Another ridiculous court award

ThisRegard

Guying queuing in a store puts a case of beer down, another woman falls over it when walking by, she sues the store, judge awards her €60,000, knocking it down to €48,000 because he found her 20% liable. In other words the store is 80% at fault for a guy putting a case of beer down for what was a apparently a few minutes, he even apologised to her for doing it.

Do businesses need to assign each customer a minder from now on?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/nurse-32-awarded-48000-after-tripping-over-sixpack-of-beer-in-tesco-store-35206370.html

Hmmmmmm, if the case was left down by an employee I'd say fair enough. You'd think it being left down by a third party was a novus actus interveniens rendering that individual liable and, if they were not part of the proceedings then it's tough luck.

The flying mouse

Alcohol can be very good for you in some ways, slante .

jamesbere

Screw this I'm off to tescos

The Wolverine

jamesbere wrote: »

Screw this I'm off to tescos

I'll leave the case down and you can trip over it? Split the payout?

ThisRegard

The Wolverine wrote: »

I'll leave the case down and you can trip over it? Split the payout?

You'll need to agree a back story about how he was just about to sign a professional football contract with a top club, and now can't play football anymore. Judges love stories like that.

irish bloke

She still fell in the store injuring herself so the shop is liable - No different then a customer spilling water on the floor and someone slipping on it.

HS3

Deleted User wrote: »

Hmmmmmm, if the case was left down by an employee I'd say fair enough. You'd think it being left down by a third party was a novus actus interveniens rendering that individual liable and, if they were not part of the proceedings then it's tough luck.

Basics of litigation -> go after the person with the money. No point going after Joe Soap for damages of €60k if he can't pay up.

Sam Kade

Awarded for being a victim of your own stupidity, why didn't she watch where she was going. Surely if your man put down the case of beer that he would be standing beside it in the queue.

jamesbere

The Wolverine wrote: »

I'll leave the case down and you can trip over it? Split the payout?

Yeah why not.

suicide_circus

You'd be mad to open a shop or any business with a public premises. Sly arseholes throwing themselves over any available obstacle for a grubby claim.

RobbingBandit

irish bloke wrote: »

She still fell in the store injuring herself so the shop is liable - No different then a customer spilling water on the floor and someone slipping on it.

The split water two man con I like it.

gramar

The Wolverine wrote: »

I'll leave the case down and you can trip over it? Split the payout?

jamesbere wrote: »

Yeah why not.

You can discuss the details over a few beers.

whiskeyman

Would I intentionally fracture my knee and live with the possibility of pain and early arthritis, and damage my love of sport?



Nope.


Seems one of the more genuine cases around to be fair.
I've seen a lot more awarded for a lot less.

ThisRegard

irish bloke wrote: »

She still fell in the store injuring herself so the shop is liable - No different then a customer spilling water on the floor and someone slipping on it.

Bit of a difference when water is left lying around as a hazard and not being mopped up compared to customers browsing and queuing and leaving things momentarily down while doing so.

Should the store erect "No putting objects on the ground" signs?

whiskeyman wrote: »

Would I intentionally fracture my knee and live with the possibility of pain and early arthritis, and damage my love of sport?



Nope.


Seems one of the more genuine cases around to be fair.
I've seen a lot more awarded for a lot less.

The injuries shouldn't have any bearing on who is liable for the accident, as bad as they may be.

gramar

whiskeyman wrote: »

Would I intentionally fracture my knee and live with the possibility of pain and early arthritis, and damage my love of sport?



Nope.


Seems one of the more genuine cases around to be fair.
I've seen a lot more awarded for a lot less.

It is a genuine claim but holding the supermarket responsible or at least to that degree is unfair. How can you possible control a customer leaving his beer on the floor in the queue? She also walked through the queue to get where she as going instead of around it.

irish bloke

gramar wrote: »

It is a genuine claim but holding the supermarket responsible or at least to that degree is unfair. How can you possible control a customer leaving his beer on the floor in the queue? She also walked through the queue to get where she as going instead of around it.

That's what public liability insurance is for!!

robarmstrong

This is beyond a joke. Almost 50K for something your own fault? I mean how difficult is it for someone to follow the basic principle of watch where the fcuk you're going ?

Surely the judge could have just awarded her the costs of physiotherapy to help facilitate the healing of her knee, no?

lawred2

ThisRegard wrote: »

Guying queuing in a store puts a case of beer down, another woman falls over it when walking by, she sues the store, judge awards her €60,000, knocking it down to €48,000 because he found her 20% liable. In other words the store is 80% at fault for a guy putting a case of beer down for what was a apparently a few minutes, he even apologised to her for doing it.

