction. Maybe just repair the sections that need repairing?

ganmo

Alun wrote: »

That'd be a bit of a kneejerk reaction. Maybe just repair the sections that need repairing?

Using what money?
A sign saying unsafe boardwalk would be much cheaper

sconhome

Remove all signage relating to the boardwalks so the implication is you use them at your own risk. They are 'just there' as an optional route choice.

BreadnBuddha

ganmo wrote: »

Using what money?
A sign saying unsafe boardwalk would be much cheaper

I'll make up a sign free of charge that says:

Watch your step. These are used railway sleepers on top of a mountain, not a red carpet to a payout. Greedy opportunistic compo-whores should take alternative path. Common sense equipped folks are invited to proceed with caution.