Young boy who lacerated arm on pull-out bed awarded €18,000

duffman3833

A five-year-old schoolboy, who lacerated his left arm on a pull-out bed in a Dublin hotel, was awarded €18,000 damages in the Circuit Civil Court.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/young-boy-who-lacerated-arm-on-pullout-bed-at-plush-dublin-hotel-awarded-18000-34800463.html

Is it me or is there no such thing as accidents these days that you can sue for anything.
I know this article doesn't give much details, they never do, but this seems a bit ridiculous.
are the parents wanting easy money?
What you think?

suicide_circus

It just means that there is a big disincentive to start or run a business with a premises because you need exorbitant insurance to cover the outrageous payouts which are prevalent.

The_Valeyard

The amount of money I could now have from all the childhood injuries I received from my own stupidity.

Had an accident? Sue! Even if its your own fault, you can get money to make the pain go away.

ohnonotgmail

suicide_circus wrote: »

It just means that there is a big disincentive to start or run a business with a premises because you need exorbitant insurance to cover the outrageous payouts which are prevalent.

The hotel offered the payout to stop it going to court. perhaps if they hadnt been negligent it would not have got this far.

duffman3833

The_Valeyard wrote: »

The amount of money I could now have from all the childhood injuries I received from my own stupidity.

Had an accident? Sue! Even if its your own fault, you can get money to make the pain go away.

that's they way i see it, i remember i hit a big rock and fell off my bike, needed stitches after a bit cut on my chin. I could have sued the council for leaving a rock in my path and might have won ha

cruizer101

While I would agree with your sentiment that people seem to be claiming for all sorts, without more details its hard to know in this case compensation may be appropriate. A bed shouldn't really have any exposed edges that can 'lacerate'. That said 18,000 for a cut on elbow where he was out of the hospital in 1 day, scar on an elbow which is a knobbly looking part of the body anyway.

DrumSteve

These threads some come with a complementary pitchfork and torch.

stoplooklisten

if they had of stuck his fingers in a door, he would have gotten more

Young boy awarded €20,000 for finger injury suffered while attending Dublin creche
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/young-boy-awarded-20000-for-finger-injury-suffered-while-attending-dublin-creche-34800444.html

Judge Groarke, hearing that Alex had made a full recovery and the wound had left a minor scar on his finger, approved the offer.

keano_afc

When I was a kid I sliced my hand open going down a metal slide in Clara Lara. Very deep cut, totally their fault as the slide had a metal panel sticking out.

I got home, my mother cleaned it and dressed it and that was the end of the matter. If it happened today we could buy a holiday home.

stoplooklisten

stoplooklisten wrote: »

if they had of stuck his fingers in a door, he would have gotten more

Young boy awarded €20,000 for finger injury suffered while attending Dublin creche
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/young-boy-awarded-20000-for-finger-injury-suffered-while-attending-dublin-creche-34800444.html

Judge Groarke, hearing that Alex had made a full recovery and the wound had left a minor scar on his finger, approved the offer.

Who's they???

Cienciano

It depends on the case. Some payouts are dodgy. But if a hotel leaves exposed metal sticking out that can break the skin, they really deserve to pay out.

andekwarhola

You can just imagine the same people then bitching about insurance premium hikes, increased fares /prices etc.

Enjoy your few grand because it'll be clawed back from you tenfold.

endacl

Perhaps the accidents are the many everyday incidents you don't read about in the papers, OP?

darkpagandeath

What a crock of S*it. If he hit his head on a table would he get a payout ? Was there a sign saying this bed is 100% safe ? This is why your car insurance is going up to cover this end of the game.

stoplooklisten

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

Who's they???

Who ever was supervising him, which wasn't the hotel manager

Gatling

Another one recently a former garda made a claim for a injury that caused his early retirement during an arrest ,
He actually retired due to inheritance coming his way ,
but the judge even when told the garda didn't tell the force he was retiring due to health reasons was still given a decent amount by a judge

pwurple

There's a personal injuries table of estimated payouts I think... for an elbow injury it sounds about normal.

Here are the estimates ( which are there to keep claims reasonable, as far as I know.)
http://www.injuriesboard.ie/eng/How-to-make-a-claim/Estimate-your-claim/

A 5 year old child hospitalised overnight needing stitches and ending up with a permanent scar from a bed in a hotel room... I dunno. If it was my 5 year old child with his elbow in bits, and my holiday which ended up getting diverted to hospital, I'd be fairly pissed off.

I don't think there's any question of the child deliberately lacerating his own elbow. Beds should not behave like knives.

ohnonotgmail

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What a crock of S*it. If he hit his head on a table would he get a payout ? Was there a sign saying this bed is 100% safe ? This is why your car insurance is going up to cover this end of the game.

Is it not reasonable to assume that hotel furniture does not have exposed metal edges?

And what this has to do with car insurance can only be explained by this being AH.

darkpagandeath

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Is it not reasonable to assume that hotel furniture does not have exposed metal edges?