Do businesses need to assign each customer a minder from now on?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/nurse-32-awarded-48000-after-tripping-over-sixpack-of-beer-in-tesco-store-35206370.html

Is that not what public liability insurance is for?

gramar

irish bloke wrote: »

That's what public liability insurance is for!!

The question being asked is if the supermarket was liable in the first place.
The general consensus seems to be that it isn't or not to that degree.

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

You'd be mad to open a shop or any business with a public premises. Sly arseholes throwing themselves over any available obstacle for a grubby claim.

There is no suggestion that the claim was fraudulent. That would see it being thrown out, as happens regularly enough. I wouldn't even have an issue with the quantum and contributory negligence aspects. I just have concerns about the finding of primary liability.

Kalimah

ThisRegard wrote: »

You'll need to agree a back story about how he was just about to sign a professional football contract with a top club, and now can't play football anymore. Judges love stories like that.

Funny that- she said she had had to give up football and running. Isn't it always the way with these these cases. I remember donkeys years back slipping on a squashed mushroom in our local Spar. I picked myself up and prayed no one had seen me- I was mortified. Wouldn't have dreamed of claiming.

Your Face

That story has "The Entertainer" tune in my head.

irish bloke

gramar wrote: »

The question being asked is if the supermarket was liable in the first place.
The general consensus seems to be that it isn't or not to that degree.

I believe the supermarket is liable and I believe the general consensus is incorrect..

Your Face

irish bloke wrote: »

I believe the supermarket is liable and I believe the general consensus is incorrect..

How much did you get?

C3PO

irish bloke wrote: »

I believe the supermarket is liable and I believe the general consensus is incorrect..

Assuming that you are serious .... how can you arrive at that conclusion? What could the supermarket do (within reason) to prevent this happening?

BrokenArrows

Ya its insane.

Thats a ruling that basically means if you injure yourself on any property because of your own fault and not paying basic attention then you can get a payout.

That basically means anyone, anywhere who injures themselves can get a payout.

Even if the court ruled that you were 95% responsible for the accident thats still a 3k payout.

I broke my wrist playing football years and years ago when the ball smacked my wrist back. In todays world i probably could have got a nice payout because the sports centers fault the ball came in my direction. lol.

gramar

Kalimah wrote: »

Funny that- she said she had had to give up football and running. Isn't it always the way with these these cases. I remember donkeys years back slipping on a squashed mushroom in our local Spar. I picked myself up and prayed no one had seen me- I was mortified. Wouldn't have dreamed of claiming.

I'm suprised there is no mention of the word star..as in...former, current or future.

irish bloke

Your Face wrote: »

How much did you get?

Good one, but at the end of the day she tripped over a hazard that shouldn't have been there, regardless of who put it there. If it happened to your mother/sister/wife etc, I bet it would be a different story.

Public Liability Insurance is there to protect businesses in cases like this where members of the public injure themselves on your premises. Would it be fair if that woman was out of work unpaid for 6 months and had medical bills to pay?

ohnonotgmail

Kalimah wrote: »

Funny that- she said she had had to give up football and running. Isn't it always the way with these these cases. I remember donkeys years back slipping on a squashed mushroom in our local Spar. I picked myself up and prayed no one had seen me- I was mortified. Wouldn't have dreamed of claiming.

did you fracture your knee?

BrokenArrows

irish bloke wrote: »

Good one, but at the end of the day she tripped over a hazard that shouldn't have been there, regardless of who put it there.
......

In a queue i totally expect things to be on the ground around customers, bags, baskets, boxes of stuff!! It is totally expected to be there.

C3PO

irish bloke wrote: »

Public Liability Insurance is there to protect businesses in cases like this where members of the public injure themselves on your premises.

My understanding is that the business must be proved to be negligent and I would argue that the supermarket in this case could not be said to be negligent!

A definition of the "Duty of Care" owed under Public Liability:

"You must take reasonable care to ensure the premises are safe. They in turn must take reasonable care for their own safety"

Barry Badrinath

irish bloke wrote: »

Public Liability Insurance is there to protect businesses in cases like this where members of the public injure themselves on your premises. Would it be fair if that woman was out of work unpaid for 6 months and had medical bills to pay?

Thats where income protection comes into play.

Would it be fair if you owned a shop and a person was injured on your premises due to a third party....and you had to foot the bill?

No, it wouldnt be fair.

Your Face

irish bloke wrote: »

Good one, but at the end of the day she tripped over a hazard that shouldn't have been there, regardless of who put it there. If it happened to your mother/sister/wife etc, I bet it would be a different story.

Public Liability Insurance is there to protect businesses in cases like this where members of the public injure themselves on your premises. Would it be fair if that woman was out of work unpaid for 6 months and had medical bills to pay?

