Appeal against €40,000 awarded to woman who had a fall

AryaStark

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/award-of-40-000-to-injured-hill-walker-set-to-be-appealed-1.2614786



The €40,000 award of damages to hill walker Teresa Wall, following a fall on the Wicklow Way, will be challenged in the High Court.

I am very happy about this and hope that it will be thrown out. I do a lot of hiking and find this so greedy and upsetting... surly you look where you are walking and if you fall it is your own fault in this kind of setting?

Any idea about this? Will it be upheld? Would she then have to pay expenses?

coylemj

AryaStark wrote: »

Will it be upheld?

Will it rain tomorrow week?

MarkAnthony

The award wasn't excessive. If you start laying down tracks etc. you need to maintain them. The woman fell on a rusty nail sticking out (IIRC) not a natural feature or due to natural conditions up there.

AryaStark

coylemj wrote: »

Will it rain tomorrow week?

Ok I guess I was asking for that!!!

I am wondering if people with legal knowledge think that this is something that should be upheld ... should she get the money or not!

MarkAnthony

Legal knowledge is one thing, being privy to the entire case, reports, witness statements etc. is quite another.

kirving

Fair enough, even if it the path should have been maintained better, €40,000 is still excessive compensation in in the view of the general public(well, from the opinions I've seen anyway).

MarkAnthony

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Fair enough, even if it the path should have been maintained better, €40,000 is still excessive compensation in in the view of the general public(well, from the opinions I've seen anyway).

I'd be willing to take the opinion of any member of the public who was present for the relevant parts of the case and who can give a reasonable refutation of the evidence presented.

I realise you're simply conveying a sentiment but this is an area that the general public have absolutely no clue about.

lifeandtimes

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Fair enough, even if it the path should have been maintained better, €40,000 is still excessive compensation in in the view of the general public(well, from the opinions I've seen anyway).

It also effected her there after....the point of compensation is to make up for losses incurred/future loses. Due to the injury incurred because of a walk way nit maintained she could no longer do weekly marathons or work out correctly.

It has had an adverse effect on her life and as should she should be compensated.

Regarding your comment of she should have been looking where she was going,she should also have had faith that the walk way put there for the public should be maintained correctly which it wasnt

To Elland Back

Whether it was just or not, or if the award was excessive or reasonable, that's not the issue. You can now add hill walking to the list of prohibitive activities in our modern society. It started with skateboard parks, moved on to playgrounds, then to kiddie play centres etc.

We are a nation of self entitled citizens, where someone else is always to blame and absolutely no personal responsibility. The money, while nice, is not always the driving factor. The amount awarded is the affirmation that 'I was right' and that is important to my status

kirving

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Regarding your comment of she should have been looking where she was going,she should also have had faith that the walk way put there for the public should be maintained correctly which it wasnt

Where did I say that?

In terms of having faith in public amenities, I agree, but this isn't a path on a busy street, it was a mountain walkway, so additional care should be taken rather than having blind faith to keep yourself safe.

The reason most people think it's excessive - most people earn way below €40k per year, and the impression given in the papers at least that it was a gash to her leg, with no other specific injuries mentioned.

Pro Hoc Vice

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Fair enough, even if it the path should have been maintained better, €40,000 is still excessive compensation in in the view of the general public(well, from the opinions I've seen anyway).

So you are aware how much of the award is being paid to social welfare.

HeidiHeidi

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Where did I say that?

In terms of having faith in public amenities, I agree, but this isn't a path on a busy street, it was a mountain walkway, so additional care should be taken rather than having blind faith to keep yourself safe.

The reason most people think it's excessive - most people earn way below €40k per year, and the impression given in the papers at least that it was a gash to her leg, with no other specific injuries mentioned.

There's your problem right there. Relying on the media for "facts".

I hate it when people condemn judgements or awards when they haven't heard any, never mind all, of the evidence that was given which resulted in said judgement/award.

Just to clarify, I think this case should never have been taken in the first place - but unless you were there for the duration of the case, then it's hard to see how you can say that the award was right/wrong/high/low.

georgewickstaff

40k for a cut leg. Will ye get off the stage!

MarkAnthony

To Elland Back wrote: »

Whether it was just or not, or if the award was excessive or reasonable, that's not the issue. You can now add hill walking to the list of prohibitive activities in our modern society. It started with skateboard parks, moved on to playgrounds, then to kiddie play centres etc.