And what this has to do with car insurance can only be explained by this being AH.

Door hinges are exposed metal for example.

ohnonotgmail

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Door hinges are exposed metal for example.

if the edge of a hinge is exposed you would consider that reasonable then?

Gatling

Wonder how many hundreds of kids used the same bed in the hotel and managed to come away without a personal injury claim

duffman3833

the only solution i see is to bubble wrap everything

ohnonotgmail

Gatling wrote: »

Wonder how many hundreds of kids used the same bed in the hotel and managed to come away without a personal injury claim

so because nobody else was injured that is ok is it?

darkpagandeath

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if the edge of a hinge is exposed you would consider that reasonable then?

Yes many hinges are designed to be exposed. Just like taps, Just like Door handles. Just like metal coffee tables. Pretty sure the kid could strangle themselves with the cord of an appliance in the hotel room. He was supervised by his Guardians they are at fault.

ohnonotgmail

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yes many hinges are designed to be exposed. Just like taps, Just like Door handles. Just like metal coffee tables. Pretty sure the kid could strangle themselves with the cord of an appliance in the hotel room. He was supervised by his Guardians they are at fault.

if the kid hit his elbow off a door handle the hotel would not be negligent. if the kid his his elbow off a table the hotel would not be negligent. if the kid hit his elbow off a piece of metal that should not be exposed then the hotel is negligent. can you see how that works?

andekwarhola

pwurple wrote: »

I dunno. If it was my 5 year old child with his elbow in bits, and my holiday which ended up getting diverted to hospital, I'd be fairly pissed off.

Fairly succinct summation of the claim culture: an accident impinges on our leisure time. 18k should help assuage our agony and trauma.

stoplooklisten

andekwarhola wrote: »

Fairly succinct summation of the claim culture: an accident impinges on our leisure time. 18k should help assuage our agony and trauma.

i hope they're not too tramatised over the incident and hotels trigger them now

Pro Hoc Vice

duffman3833 wrote: »

A five-year-old schoolboy, who lacerated his left arm on a pull-out bed in a Dublin hotel, was awarded €18,000 damages in the Circuit Civil Court.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/young-boy-who-lacerated-arm-on-pullout-bed-at-plush-dublin-hotel-awarded-18000-34800463.html

Is it me or is there no such thing as accidents these days that you can sue for anything.
I know this article doesn't give much details, they never do, but this seems a bit ridiculous.
are the parents wanting easy money?
What you think?

You get 1 the defendant accepted some liability as this was the ruling of a settlement and 2 the parents don't get the money.

Settled out of court!
Can't understand why anyone would have a problem with that apart from those who are jealous!
cost the taxpayers nothing!

And there was obvious injury and negligence

darkpagandeath

andekwarhola wrote: »

Fairly succinct summation of the claim culture: an accident impinges on our leisure time. 18k should help assuage our agony and trauma.

I have loads of permanent scars from being a kid. I wager bouncing on the bed was the causation of the exposure of the mechanism. As a parent I would check the room for faults pretty odd they did not call the front desk and complain about a faulty bed.

I don't think this has anything to do with a claims culture. The fact that the hotel attempted to pay a set of money to keep it out of court shows that they knew they were negligent. If a hotel caused my toddler to be injured and permanently scarred, you'd be damn sure I'd sue them too. Not because of "claim culture", but because they f*cked up and should be made pay for it.

ohnonotgmail

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I have loads of permanent scars from being a kid. I wager bouncing on the bed was the causation of the exposure of the mechanism. As a parent I would check the room for faults pretty odd they did not call the front desk and complain about a faulty bed.

So its the kids fault then?

AnonoBoy

DrumSteve wrote: »

These threads some come with a complementary pitchfork and torch.

Mind yourself you could get a nasty laceration from one of them.

maudgonner

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

Settled out of court!
Can't understand why anyone would have a problem with that apart from those who are jealous!
cost the taxpayers nothing!

And there was obvious injury and negligence

Cost the taxpayers nothing.

Cost the insurance payers something.

Costs the hotel something which contributes to higher costs of doing business.

The money to pay these claims does not magically come from nowhere. Whether they are justified or not, there is an associated cost to us all.

andekwarhola

Surely settling out of court doesn't always mean genuine liability. It could just be acceptance that the judge may have awarded more (irrationally or not) or to avoid further bad publicity.

Pro Hoc Vice

maudgonner wrote: »

Cost the taxpayers nothing.

Cost the insurance payers something.

Costs the hotel something which contributes to higher costs of doing business.

The money to pay these claims does not magically come from nowhere. Whether they are justified or not, there is an associated cost to us all.

The benefit to all in society is that all persons doing business must make sure negligent practices are reduced as it's cheaper to be right than payout for being negligent.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

maudgonner

maudgonner wrote: »

Cost the taxpayers nothing.

Cost the insurance payers something.