The bait isn't tasty enough.

Kalimah

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

did you fracture your knee?

Well obviously not since I got up as quickly as I could and slunk away. If I had injured myself all I would have wanted would have been medical bills covered - not enough to pay off my mortgage. Maybe that's why I have no retirement slush fund and will get only get a private pension of 3k a year at 65 and no state pension til 68.
Not that I'm complaining or cynical mind you!

Ave Sodalis

irish bloke wrote:

Good one, but at the end of the day she tripped over a hazard that shouldn't have been there, regardless of who put it there. If it happened to your mother/sister/wife etc, I bet it would be a different story.

Even if it was myself, it wouldn't be a different story. A man, who has nothing to do with the shop, put down a case of beer. It could very easily have been a basket or other which happens on a very regular basis. If I then came along and fell over it, it would be my own fault for being a clumsy ejit.

irish bloke wrote:

Public Liability Insurance is there to protect businesses in cases like this where members of the public injure themselves on your premises. Would it be fair if that woman was out of work unpaid for 6 months and had medical bills to pay?

See this is why insurance is getting out of hand. If she was out 6 months then it's unfortunate but that's what happens when you don't watch where you are going. Just because the injury may be bad doesn't make the shop any less or more at fault than if you got a bruise. If anyone is at fault, it's the guy who left the beer case down. He is not part of the shop.

Sam Kade

whiskeyman wrote: »

Would I intentionally fracture my knee and live with the possibility of pain and early arthritis, and damage my love of sport?



Nope.


Seems one of the more genuine cases around to be fair.
I've seen a lot more awarded for a lot less.

Ffs last week I fell from a height of 5 feet down onto a concrete yard and got up and walked away unscathed. These fools that trip at ground level and somehow manage to get life long injuries from it, they must have very brittle bones.

ohnonotgmail

Sam Kade wrote: »

Ffs last week I fell from a height of 5 feet down onto a concrete yard and got up and walked away unscathed. These fools that trip at ground level and somehow manage to get life long injuries from it, they must have very brittle bones.

sure aren't you only marvelous.

westcoast66

She'll probably have to pay over half of it in tax anyway, so at least the state will get half the money back.....

Sam Kade

Kalimah wrote: »

Funny that- she said she had had to give up football and running. Isn't it always the way with these these cases. I remember donkeys years back slipping on a squashed mushroom in our local Spar. I picked myself up and prayed no one had seen me- I was mortified. Wouldn't have dreamed of claiming.

If she is a fit young woman who plays football she should be less prone to an injury from a trip, how many times did she fall playing football?

BrokenArrows

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Ya its insane.

Thats a ruling that basically means if you injure yourself on any property because of your own fault and not paying basic attention then you can get a payout.

That basically means anyone, anywhere who injures themselves can get a payout.

Even if the court ruled that you were 95% responsible for the accident thats still a 3k payout.

I broke my wrist playing football years and years ago when the ball smacked my wrist back. In todays world i probably could have got a nice payout because the sports centers fault the ball came in my direction. lol.

Again no, this is wrong.

The court considered her liability and assessed it at 20%. That matter was not overlooked, it was addressed, it is far from throwing the law of negligence out the window as you claim, we have not witness the undoing of 100 years of negligence jurisprudence and anyone can claim for a broken wrist when a ball hits it.

Where I have concerns is why the shop was fixed with primary responsibility when it would seem to me it should rest with the other shopper. Of course, the may be more detail, the shop asked him to move it so knew it was a danger but did nothing themselves, another member of staff moving it to that place after it was left down etc. On the face of what is reported, that is not made clear so prima facie there seems to be a concern about why the shop was collared.

Sam Kade

Sam Kade wrote: »

Ffs last week I fell from a height of 5 feet down onto a concrete yard and got up and walked away unscathed. These fools that trip at ground level and somehow manage to get life long injuries from it, they must have very brittle bones.

Sure sue yourself. And gravity.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Again no, this is wrong.

The court considered her liability and assessed it at 20%. That matter was not overlooked, it was addressed, it is far from throwing the law of negligence out the window as you claim, we have not witness the undoing of 100 years of negligence jurisprudence and anyone can claim for a broken wrist when a ball hits it.

Where I have concerns is why the shop was fixed with primary responsibility when it would seem to me it should rest with the other shopper. Of course, the may be more detail, the shop asked him to move it so knew it was a danger but did nothing themselves, another member of staff moving it to that place after it was left down etc. On the face of what is reported, that is not made clear so prima facie there seems to be a concern about why the shop was collared.

does the shop not have an obligation to ensure that the floor is clear of trip hazards and to act appropriately if one occurs?

