Dental Nurse looses claim against DB

gmisk

http://www.thejournal.ie/skankhole-bus-stop-driver-dublin-3321852-Apr2017/

Skankhole is a new word to me.....but if she was dropping litter I am on the bus drivers side!

punisher5112

Litter bug fits much better or dirt bird that would suit.

Elemonator

Can't understand why her solicitor took the case. On its face, it looks to be vulgar abuse which is not defamatory.

Samuel T. Cogley

LOL!

That's absolutely brilliant!

Samuel T. Cogley

Elemonator wrote: »

Can't understand why her solicitor took the case. On its face, it looks to be vulgar abuse which is not defamatory.

Solicitors advise, the punter takes the decision.

.......

This post has been deleted.

RedXIV

Elemonator wrote: »

Can't understand why her solicitor took the case. On its face, it looks to be vulgar abuse which is not defamatory.

To be fair, every other claim for anything innocuous seems to be getting granted

frostyjacks

A rare victory for common sense in the courts.

Haven't heard that particular expression either. Seen plenty of skanks in Dublin, I'm assuming a skankhole is where they reside?

punisher5112

frostyjacks wrote: »

A rare victory for common sense in the courts.

Haven't heard that particular expression either. Seen plenty of skanks in Dublin, I'm assuming a skankhole is where they reside?

Had a complaint years ago that I called a fool a parasite, funny thing is I've never said that word or even actually thought of calling someone it.

coylemj

No order as to costs which means DB have to pay their own legal fees - no winners in this case. Judge Groarke can be a bit too generous for my liking in some PI cases (child suffers a trivial injury in a playground - gets a five figure sum, that sort of thing) but I'm glad to see he put his foot firmly on the brakes here.

You have to assume that a private citizen could not risk taking a large company to the Circuit Court with a flimsy case like this so I would assume that it was taken on a 'no foal, no fee' basis in which case she gets off with a case of mild embarrassment and the other parties pick up the tab.

So all of us commuters will end up paying for this charade.

XPS_Zero

(Deleted -multiple posts for some reason)

Dyr

Should be fined for littering too

XPS_Zero

Bus drivers have to put up with so much crap.

A coach driver I know on a BE school run, private driver, tried enforcing the rule (clearly outlined on a list sent home to parents) that food and drink were banned on the busses

This company's a well regarded brand known for high quality busses and has a great reputation. The owner/operator made the rule because it was costing him a fortune to re-upholster seats and replace covers with mashed in crisps, tears, spills one time a bottle rolled up front nearly going under the brake pedal.

He'd hire these busses out for weddings and company outings so mashed up food and torn seats and sticky floors don't go well with getting you repeat business

The driver asked he to put her crisps away until she was home. The most dull reasonable request imaginable, reminding her it was against the rules. She refused several times before putting them away

Keep in mind for later she'd been giggling and laughing and he asked her "did you not eat a lunch only 2-3 hours ago?" She said yes but was "peckish"
So he thinks no more of it. Next day his boss comes in to tell him there's been a complaint, apparently already knowing it's veracity "did you stop a child having a diabetic episode from eating?"
"No if a child was having a diabetic anything I'd have called the medics to be on the safe side"
"Something about a packet of crisps?"
"Salted potato chips with no sugars help a diabetic episode??"
"I don't know but she's going mental"

Later that week the girls "diabetic episode" and the sinister driver who didn't care if she slipped into a coma was front page in the local paper, he nor the company were called for comment or their side as journalist ethics requires maybe expecting too much from those Micky mouse papers. The picture of angry mammy beside girl with a bag of crisps biting into one was captioned "(name) takes a bite on a life saving crisp".

XPS_Zero

(Deleted)

punisher5112

XPS_Zero wrote: »

(Deleted)

What's deleted the training nurse?????

n97 mini

coylemj wrote: »

No order as to costs which means DB have to pay their own legal fees - no winners in this case. Judge Groarke can be a bit too generous for my liking in some PI cases (child suffers a trivial injury in a playground - gets a five figure sum, that sort of thing) but I'm glad to see he put his foot firmly on the brakes here.

You have to assume that a private citizen could not risk taking a large company to the Circuit Court with a flimsy case like this so I would assume that it was taken on a 'no foal, no fee' basis in which case she gets off with a case of mild embarrassment and the other parties pick up the tab.