Costs the hotel something which contributes to higher costs of doing business.

The money to pay these claims does not magically come from nowhere. Whether they are justified or not, there is an associated cost to us all.

Own a hotel do you?
If you are as negligent you should be taken to court.

Gatling

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so because nobody else was injured that is ok is it?

Maybe the kid should have sued his parents for having him in a hotel room

darkpagandeath

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So its the kids fault then?

If you read what I wrote you will find out who's fault it is.

whiskeyman

DrumSteve wrote: »

These threads some come with a complementary pitchfork and torch.

I just pierced myself with your pitchfork and burnt myself with your torch as no safety instructions were given...


I'll see you in court!!

maudgonner

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

Own a hotel do you?
If you are as negligent you should be taken to court.

I don't own a hotel.

I do occasionally stay in them. I do pay insurance. I rely on industry for a job (not the hospitality industry), so it's in my interest for the cost of doing business in Ireland to be sustainable.

This payout may well be justified, although it sounds quite high to me. But to suggest that there is no associated cost to the public is plainly untrue.

Pro Hoc Vice

maudgonner wrote: »

I don't own a hotel.

I do occasionally stay in them. I do pay insurance. I rely on industry for a job (not the hospitality industry), so it's in my interest for the cost of doing business in Ireland to be sustainable.

This payout may well be justified, although it sounds quite high to me. But to suggest that there is no associated cost to the public is plainly untrue.

It is a sum not decided by the judge it would have either been a award made by PIAB and agreed by the defendant or an offer made by the defendant. So the person paying decided it was a justified amount based on all the facts.

maudgonner

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The benefit to all in society is that all persons doing business must make sure negligent practices are reduced as it's cheaper to be right than payout for being negligent.

Agreed. It encourages businesses to take sensible precautions - although what 'sensible' is defined as would seem to be arbitrary in many cases, not necessarily this one.

But there is a cost to the public for these claims, even if they are not paid from the exchequer. The 'taxpayer' is affected by them and has a right to be concerned.

maudgonner

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

It is a sum not decided by the judge it would have either been a award made by PIAB and agreed by the defendant or an offer made by the defendant. So the person paying decided it was a justified amount based on all the facts.

The article says it was offered by the defendant. Presumably on advice from their legal team. I'm sure this is influenced by payouts in similar cases.

That does not mean I can't state that it seems quite high to me, a layperson, based on the facts mentioned in the article. I'm entitled to hold that opinion, surely? I'm not claiming that the decision should be revised accordingly

Pro Hoc Vice

maudgonner wrote: »

Agreed. It encourages businesses to take sensible precautions - although what 'sensible' is defined as would seem to be arbitrary in many cases, not necessarily this one.

But there is a cost to the public for these claims, even if they are not paid from the exchequer. The 'taxpayer' is affected by them and has a right to be concerned.

The taxpayer is usually a beneficiary in fact, as in most cases included in the damages is the bill from the A&E in fact in motor cases the state is entitled to recover all medical costs associated with the injury. In the super big cases million plus the vast majority of such awards is for ongoing care of the injured person thereby taking the burden off the state.

maudgonner

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The taxpayer is usually a beneficiary in fact, as in most cases included in the damages is the bill from the A&E in fact in motor cases the state is entitled to recover all medical costs associated with the injury. In the super big cases million plus the vast majority of such awards is for ongoing care of the injured person thereby taking the burden off the state.

Not in this case. Unless you're suggesting that the majority of the 18k settlement went to pay an A&E bill for a child who was discharged the same day?

I would hazard a guess that the proportion of the settlement going to legal bills far outweighed what went to paying medical bills. Of course I'm not a legal expert, or a medical expert...

maudgonner

maudgonner wrote: »

I don't own a hotel.

I do occasionally stay in them. I do pay insurance. I rely on industry for a job (not the hospitality industry), so it's in my interest for the cost of doing business in Ireland to be sustainable.

This payout may well be justified, although it sounds quite high to me. But to suggest that there is no associated cost to the public is plainly untrue.

Sounds quite high to you?
How can you claim to know what's high and what isn't when it comes to out of court payments on a case you don't know all the details about?

mikeym

The one good thing about this country is that there is no adverts on Tv that encourage people to sue.

If anyone watches American Daytime Tv those bloody Injury Claim ads are annoying.

maudgonner

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

Sounds quite high to you?
How can you claim to know what's high and what isn't when it comes to out of court payments on a case you don't know all the details about?

As I mentioned above, I'm basing my opinion on the facts given in the article.

As are all of us in this thread, this being a discussion forum on the internet, not a tribunal on personal injury payouts, or a courtroom dealing with the case in question.

andekwarhola

mikeym wrote: »

The one good thing about this country is that there is no adverts on Tv that encourage people to sue.

If anyone watches American Daytime Tv those bloody Injury Claim ads are annoying.

They have ambulance chaser adverts on the radio here. I've definitely heard them.