BrokenArrows

westcoast66 wrote: »

She'll probably have to pay over half of it in tax anyway, so at least the state will get half the money back.....

Personal Injury claim payments are not taxed.

Sam Kade

westcoast66 wrote: »

She'll probably have to pay over half of it in tax anyway, so at least the state will get half the money back.....

No tax on compensation claims.

westcoast66

Sam Kade wrote: »

westcoast66 wrote: »

She'll probably have to pay over half of it in tax anyway, so at least the state will get half the money back.....

No tax on compensation claims.

Incorrect.

The person can only avoid paying tax if her injury results in her being permanently incapacitated and unable to earn a living.

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

And more specifically, the person can avoid paying tax if:

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.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

does the shop not have an obligation to ensure that the floor is clear of trip hazards and to act appropriately if one occurs?

A very broad obligation. Certainly if a staff member placed the obstacle there, then it would be obvious liability. And then you slide down through different scenarios along the spectrum, someone drops a bottle of oil and the shop knows about it but leaves it, probable liability. But someone drops something and falls over it themselves, then very hard to see how anyone but them could be liable, a Court would probably just conclude that shops have to have items that can be handled but dropping one would be the shoppers own fault.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

A very broad obligation. Certainly if a staff member placed the obstacle there, then it would be obvious liability. And then you slide down through different scenarios along the spectrum, someone drops a bottle of oil and the shop knows about it but leaves it, probable liability.

I would have thought that in a case where the shop was aware of a trip hazard and ignored it they would definitely be liable.

Deleted User wrote: »

But someone drops something and falls over it themselves, then very hard to see how anyone but them could be liable, a Court would probably just conclude that shops have to have items that can be handled but dropping one would be the shoppers own fault.

no argument there.

HS3

Deleted User wrote: »

Again no, this is wrong.

The court considered her liability and assessed it at 20%. That matter was not overlooked, it was addressed, it is far from throwing the law of negligence out the window as you claim, we have not witness the undoing of 100 years of negligence jurisprudence and anyone can claim for a broken wrist when a ball hits it.

Where I have concerns is why the shop was fixed with primary responsibility when it would seem to me it should rest with the other shopper. Of course, the may be more detail, the shop asked him to move it so knew it was a danger but did nothing themselves, another member of staff moving it to that place after it was left down etc. On the face of what is reported, that is not made clear so prima facie there seems to be a concern about why the shop was collared.

Really? You don't know why the shop was collared? With all the legal jargon in your posts, it surprising you wouldn't know how or why the shop were brought onto it.

They owed the woman a duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act. She was injured on their premises. They didn't take due care in ensuring her journey through the shop wouldnt cause her harm. Why would they sue the other shopper and get nothing but a judgment registered against them, when they can sue the shop and get cash!?

OldNotWIse

HS3 wrote: »

Really? You don't know why the shop was collared? With all the legal jargon in your posts, it surprising you wouldn't know how or why the shop were brought onto it.

They owed the woman a duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act. She was injured on their premises. They didn't take due care in ensuring her journey through the shop wouldnt cause her harm. Why would they sue the other shopper and get nothing but a judgment registered against them, when they can sue the shop and get cash!?

I don't find his posts filled with legal jargon at all - quite the opposite actually, clear and coherent explanation of the legal issues involved - something which is missing in a lot of the other "rabble rabble" posts here.


The question is why the shop was fixed with liability, not why the customer decided to go after them. We know a shop with public liability has deeper pockets than a customer, but that is perhaps the claimants reason for pursuing the store - it's not a legal justification for finding them liable.

HS3

HS3 wrote: »

Really? You don't know why the shop was collared? With all the legal jargon in your posts, it surprising you wouldn't know how or why the shop were brought onto it.

They owed the woman a duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act. She was injured on their premises. They didn't take due care in ensuring her journey through the shop wouldnt cause her harm. Why would they sue the other shopper and get nothing but a judgment registered against them, when they can sue the shop and get cash!?

Oh no denying they owed a duty of care, but the Occupier's Liability Act does not dispense with the need to show negligence in the first place. The duty of care existed long before the Occupier's Liability Act, and it did not change the law for premises like this and did not introduce strict liability. Negligence must always be demonstrated, and the first issue is liability, who is responsible. The report in the OP does not clearly set out why the shop is responsible, how did they contribute to the act, what could they have reasonably foreseen etc. Thats not to say it wasn't set out by the Judge at all, newspaper reports can often miss the point. I can see why the shop was sued, but the Court is not under some obligation to fix the shop with responsibility, they still have to identify the negligence on the part of the shop.