So all of us commuters will end up paying for this charade.

DB probably have their own legal staff.

thebiglad

n97 mini wrote: »

DB probably have their own legal staff.

Who work for free??

What about Barristers and other Court expenses.

Too many cases where claimant's get to roll the dice, lose and end up with no costs order - there needs to a downside, at the moment nothing to lose...

Masala

thebiglad wrote: »

Who work for free??

What about Barristers and other Court expenses.

Too many cases where claimant's get to roll the dice, lose and end up with no costs order - there needs to a downside, at the moment nothing to lose...

But does she have to pick up her own costs???? Would they not be substantial?? Would her solicitor be at least out of pocket even on a 'no win- no fee' basis???

n97 mini

thebiglad wrote: »

Who work for free??

What about Barristers and other Court expenses.

Too many cases where claimant's get to roll the dice, lose and end up with no costs order - there needs to a downside, at the moment nothing to lose...

They legal staff get paid regardless of what theyre doing!!!

Not necessary to employ a barrister, dunno if that was the case here!!!!

Stark

She should have a go at suing whoever is behind those "Litter is disgusting, so are those responsible" ads next!

coylemj

n97 mini wrote: »

They legal staff get paid regardless of what theyre doing!!!

Not necessary to employ a barrister, dunno if that was the case here!!!!

I don't think a salaried barrister is allowed to appear in court, you have to be a freelancer. Solicitors who are fulltime employees are ok (as is the case with the state solicitors) but barristers have to be sole practitioners to have the right of audience.

The news article mentions Jeri Ward - 'counsel for Dublin Bus' which is this lady who would command a fee ....

https://www.lawlibrary.ie/members/Jeri-Ward/752.aspx

thebiglad

n97 mini wrote: »

They legal staff get paid regardless of what theyre doing!!!

Not necessary to employ a barrister, dunno if that was the case here!!!!

This was the Civil Court, a Barrister is required. A Solicitor can represent you in District Court only. Take it to High Court and you can add a Senior Counsel to the list of requirements and fees.

coylemj

Masala wrote: »

But does she have to pick up her own costs????

Technically yes but in practice no. I strongly suspect her only costs was the bus fare to the court.

Masala wrote: »

Would they not be substantial??

No, there was no injuries so no medical fees, hospital charges, scans etc. to be covered. If she had a barrister, it was probably also a 'no foal, no fee' arrangement, same as with the solicitor.

Masala wrote: »

Would her solicitor be at least out of pocket even on a 'no win- no fee' basis???

Yes, in relative terms he is probably the biggest loser in this case. But he/she probably picks up fees from other PI and opportunistic cases involving defendants with deep pockets.

thomasj

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/woman-who-said-bus-driver-called-her-skankhole-loses-case-1.3034832

Elemonator

thebiglad wrote: »

This was the Civil Court, a Barrister is required. A Solicitor can represent you in District Court only. Take it to High Court and you can add a Senior Counsel to the list of requirements and fees.

I am almost sure solicitors have rights of audience in the Superior Courts.

A SC is not necessary for the High Court. Only 12.5% of barristers are SC. I've seen many junior counsels in the Courts. Many go through their careers without even reaching SC.

Samuel T. Cogley

Elemonator wrote: »

I am almost sure solicitors have rights of audience in the Superior Courts.

A SC is not necessary for the High Court. Only 12.5% of barristers are SC. I've seen many junior counsels in the Courts. Many go through their careers without even reaching SC.

They do but almost never exercise it AFAIK. Legal aid allows for a Junior only in the Circuit, a senior in the High Court. I'm not saying she had legal aid but these thing tend to set the norm. + 1 on the JC remaining as such, I know one with 20 odd years experience running cases in the HC alone.

No jury and 75K so I assume this was circuit?

Elemonator

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

They do but almost never exercise it AFAIK. Legal aid allows for a Junior only in the Circuit, a senior in the High Court. I'm not saying she had legal aid but these thing tend to set the norm. + 1 on the JC remaining as such, I know one with 20 odd years experience running cases in the HC alone.

No jury and 75K so I assume this was circuit?

