Walker who fell on WW boardwalk gets 40 grand

UM1

Walker who fell and cut her knee while hiking Wicklow Way wins €40k in damages
http://www.thejournal.ie/wicklow-way-lawsuit-2717464-Apr2016/?utm_source=twitter_self

adrian522

The injury suffered apparently was

"a gash to her right knee which required seven stitches."

Not sure how this adds up to €40,000

ThisRegard

Gold thread?

Judges are ridiculous in this country when it comes to personal injury claims.

walshb

No amount of money is worth being crippled!

ThisRegard

walshb wrote: »

No amount of money is worth being crippled!

You never miss a chance trying to troll.

cruizer101

Doesn't add up the only mention of medical attention she received was a tetanus shot and 7 stitches and yet now she can no longer run or climb mountains. Now I know article may not have all the facts but I would have thought if there was anything else wrong with her knee it would be mentioned.

Payout seems excessive she originally sued for 60k mind.

That said the sleeper in question was rotten and I do agree with the principal if a structure is put in place it should be maintained, I'd be curious how often they are inspected and how recently before the incident it was inspected.

RacoonQueen

walshb wrote: »

No amount of money is worth being crippled!

Is she crippled? She claims she can't run half marathons etc anymore - hardly crippled. Can no longer take part in an activity she enjoyed which is a bummer, still not worth 40K.

walshb

cruizer101 wrote: »

Doesn't add up the only mention of medical attention she received was a tetanus shot and 7 stitches and yet now she can no longer run or climb mountains. Now I know article may not have all the facts but I would have thought if there was anything else wrong with her knee it would be mentioned.

Payout seems excessive she originally sued for 60k mind.

That said the sleeper in question was rotten and I do agree with the principal if a structure is put in place it should be maintained, I'd be curious how often they are inspected and how recently before the incident it was inspected.

Open and shut case. 7 stitches to the knee could very well ruin anyone's chances of leading a normal mobile life. I have 0 stitches in my right knee and I can't run properly at the moment because it pains me.

walshb

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Is she crippled? She claims she can't run half marathons etc anymore - hardly crippled. Can no longer take part in an activity she enjoyed which is a bummer, still not worth 40K.

Crippled was a word I chose. However one interprets it is up to them.

If someone offered me 40 k but it meant I was restricted in my movement I would no way take it.

Wild Garlic

WW relay should be fun this year. Half the participants on Leg 2 will have horrendous falls I'd imagine;)

RacoonQueen

walshb wrote: »

Crippled was a word I chose. However one interprets it is up to them.

If someone offered me 40 k but it meant I was restricted in my movement I would no way take it.

Depends how restricted in your movement you are. Accidents happen, this is why we have a word for it. Article doesn't make any reference to her quality of life being decreased since the accident.

sconhome

In fairness she did run marathons.

Articles kinda suggest she only ran half marathons and she'd never be able to run a marathon.



Doesn't excuse personal responsibility. As I said elsewhere if the sign said "Insert Hand in Fire" what would she have done?

chinguetti

Anyone find it ironic that someone who apparently walked the world will be the one who'll cause the WW to be eventually (unless its thrown out on appeal) restricted because she sued and won. Crazy isn't the word.

walshb

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Depends how restricted in your movement you are. Accidents happen, this is why we have a word for it. Article doesn't make any reference to her quality of life being decreased since the accident.

Her life quality has been decreased due to her enjoyment of running and climbing being taken from her.

7 stitches is nasty. How nasty none of us know, but it can't have been innocuous. She is the one suffering today

"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."

This lady had her day in court, and you can bet those against her gave their side of the story as well. She won fair and square IMO.

40 k is peanuts for what could be a restricted mobile life.

Wild Garlic

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Depends how restricted in your movement you are. Accidents happen, this is why we have a word for it. Article doesn't make any reference to her quality of life being decreased since the accident.

Accidents don't just happen they are caused. And if they are caused they are avoidable.

morceli

walshb wrote: »

Her life quality has been decreased due to her enjoyment of running and climbing being taken from her.