We are a nation of self entitled citizens, where someone else is always to blame and absolutely no personal responsibility. The money, while nice, is not always the driving factor. The amount awarded is the affirmation that 'I was right' and that is important to my status

What a lot of tosh. The OLA is weighted very heavily in favour of the occupier, as it should be. This hasn't stopped one hill walker. The defendant in this case admitted it needed to replace the boardwalk and was/is in the process of doing so. Modern Tort law is a loss distribution mechanism which has made society a safer and more thoughtful place. Only the Irish sense of begrudgery always manages to come out almost every time there is an award.

If the woman had fell down off a designated track, as the defendant themselves admitted, it's very unlikely a claim would have been made. I doubt that's because no one has ever approached a solicitor but because they would have been advised how unlikely it was for the claim to succeed. In this case the plaintiff was directed to a path which had a defect she couldn't have reasonably been expected to see and she was injured.

To Elland Back

MarkAnthony wrote: »

What a lot of tosh. The OLA is weighted very heavily in favour of the occupier, as it should be. This hasn't stopped one hill walker. The defendant in this case admitted it needed to replace the boardwalk and was/is in the process of doing so. Modern Tort law is a loss distribution mechanism which has made society a safer and more thoughtful place. Only the Irish sense of begrudgery always manages to come out almost every time there is an award.

If the woman had fell down off a designated track, as the defendant themselves admitted, it's very unlikely a claim would have been made. I doubt that's because no one has ever approached a solicitor but because they would have been advised how unlikely it was for the claim to succeed. In this case the plaintiff was directed to a path which had a defect she couldn't have reasonably been expected to see and she was injured.

I take it from your response that you are involved in this field (pardon the pun). My point, if you weren't so quick to write to me 'on behalf of my client', was merely to state that hill walking and casual usage of land will soon be stopped because owners will no longer be prepared to put up with the grief

MarkAnthony

To Elland Back wrote: »

I take it from your response that you are involved in this field (pardon the pun). My point, if you weren't so quick to write to me 'on behalf of my client', was merely to state that hill walking and casual usage of land will soon be stopped because owners will no longer be prepared to put up with the grief

Not involved with the civil side at all, barely involved with the criminal side at the moment.

How exactly are people going to prevent trespassers and recreational users (pretty much treated identically) using their land? Currently most would prefer not to have them rambling all over the place partly due to a mistaken belief they might sue. People were even more against it prior to the OLA occupiers have not managed to stop people yet.

It might stop people putting structures in place where they aren't going to maintain them. It might also stop them erecting signs pointing people on to those structures. Happy days.

Courts are far too generous. Just think how much work an average person would have to do (years and years!) to save a lump sum of 40k.

The upshot of this of course, if its upheld, will be fewer paths open to the public and ironically less work to make walkways safer (liability would have been less if she had slipped on a natural feature that had been there since time immemorial).

To Elland Back

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Not involved with the civil side at all, barely involved with the criminal side at the moment

How exactly are people going to prevent trespassers and recreational users (pretty much treated identically) .

Very surprised that you are quiet at present, given that you appear to be a plaintiff's dream

Anyhoo, I'll give you an example of where recreational users will start to lose a privilege. I live in a rural area, surrounded by fields owned by a cattle farmer. Everyday, I bring my dog in to one of his fields to run around and chase a ball that I fire out from the launcher. Before I head out, I check which field the cows are in and I head to one in the opposite direction. He knows that and appreciates it (personal responsibility) If someone ever sues him following a fall on his land, I'll expect a knock on the door asking me to stop going on his land. Although I would never sue him (personal responsibility), I would accept his point of view and reluctantly desist

Alun

MarkAnthony wrote: »

In this case the plaintiff was directed to a path which had a defect she couldn't have reasonably been expected to see and she was injured.

As someone who walks that section of the boardwalk regularly, and indeed did so only 2 days ago, the "defects", i.e. holes where the wood has rotted, and have been there for a good while now, are actually blindingly obvious to anyone with a fully functioning set of eyeballs, and very easy to avoid. Unless she was staring off into space and not watching where she was going, she couldn't have failed to see them.

Yes, they do need repairing, but anyone falling and blaming their fall on the state of them is just taking the proverbial IMO.

hullaballoo

This case is sub judice pending determination either by procedural or judicial mechanism.

Even if it wasn't sub judice, this level of discussion is not what this forum is for. This is the Legal Discussion forum, a place to discuss the law. It isn't a place to make unfounded claims by people who are not even vaguely aware what the law says, never mind the full gamut of the evidence of a particular case.

Thread closed.