Woman claims from accident at Dublin Zoo

duffman3833

i was glancing through indo and seen this

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mum-who-slipped-on-manhole-cover-during-dublin-zoo-family-day-awarded-115000-34863998.html

Once again not all info here but there are millions of manhole covers in the country why does she get to sue is what i keep asking myself.
To me firstly its a big sum for something like this, secondly we cant bubble wrap everything, thirdly i might start suing for every injury i get cause everyone else taking advantage of it

What are they meant to do with the manhole, have people stand round it when it rains?

Lyaiera

They admitted liability. Basically saying it was their own fault and they were negligent. What do you expect?

ScumLord

duffman3833 wrote: »

What are they meant to do with the manhole, have people stand round it when it rains?

I think there's a paint you can get to give it a bit of traction.

This one seems fair enough. If you're going to let people onto your property you're kind of responsible for their safety. Manhole covers are an obvious one for causing problems. The problem for the zoo is maybe no one thought to make an issue of one or two slippy manhole covers and eventually someone slipped. But for a public attraction, it's probably worth having a health and safety crew go through the property to make sure there are no potential hazards. When you have thousands of people going through the property on a weekly basis it's only a matter of time before people find the accidents.

As you get older injuries mount up and can seriously hamper your quality of life. A younger person may have gotten away with it, older people could get a permanent injury.

A business has a responsibility to their customers and staff to ensure safe conditions. They did not. Someone suffered a painful accident (dislocating ankle? yeesh!) because of this. The business admitted negligence and paid the price of this.

I can't really see the issue, myself.

Claw Hammer

What was found in America, after a few big pay out, insurance companies insisted on their policy-holders being careful. Guess what? The number of accidents fell.

duffman3833

yes you can put the fault on Dublin zoo but you could now say that every manhole cover or metal surface which you would walk on is now gonna be a potential claim
accidents happen. Cant blame companies or council. These are why prices in this country is high, nothing is ever just an accident these days

razorblunt

Dislocations can be nasty enough with a knock on effect for years. Easy to get angry from reading the title and seeing as the judge said he was happy with her statement then who's to say the weight didn't pile onto her when she was laid up.

Liability was admitted, case closed ... I mean I rest my case.

Armchair Andy

BattleCorp wrote: »

You really aren't a nice person.

Is he not entitled to an opinion either way?

I'd look on your rash decision to label him as not a nice person as more a negative than his coarse outlook.

As it's AH, you may be just thankswhoring, in that case, bate away.

Icaras

Deleted User wrote: »

I can't really see the issue, myself.

For me its the payout. 115k for a dislocated ankle seems a lot. If you said 40k is a avg yearly wage its 3 years wages for a dislocated ankle which to me is disproportionate. I do agree Dublin Zoo have a duty of care and failed in their duty of care. The payout will come from Dublin Zoo's insurance company but it will have a bounce back on higher premiums etc. As we all know insurance companies dont like losing money.

dissed doc

ScumLord wrote: »

I think there's a paint you can get to give it a bit of traction.

This one seems fair enough. If you're going to let people onto your property you're kind of responsible for their safety.

are we talking about people aged 5 or grown-ups?

Grown-ups are responsible for their own decisions, including walking on slippy manhole covers.

But for a public attraction, it's probably worth having a health and safety crew go through the property to make sure there are no potential hazards. When you have thousands of people going through the property on a weekly basis it's only a matter of time before people find the accidents.

Nope - no need for health and saftey. Anyone who feels unable to safely look after themselves in public should be handing themselves into the police or social services. She decided herslef to do something, her own free will. The state, or the law, is not this grown adult's parent.

Not doubting the injury, but rather the attempt to legislate for stupidity and her personal carelessness, to do something as (for her) dangerous as walking on a manhale in the rain.

If she is observed doing the same thing on a street in the centre of town, what then? Does she require a bubble? Is she allowed onto streets with manholes or should she be banned from walking on rainy days?

A health and saftey assessment would be unlikely to identify a manhole cover as a problem. They are part of normal civic structures. If you cannot be safe, stay at home. Hopefully you won't fall into the toilet, or get your arm stuck under a cushion.

dissed doc

dissed doc wrote: »

Nope - no need for health and saftey. Anyone who feels unable to safely look after themselves in public should be handing themselves into the police or social services. She decided herslef to do something, her own free will. The state, or the law, is not this grown adult's parent.

Not doubting the injury, but rather the attempt to legislate for stupidity and her personal carelessness, to do something as (for her) dangerous as walking on a manhale in the rain.

If she is observed doing the same thing on a street in the centre of town, what then? Does she require a bubble? Is she allowed onto streets with manholes or should she be banned from walking on rainy days?