7 stitches is nasty. How nasty none of us know, but it can't have been innocuous. She is the one suffering today

"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."

This lady had her day in court, and you can bet those against her gave their side of the story as well. She won fair and square IMO.

40 k is peanuts for what could be a restricted mobile life.

I actually agree with you on this, if she indeed is injured as she say then I don't have a problem with the pay outs. If she pop's up in a half marathon or marathon in the next few years i wouldn't be so happy.
I tore a calf in an ex race a few years ago and it never really recovered, wonder would i be due a pay out.

Captain Flaps

As a scout leader who had a kid fall on this exact stretch of boardwalk, cut his knee open, needed to be carried down to where the mountain rescue jeep was waiting, and eventually need 10 stitches, f*ck her. People fall and get injured, it doesn't have to be anyone's fault.

There should be a sign at the start of every trail saying "NOTE: you are outdoors. There is a path but nature isn't all soft and spongy, you could hurt yourself and if you're not willing to accept responsibility for your own safety kindly stay home."

walshb

Captain Flaps wrote: »

As a scout leader who had a kid fall on this exact stretch of boardwalk, cut his knee open, needed to be carried down to where the mountain rescue jeep was waiting, and eventually need 10 stitches, f*ck her. People fall and get injured, it doesn't have to be anyone's fault.

There should be a sign at the start of every trail saying "NOTE: you are outdoors. There is a path but nature isn't all soft and spongy, you could hurt yourself and if you're not willing to accept responsibility for your own safety kindly stay home."

The boardwalk is not nature in its strictest sense. It is a man made creation. Don't be so unsympathetic. And, did any of you investigate for that child and see if he was possibly due compensation?

Captain Flaps

walshb wrote: »

The boardwalk is not nature in its strictest sense. It is a man made creation. Don't be so unsympathetic. And, did any of you investigate for that child and see if he was possibly due compensation?

Not my responsibility at all as I am not his guardian. His parents, both doctors, brought him straight to hospital and thanked us for taking care of him, searching for compensation wasn't even considered by any party as far as I'm aware.

Also it's a boardwalk yes, but given the location it's bound to be slippery or otherwise compromised. I hike in the area a fair bit and you always see trail-runners pounding along as though they were on an olympic track, I think it's madness to assume that the wicklow way boardwalk isn't just a firm route through difficult terrain rather than a proper pathway.

ThisRegard

Who would she have sued had she injured herself in the Himalayas?

This may have massive repercussions for anyone using the mountains, scout groups, hill walkers, IMRA, all sorts.

sconhome

ThisRegard wrote: »

Who would she have sued had she injured herself in the Himalayas?

Think it depend on which side of the mountain she was pushed off fell.

groovyg

So what happens now, should all the boardwalks and work done by the NPWS and Mountain metiheal be taken up? It would probably be the right thing to do to avoid further claims down the line.

sconhome

groovyg wrote: »

So what happens now, should all the boardwalks and work done by the NPWS and Mountain metiheal be taken up? It would probably be the right thing to do to avoid further claims down the line.

Nah leave them to rot, remove the signage and let people decide whether to use them at their own risk or choice another route.

ThisRegard

groovyg wrote: »

So what happens now, should all the boardwalks and work done by the NPWS and Mountain metiheal be taken up? It would probably be the right thing to do to avoid further claims down the line.

That's the thing. Do you put it back to the way it was naturally and allow erosion or do the NPWS look for lots of cash to implement a continuous programme of maintenance.

Or just restrict access, don't allow organised events on their land. Some of you I'm sure are already aware of how NPWS can be when looking for a permit from them for certain places.

Captain Flaps

When something like this happens you're kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't. The terrain is certainly passable without the boardwalk (as anyone who's become impatient with the foot traffic and gone around can attest to) but if they invest significantly in it they're basically accepting responsibility for the upkeep indefinitely, as well as any injuries that may occur.

Djoucer

You can have sympathy with the lady given she’s no longer able to run. That’s pretty sh1t.

The issue is whether the NPWS should be held responsible for the fall.