+1 on never exercising it. I have only seen two and that was quite recently (the Mother and Baby homes records recovery) and myself, though I am not qualified yet.

I think it was Circuit Court, Justice Groarke is the President of the Circuit Court.

n97 mini

thebiglad wrote: »

This was the Civil Court, a Barrister is required. A Solicitor can represent you in District Court only. Take it to High Court and you can add a Senior Counsel to the list of requirements and fees.

A barrister is not required in the circuit court. As I said above I don't know the details of this particular case.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/civil_law/civil_bill.html

john boye

Even if he was technically right in what he said I assume the driver would surely have questions to answer with DB in relation to the language he used addressing a customer?

punisher5112

john boye wrote: »

Even if he was technically right in what he said I assume the driver would surely have questions to answer with DB in relation to the language he used addressing a customer?

He didn't use any language apart from pick up your rubbish.

john boye

punisher5112 wrote: »

He didn't use any language apart from pick up your rubbish.

All the reports I've seen on it quote him as calling her a "f***ing skankhole"?

punisher5112

john boye wrote: »

All the reports I've seen on it quote him as calling her a "f***ing skankhole"?

That's what she says when in reality it should say bus driver asked your one to pick up her litter.

john boye

punisher5112 wrote: »

That's what she says when in reality it should say bus driver asked your one to pick up her litter.

From everything I've read, the fact that he called her a "f***ing skankhole" isn't in doubt. It's the connotations of the term that he was in court for.

gctest50

XPS_Zero wrote: »

Bus drivers have to put up with so much crap.

A coach driver I know on a BE school run, private driver, tried enforcing the rule (clearly outlined on a list sent home to parents) that food and drink were banned on the busses

This company's a well regarded brand known for high quality busses and has a great reputation. The owner/operator made the rule because it was costing him a fortune to re-upholster seats and replace covers with mashed in crisps, tears, spills one time a bottle rolled up front nearly going under the brake pedal.

He'd hire these busses out for weddings and company outings so mashed up food and torn seats and sticky floors don't go well with getting you repeat business

The driver asked he to put her crisps away until she was home. The most dull reasonable request imaginable, reminding her it was against the rules. She refused several times before putting them away

Keep in mind for later she'd been giggling and laughing and he asked her "did you not eat a lunch only 2-3 hours ago?" She said yes but was "peckish"
So he thinks no more of it. Next day his boss comes in to tell him there's been a complaint, apparently already knowing it's veracity "did you stop a child having a diabetic episode from eating?"
"No if a child was having a diabetic anything I'd have called the medics to be on the safe side"
"Something about a packet of crisps?"
"Salted potato chips with no sugars help a diabetic episode??"
"I don't know but she's going mental"

Later that week the girls "diabetic episode" and the sinister driver who didn't care if she slipped into a coma was front page in the local paper, he nor the company were called for comment or their side as journalist ethics requires maybe expecting too much from those Micky mouse papers. The picture of angry mammy beside girl with a bag of crisps biting into one was captioned "(name) takes a bite on a life saving crisp".

"Salted potato chips with no sugars help a diabetic episode??"

Carbs

Treating an episode of hypoglycaemia

The immediate treatment for hypoglycaemia is to have some sugary food or drink (about 15 to 20g of rapidly acting carbohydrate) to end the attack.

For example, this could be:
•a glass of fruit juice or non-diet soft drink
•between three and five dextrose tablets
•a handful of sweets

After having something sugary, you should have a longer-acting carbohydrate food, such as a few biscuits, a cereal bar, a piece of fruit or a sandwich.

or she was heading it off before it happened - no point waiting till your imaginary bus runs out of diesel and stops on the road before you refill it

You could email and ask Theresa May, y'know PM of that big country next door with the nuclear weapons - she has Type 1 diabetes

L1011

gctest50 wrote: »

Carbs

Crisps are not a fast-acting carbohydrate.

Local newspapers are particularly bad for the not refusing ink problem. Likely didn't even verify if the child *was* diabetic let alone look in to the story.

gctest50

XPS_Zero wrote: »

.....

Keep in mind for later she'd been giggling and laughing .......

Maybe she gets gelastic seizures

gctest50

L1011 wrote: »

Crisps are not a fast-acting carbohydrate.....

