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

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

Options
2

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 40,352 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,455 ✭✭✭maudgonner


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,638 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,172 ✭✭✭FizzleSticks


    This post has been deleted.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    So its the kids fault then?

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


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,564 ✭✭✭✭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!!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,455 ✭✭✭maudgonner


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,455 ✭✭✭maudgonner


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,455 ✭✭✭maudgonner


    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 :confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,455 ✭✭✭maudgonner


    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...


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,985 ✭✭✭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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,455 ✭✭✭maudgonner


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,638 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    maudgonner wrote: »
    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.
    What do you think they should have offered out of court?
    Petrol money?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    maudgonner wrote: »
    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...

    I never said other wise I was replying to a post in relation to general claims, I ask specifically kept my comment to 3 things the A&E admission costs which are small and motor claims where all medical costs can be claimed and large million plus claims. I never claimed anything in relation to this case.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    maudgonner wrote: »
    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.

    The fact is that the person who has to write the cheque made the decision on the amount they would have done so with sight of medical report and reports on liability. The judges only role in this case is to make sure that the child's interests are looked after he did not decide on the amount.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,538 ✭✭✭✭y0ssar1an22


    pwurple wrote: »
    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.

    I wonder was he admitted to hospital, or was he sitting in A and E all night cos his injury was so minor? :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    I wonder was he admitted to hospital, or was he sitting in A and E all night cos his injury was so minor? :pac:

    "hospitalised overnight" would look like it was taken as a quote from medical report which would lead me to believe he was admitted to a ward after going through A&E.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    "hospitalised overnight" would look like it was taken as a quote from medical report which would lead me to believe he was admitted to a ward after going through A&E.

    Lol sure he was thought the hospitals were overflowing with people on trolleys... put in a ward that's a good one for a few stitches.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    Fairly steep. Sure the parents are happy with that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    "hospitalised overnight" would look like it was taken as a quote from medical report which would lead me to believe he was admitted to a ward after going through A&E.

    Was he not released on the same day he got a few stiches

    "where the laceration was stitched.  He had been discharged home the same day"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Gatling wrote: »
    Was he not released on the same day he got a few stiches

    "where the laceration was stitched.  He had been discharged home the same day"

    I was responding to another poster whom I quoted they may have been talking about another case.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    I was responding to another poster whom I quoted they may have been talking about another case.

    Ah ok


Advertisement