Yes, she requires a bubble. And in accepting that it was all their fault, the zoo was wrong and you understand the facts better than they do. Your bubble solution really is the only way. Or banning walking on wet days.

Utdfan20titles

Icaras wrote: »

For me its the payout. 115k for a dislocated ankle seems a lot. If you said 40k is a avg yearly wage its 3 years wages for a dislocated ankle which to me is disproportionate. I do agree Dublin Zoo have a duty of care and failed in their duty of care. The payout will come from Dublin Zoo's insurance company but it will have a bounce back on higher premiums etc. As we all know insurance companies dont like losing money.

Where did the €115,000 come from? Just pulled out of the air? Even if it was 100% the zoos fault, how is it decided that €115k is the right amount to pay out? Seems like a lot for the injury involved.

AudreyHepburn

While the Zoo did admit some liabilty meaning she is by law entitled to something I really feel that €115,000 is far too much for a simple dislocation. Not a pleasant injury to be sure but this smacks of 'Compo Culture'.

Surely personal responsibility has to be taken? Surely she could have taken better care to watch where she was going? Surely the Zoo can't be held to account for rain? Surely you don't need to be Einstein to know that any metal that gets wet is lethal to walk to on?

Surely we can't expect Dublin Zoo to have some-one standing guard over each and every potentially dangerous part of the premises when it rains?

This was in no way 100% the fault of Dublin Zoo and they should never have had to accept the blame fully.

wp_rathead

I agree that they liable and entitled to claim - but I don't understand where the €100k came from
She was on crutches for 13 week's - give her maybe €23k, two grand for each week
The amount is at the discretion of the judge am I right?

The Backwards Man

We're all to blame.

Those of us paying for these big awards anyway.

RayM

Armchair Andy wrote: »

Is he not entitled to an opinion either way?

I'd look on your rash decision to label him as not a nice person as more a negative than his coarse outlook.

As it's AH, you may be just thankswhoring, in that case, bate away.

When someone expresses such a nasty opinion, it's rarely their only one. 'Not a nice person' is a very mild way of describing someone who spouts that kind of crap.

duffman3833

i love the way that common sense is never used in these cases. I know there a lot of facts missing but they make these people sound like there stupid or something. Is this the way were going now?

The King of Moo

BLAAH she's an overweight woman GRRAAAHH personal responsibility!! BLLAHHH premiums BLLLUUUHH!! who, oh yes, had an accident.

But mostly, she's an overweight woman.

Armchair Andy wrote: »

Is he not entitled to an opinion either way?

I'd look on your rash decision to label him as not a nice person as more a negative than his coarse outlook.

As it's AH, you may be just thankswhoring, in that case, bate away.

Has anyone suggested otherwise?

People are entitled to have terrible opinions, just as people are entitled to point out how terrible those opinions are.

ohnonotgmail

wp_rathead wrote: »

I agree that they liable and entitled to claim - but I don't understand where the €100k came from
She was on crutches for 13 week's - give her maybe €23k, two grand for each week
The amount is at the discretion of the judge am I right?

what about the ongoing pain or the inability to exercise properly? how much do you think that is worth?

db

How about the poor charities that are missing out on her fundraising due to her not being able to take part in any charity walks or cycles, how much of the €115,000 will they be getting?

purplecow1977

As an overweight woman, am I deemed to be a second class citizens or something?

Am I not allowed to claim for an accident that wasn't my fault because I am fat?!

Crazy!

I do think the figure awarded sounds like a lot, and maybe compensation is something that really needs to be looked at in this country considering your average whiplash cost s 15,000....

lazybones32

I wonder if there were complaints made to the Zoo about the manhole cover being slippery when wet? Given the amount of rain and number of pedestrians that annually visit the ZG, this should have been picked up on.

Just because the Zoo admitted liability in Court doesn't mean they were knowingly at fault; County Councils often admit liability rather than prolong a court case that will find against them anyway.

Armchair Andy

The King of Moo wrote: »

BLAAH she's an overweight woman GRRAAAHH personal responsibility!! BLLAHHH premiums BLLLUUUHH!! who, oh yes, had an accident.

But mostly, she's an overweight woman.



Has anyone suggested otherwise?

Yeah fair enough.

People are entitled to have terrible opinions, just as people are entitled to point out how terrible those opinions are.

That he didn't do though. He's as guilty of labelling as the the poster who threw "fat ****" around.

Lyaiera

lazybones32 wrote: »

Just because the Zoo admitted liability in Court doesn't mean they were knowingly at fault; County Councils often admit liability rather than prolong a court case that will find against them anyway.