Boardwalk is a man-made structure but there’s an argument to be made that given it’s in the middle of the Wicklow mountains, it’s common sense to expect it’s not a footpath and that care is required. In other words: no wrong is done to one who consents.

Indeed, the lady was wearing hillwalking clothes, an acknowledgment, that it’s rough terrain.

So the it boils down if you should expect a pristine footpath in the middle of the Wicklow mountains and expect it to be maintained.

Most people would say of course not.

tina1040

sconhome wrote: »

Nah leave them to rot, remove the signage and let people decide whether to use them at their own risk or choice another route.

Was it rotten and she fell through it or did she just trip from not being careful enough? With hiking in the hills that would make a big difference.

Captain Flaps

Djoucer wrote: »

You can have sympathy with the lady given she’s no longer able to run. That’s pretty sh1t.

The issue is whether the NPWS should be held responsible for the fall.

Boardwalk is a man-made structure but there’s an argument to be made that given it’s in the middle of the Wicklow mountains, it’s common sense to expect it’s not a footpath and that care is required. In other words: no wrong is done to one who consents.

Indeed, the lady was wearing hillwalking clothes, an acknowledgment, that it’s rough terrain.

So the it boils down if you should expect a pristine footpath in the middle of the Wicklow mountains and expect it to be maintained.

Most people would say of course not.

I'd agree mostly with this. I do feel for her for the fall, and the subsequent restrictions, I'm just upset with her for claiming for it. Just because you CAN claim doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Stealthfins

I'm really jealous she got that much money for a gash.
I love a good moan.
I'd never claim for an injury.

sconhome

tina1040 wrote: »

Was it rotten and she fell through it or did she just trip from not being careful enough? With hiking in the hills that would make a big difference.

I don't know. The claim is they were

Judge Linnane said it was clear from photographs produced in evidence that the boardwalk had been made up of second hand wooden railway sleepers that were badly rotted with protruding staples loosely holding down chicken wire.

But that sounds like every boardwalk I have ever seen. An experienced walker knows to be careful around them and not use them blindly.

Djoucer

Captain Flaps wrote: »

but if they invest significantly in it they're basically accepting responsibility for the upkeep indefinitely, as well as any injuries that may occur.

The argument to the contrary is what the NWPS argued: "the doctrine of volente non fit injuria (no wrong is done to one who consents)."

Most hill walkers and trail runners do not expect the boardwalk to be regularly maintained and that it's subject to harsh conditions so it can be become unstable at anytime.

BreadnBuddha

walshb wrote: »

And, did any of you investigate for that child and see if he was possibly due compensation?

I'm guessing you don't really 'get' the underlying values imparted by the scouting movement.

Snickers Man

walshb wrote: »

Don't be so unsympathetic.

To whom do you choose to be sympathetic? One person who suffered a mishap or the many hundreds (or thousands) who will be greatly inconvenienced or penalised as a result?

Think through the consequences of this: there is now a precedent that the Parks service can be sued if somebody hurts themselves on any part of their infrastructure. So what will they do? Either remove it completely (which would probably make that part of the Wicklow Way even more dangerous, prohibit people from walking on anything but the roads thereby putting a fantastic public amenity out of use, or incur massive costs maintaining and inspecting every inch of their infrastructure around the country.

The last option is the most likely so how will it be paid for? By charging access fees to walkers? By diverting public money from some other worthy cause to help indemnify the parks service from malicious and spurious litigation? What do you think?

Ask yourself, what is the price of this windfall for the wider walking public or indeed for the taxpayer at large.

It's easy to be "sympathetic" with other people's money. Don't make the mistake of thinking it makes you a nice guy.

Eugene Norman

Is 7 stitches all that much and would it constrict mobility? I mean a stich is generally an indication of a flesh wound, right.

ThisRegard

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Is 7 stitches all that much and would it constrict mobility? I mean a stich is generally an indication of a flesh wound, right.