So they admit liability, because they know even if they fight it they'll be found liable but they're not at fault?

lazybones32

RayM wrote: »

When someone expresses such a nasty opinion, it's rarely their only one. 'Not a nice person' is a very mild way of describing someone who spouts that kind of crap.

What was nasty about the opinion?

ScumLord

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

While the Zoo did admit some liabilty meaning she is by law entitled to something I really feel that €115,000 is far too much for a simple dislocation. Not a pleasant injury to be sure but this smacks of 'Compo Culture'.

It doesn't seem like too much money when you consider she's going to be dealing with this injury for the rest of her life. At her age she probably won't heal properly and it will probably be one of those injuries that creates a weakness inviting repeated injury. The ankle is a pretty complex joint, bottom line is it's also a crucial joint, any injury would cause significant problems for anybody.

Surely personal responsibility has to be taken? Surely she could have taken better care to watch where she was going? Surely the Zoo can't be held to account for rain? Surely you don't need to be Einstein to know that any metal that gets wet is lethal to walk to on?

When I went to the zoo I was looking at the animals, not the ground. Even if you are the kind of person who spends the majority of their time scanning the ground in front of you, you can't do it 100% of the time or you'll start banging your head on things. We live in a world that's man made, we expect it to be suitable for the conditions. I'd say very few people actually look where they're going most the time. A slippy man hole cover isn't going to stop being a slippy manhole cover, it's hazzard that simply shouldn't be there. I have sympathy for the zoo, it's almost impossible to cover every hazard, but I wouldn't be to surprised if she wasn't the first person to slip.

Surely we can't expect Dublin Zoo to have some-one standing guard over each and every potentially dangerous part of the premises when it rains?

No, but they could prepare their property for rain and make sure it doesn't become dangerous. That would make sense to me seeing as it rains so often in this country.

HardenendMan

It is possible that the zoo admitted liability to limit legal fees and PR damage.

The reality is that it was her own fault. Where is the duty of care towards oneself? Should she not have watched where she was walking?

ChampagnePop

lazybones32 wrote: »

What was nasty about the opinion?

He called her a fat <snip> that is by definition nasty

purplecow1977

lazybones32 wrote:

What was nasty about the opinion?

He made a horrible and disgusting personal remark about a person he doesn't even know.

I mean, where does that anger for a stranger even come from?!

The mind boggles.

ohnonotgmail

elastics wrote: »

Overweight people are more likely to injure themselves when they fall.

They need to take responsibility - This is their own fault for over eating

The world doesn't owe them a nice little cotton wool wrapped care free environment.

how do you know she was overweight when the accident happened?

lazybones32

Lyaiera wrote: »

So they admit liability, because they know even if they fight it they'll be found liable but they're not at fault?

It's easier and cheaper to admit liability than drag out the court case, incurring significant legal expense to show that the person possibly didn't show due care (seeing as how many thousands visit the Zoo when it's raining without slipping on manhole covers - covers which comply with whatever health and Safety regulations govern manhole covers).

I worked with the National Parks and Wildlife Services and could tell you a few stories about ridiculous claims which were not contested. I've heard quite a few from lads who worked with FAS in the 90's.

westcoast66

I hope she pays all her tax on this payout.

ohnonotgmail

westcoast66 wrote: »

I hope she pays all her tax on this payout.

what tax? compensation awards are not taxable.

valoren

Utdfan20titles wrote: »

Where did the €115,000 come from? Just pulled out of the air? Even if it was 100% the zoos fault, how is it decided that €115k is the right amount to pay out? Seems like a lot for the injury involved.

Usually a settlement is offered, in the region of €20,000, however the plaintiff is entitled to refuse this offer and invoke their right to "Spin....that...Wheel!!!"

The courts have a dedicated room with a Winning Streak style "Spin the Wheel" which includes a myriad of figures, ranging from 10k through to 500k. It is witnessed by the legal team on both sides. In this case the plaintiff chose the correct option.

ohnonotgmail

valoren wrote: »

Usually a settlement is offered, in the region of €20,000, however the plaintiff is entitled to refuse this offer and invoke their right to "Spin....that...Wheel!!!"

The courts have a dedicated room with a Winning Streak style "Spin the Wheel" which includes a myriad of figures, ranging from 10k through to 500k. It is witnessed by the legal team on both sides. In this case the plaintiff chose the correct option.

Do they get Marty Whelan involved?

valoren

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Do they get Marty Whelan involved?

If he is available. Where not, the judge will issue the order to "Spin...that...wheel".

AudreyHepburn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

While the Zoo did admit some liabilty meaning she is by law entitled to something I really feel that €115,000 is far too much for a simple dislocation...