It may tighten up the skin over her knee and cause discomfort with movement such as running. People can have painful scars where there's a build up of scar tissue when it gets stretched and moved about. Don't know had bad her scarring is for comparison.

micosoft

As a landowner this is going to have dire implications for access to land. Any stile etc is a "constructed" object that one could trip over. She has done enormous damage to outdoor activities in Ireland. While you can have sympathy for the accident that does not mean that she should get compensation. Holding the boardwalk in the Wicklow Mountains to the standard and duty of care of a footpath in Donnybrook is an extraordinary assertion by the judge. This needs to be appealed and if necessary the Government (when we get one) amend the law. Well overdue we get a book of quantum on personal injury to remove the choice from a judiciary who don't seem to understand the value of money.

ThisRegard

There's the PIB but I just checked their bands for knees injuries and it's in line with what she was awarded by the court, possibly at the higher end.

RacoonQueen

walshb wrote: »

Her life quality has been decreased due to her enjoyment of running and climbing being taken from her.

7 stitches is nasty. How nasty none of us know, but it can't have been innocuous. She is the one suffering today

"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."

This lady had her day in court, and you can bet those against her gave their side of the story as well. She won fair and square IMO.

40 k is peanuts for what could be a restricted mobile life.

My mam, while in her mid 60s tripped on a poor footpath in Dublin City. Needed 13 stitches in her knee. Paid out in VHI swiftcare (despite this being beyond her means) as the fall happened on the way into a funeral and she wanted to make it to the burial. Reported the incident to DCC so they could fix the footpath.
Didn't sue, or receive any compensation of any kind.

Would be interested to know how this has really impacted this woman's quality of life and how often she ran etc... if it was me I'd be pissed I couldn't do something I enjoy anymore, but I'd use it as an opportunity to find something else positive to do with my life.

Kurt_Godel

micosoft wrote: »

As a landowner this is going to have dire implications for access to land. Any stile etc is a "constructed" object that one could trip over. She has done enormous damage to outdoor activities in Ireland. While you can have sympathy for the accident that does not mean that she should get compensation. Holding the boardwalk in the Wicklow Mountains to the standard and duty of care of a footpath in Donnybrook is an extraordinary assertion by the judge. This needs to be appealed and if necessary the Government (when we get one) amend the law. Well overdue we get a book of quantum on personal injury to remove the choice from a judiciary who don't seem to understand the value of money.

While I agree with you the judiciary in Ireland are an industry unto themselves, at least there is a stay on this payment pending a High Court appeal. It may be set as a test case. Lunacy it has gone this far, hopefully sense will prevail.

walshb

What's the big deal here? She had a nasty accident and decided she'd seek compensation. She took a chance, and she won her case. I still maintain that 40 k has not solved this . It's peanuts. Nobody here knows what the accident has done to her. The way some people are reacting you'd swear the woman had deceived and conned her way to a trial victory.

Raccoon, just because some people decide not to sue, or lose out when they do sue, is irrelevant to this woman and her choice to pursue the matter. I hope your mam came through her ordeal. For an older person a trip or fall can be very impacting.

RacoonQueen

walshb wrote: »

Raccoon, just because some people decide not to sue, or lose out when they do sue, is irrelevant to this woman and her choice to pursue the matter. I hope your mam came through her ordeal. For an older person a trip or fall can be very impacting.

You've missed my points completely there, even with my comparison. I'd take a wild guess that my mothers injury was worse (nearly twice as many stitches) - guess it's down to each persons integrity. I think it's wrong to seek compensation for a fall, certainly one this large - a couple of grand to cover medical expenses or what not, I would understand but 40k (or 60k as she set out to get) is over the top and greedy. In my opinion.

walshb

RacoonQueen wrote: »

You've missed my points completely there, even with my comparison. I'd take a wild guess that my mothers injury was worse (nearly twice as many stitches) - guess it's down to each persons integrity. I think it's wrong to seek compensation for a fall, certainly one this large - a couple of grand to cover medical expenses or what not, I would understand but 40k (or 60k as she set out to get) is over the top and greedy. In my opinion.

I didn't miss your point. The woman sought compensation through the channels available to her in a democratic society. That society decided she deserved it. End of. You thinking it's wrong or not just is irrelevant, and has no bearing here. Your mother's story-comparison is also not relevant to this woman's case.

The way I see it is that the walkway was installed and maintained and deemed fit for human traversing. It turned out to be an avoidable danger. Not in the sense that humans should avoid it, but in the sense that humans should have maintained it and ensured it was safer. This woman's life has been changed detrimentally. Her love of walking and running and climbing has been jeopardised, as well as her possibly having pain for the rest of her life, and people are up in arms about a measly 40k going to her?

Eugene Norman

walshb wrote: »

What's the big deal here? She had a nasty accident and decided she'd seek compensation. She took a chance, and she won her case. I still maintain that 40 k has not solved this . It's peanuts. Nobody here knows what the accident has done to her. The way some people are reacting you'd swear the woman had deceived and conned her way to a trial victory.

Raccoon, just because some people decide not to sue, or lose out when they do sue, is irrelevant to this woman and her choice to pursue the matter. I hope your mam came through her ordeal. For an older person a trip or fall can be very impacting.

The big deal has been explained to you. It's the effect on the rest of us.

As to whether a few stiches really affect life long mobility, I sincerely doubt it.

Eugene Norman

walshb wrote: »

I didn't miss your point. The woman sought compensation through the channels available to her in a democratic society. That society decided she deserved it. End of. You thinking it's wrong or not just is irrelevant, and has no bearing here. Your mother's story-comparison is also not relevant to this woman's case.

The way I see it is that the walkway was installed and maintained and deemed fit for human traversing. It turned out to be an avoidable danger. Not in the sense that humans should avoid it, but in the sense that humans should have maintained it and ensured it was safer. This woman's life has been changed detrimentally. Her love of walking and running and climbing has been jeopardised, as well as her possibly having pain for the rest of her life, and people are up in arms about a measly 40k going to her?

People are doubting that she's affected, are saying that humans who engage in these activists need to be aware of the danger, and that this effects everybody else who might use the trail.

walshb

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The big deal has been explained to you. It's the effect on the rest of us.

As to whether a few stiches really affect life long mobility, I sincerely doubt it.

A few stitches doesn't tell the whole story. And, who's the rest of us? Maybe it will keep the authorities on their toes, get them off their ar€e& and make them make our public walkways safer. See, there's always a silver lining.

brownian

She ran marathons ten years ago. Do stitches in your knee stop you running? No reported ligament damage it's other structural issues?

Meanwhile who can blame farmers off they put up Big no access signs after this lunatic decision??

walshb

Eugene Norman wrote: »

People are doubting that she's affected

People can doubt all they like. Bottom line is that a court has decided to believe that she is affected. I believe her too. As I mentioned earlier I have a knee injury that I cannot account for, so it's very possible that this woman's injury and its effects are very real. She's 59 by the way, not 29. That is quite a pertinent stat.

Slogger Jogger

If I trip and fall - and I've done that a lot of times in my years of running - I pick myself up and run on. No one to blame but myself. Have had cuts and bruises to show for it the odd time. Didn't seek to blame race organisers or the owners of a trail or a hill. If I did and everyone did the same, we'd have nowhere to run

Eugene Norman

walshb wrote: »

A few stitches doesn't tell the whole story. And, who's the rest of us? Maybe it will keep the authorities on their toes, get them off their ar€e& and make them make our public walkways safer. See, there's always a silver lining.

Maybe it will do the opposite and they remove any human maintainable walkways. You can't sue if you slip on a rock.

walshb

Slogger Jogger wrote: »

If I trip and fall - and I've done that a lot of times in my years of running - I pick myself up and run on. No one to blame but myself. Have had cuts and bruises to show for it the odd time. Didn't seek to blame race organisers or the owners of a trail or a hill. If I did and everyone did the same, we'd have nowhere to run

So, no chance your mind could be changed if the trip or fall caused an accident that took away your love of something, and that happened due to negligence that was out of your control.....?

walshb

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Maybe it will do the opposite and they remove any human maintainable walkways. You can't sue if you slip on a rock.

Yes, that could happen too. It's a win win. No maintaining or responsibility means no claims, genuine or dodgy! But, decide to provide and maintain and take responsibility, then you leave the door open to claims, genuine and dodgy.