No no, they accepted full liability. Not some liability.

All of it. 100%./ There was no suggestion of contributory negligence.

I think you may be unsure of the word liability, your issue is with quantum.

Zillah

duffman3833 wrote: »

you could now say that every manhole cover or metal surface which you would walk on is now gonna be a potential claim
accidents happen. Cant blame companies or council.

Yes, every metal surface is a potential danger, and that's why you're obliged to make sure they're not slippery! A textured surface on the manhole cover would go a long way towards making it less slippery. Making sure it is positioned to allow extra water to drain off is important too. I'm sure there are lots of things that one can do to reduce the risk.

I absolutely blame companies and councils if they slap down a slick metal surface that allows water to pool on it.

gramar

Armchair Andy wrote: »

Is he not entitled to an opinion either way?

I'd look on your rash decision to label him as not a nice person as more a negative than his coarse outlook.

As it's AH, you may be just thankswhoring, in that case, bate away.

Say something a little un-pc...get told off by another poster for your comment/opinion = 100 thanks for that poster. Never fails.

wp_rathead

wp_rathead wrote: »

I agree that they liable and entitled to claim - but I don't understand where the €100k came from
She was on crutches for 13 week's - give her maybe €23k, two grand for each week
The amount is at the discretion of the judge am I right?

Yes, but they are not able to make up completely nonsense grounds for determining the amount, unlike you.

How much of her claim relates to general damages? How much is based on special damages? Loss of earnings? Future losses? Why is 2k a week for every week on crutches the yardstick? You just plucked that out of thin air.

ohnonotgmail

valoren wrote: »

If he is available. Where not, the judge will issue the order to "Spin...that...wheel".

once it isnt that ghoul from westlife

westcoast66

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what tax? compensation awards are not taxable.

From Revenue : http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/leaflets/it13.html

The person receiving the compensation must, as a result of the injury, be permanently and totally incapacitated either physically or mentally from maintaining himself or herself.

I doubt if she satisfies this condition.

RayM

lazybones32 wrote: »

What was nasty about the opinion?

What's nasty about referring to a total stranger as "a fat <Snip>

Uh, dunno lol

ohnonotgmail

westcoast66 wrote: »

From Revenue : http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/leaflets/it13.html



I doubt if she satisfies this condition.

every day is a learning day.

lazybones32

purplecow1977 wrote: »

He made a horrible and disgusting personal remark about a person he doesn't even know.

I mean, where does that anger for a stranger even come from?!

The mind boggles.

Someone you don't know used two words when talking about someone you don't know. One of the words is an accurate description, so I wouldn't equate name-calling with a horrible and disgusting personal remark.

ohnonotgmail

lazybones32 wrote: »

Someone you don't know used two words when talking about someone you don't know. One of the words is an accurate description, so I wouldn't equate name-calling with a horrible and disgusting personal remark.

and the other word?

lazybones32

RayM wrote: »

What's nasty about referring to a total stranger as "a fat c*nt"?

Uh, dunno lol

Precisely. She is overweight. Maybe she is a <snip>

Zillah

purplecow1977 wrote: »

As an overweight woman, am I deemed to be a second class citizens or something?

Am I not allowed to claim for an accident that wasn't my fault because I am fat?!

It's entirely a question of physics that an overweight person is much more likely to suffer serious injuries to joints in a fall that a lighter person could just shrug off. I've had tumbles and spills on my bike that left me with little more than a graze; the same impact on an overweight person would probably have shattered bone and joints.

It doesn't mean it's their fault, nor that they don't deserve compensation, but there's potentially an argument to be made that a self-induced condition which makes injury far more likely is a relevant factor to consider.

lazybones32

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and the other word?

What of it? Are you the users/society's mommy and we mustn't use those words?

ohnonotgmail

Zillah wrote: »

It's entirely a question of physics that an overweight person is much more likely to suffer serious injuries to joints in a fall that a lighter person could just shrug off. I've had tumbles and spills on my bike that left me with little more than a graze; the same impact on an overweight person would probably have shattered bone and joints.

It doesn't mean it's their fault, nor that they don't deserve compensation, but there's potentially an argument to be made that a self-induced condition which makes injury far more likely is a relevant factor to consider.

but you dont know she was overweight at the time of the accident?

ScumLord

Zillah wrote: »

It doesn't mean it's their fault, nor that they don't deserve compensation, but there's potentially an argument to be made that a self-induced condition which makes injury far more likely is a relevant factor to consider.

I guess we could have a sliding scale for compensations. Smaller people can get more compensation because their genes make them less culpable, Tall people should probably get much less because they're heavier and more likely to get a head injury walking into things.