.After having something sugary, you should have a longer-acting carbohydrate food, such as a few biscuits, a cereal bar, a piece of fruit or a sandwich.

whisky_galore

john boye wrote: »

From everything I've read, the fact that he called her a "f***ing skankhole" isn't in doubt. It's the connotations of the term that he was in court for.

Sticks and stones...generation snowflake.

L1011

gctest50 wrote: »

.After having something sugary, you should have a longer-acting carbohydrate food, such as a few biscuits, a cereal bar, a piece of fruit or a sandwich.

Still doesn't meet the requirements for that. Too small for one.

Having had to be able of dealing with nearly anyone from my mothers genetically doomed side of the family having a hypo since I was a kid, I don't need to have the same lines re-quoted at me - particularly when they clearly don't apply.

I'd take a guess that the kid doesn't even have diabetes and the mother just doesn't like the idea of anyone else telling her what to do. Extremely common now. If you've ever worked in retail or customer care you'll see that people lie all the time

magicbastarder

gctest50 wrote: »

.After having something sugary, you should have a longer-acting carbohydrate food, such as a few biscuits, a cereal bar, a piece of fruit or a sandwich.

all that said, are you saying the bus driver acted incorrectly? if the girl did not tell him she was diabetic, what's he to do?

hytrogen

frostyjacks wrote:

Haven't heard that particular expression either. Seen plenty of skanks in Dublin, I'm assuming a skankhole is where they reside?

Next to the gloryhole?

everlast75

There is nowhere in the article that says the Court found as a matter of fact the driver actually called her that, so the headline should have used the word "allegedly". He could probably sue the Journal for saying that he did.

Secondly, she didn't deny dropping her rubbish. People like that deserve to be called anything on God's green Earth in my opinion

nuac

thebiglad wrote: »

This was the Civil Court, a Barrister is required. A Solicitor can represent you in District Court only. Take it to High Court and you can add a Senior Counsel to the list of requirements and fees.

A solicitor is entitled to represent a client in all courts. Some have done so. Have done so myself in some particular matters.
It is more usual for the solicitor to brief a barrister who has the appropriate experience and speciality

cython

everlast75 wrote: »

There is nowhere in the article that says the Court found as a matter of fact the driver actually called her that, so the headline should have used the word "allegedly". He could probably sue the Journal for saying that he did.

Secondly, she didn't deny dropping her rubbish. People like that deserve to be called anything on God's green Earth in my opinion

We must have read different articles so:

thejournal.ie wrote:

Circuit Court President, Justice Raymond Groarke, said the court was satisfied the driver had made the remarks complained of.

While that description does not use the word "fact", that the court was "satisfied" as to the veracity of the claim that the words were used is equivalent here.

everlast75

cython wrote: »

We must have read different articles so:



While that description does not use the word "fact", that the court was "satisfied" as to the veracity of the claim that the words were used is equivalent here.

didn't see that - agreed

Sam Russell

Could DB go back and look for costs or does 'making no order as to costs mean that is the end of the matter?

Samuel T. Cogley

Sam Russell wrote: »

Could DB go back and look for costs or does 'making no order as to costs mean that is the end of the matter?

AFAIK it means they weren't requested. There seems to be a trend (i.e. I've seen it twice and jumped to a conclusion) that if an appeal is made costs are awarded if the appeal goes againt the plaintiff. This saves DB a huge amount in costs rather than them being awarded for what could potentially be one JC in the Curcuit (and the court fees ofc.). DB will have solicitors anyway.

If it went to the High Court they'd have hugely increased costs and all the orders in the world can't get blood from a skankhole stone.

coylemj

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

AFAIK it means they weren't requested.

I think in this case it was because the judge found that the driver did hurl the claimed insult at the plaintiff so DB wasn't completely innocent and were probably made to bear their own costs as a result.

But otherwise you are correct, there are cases where the winning side does not ask for costs, this is usually where they are happy to win a case which will have positive implications for future situations. The recent case of the child who fell and broke her leg during a game of chase in a playground at a Blackrock school is an example. The school's insurance company was probably delighted to win the case and did not ask for costs even though the plaintiff didn't get a cent.

Judge dismisses €38k claim after child fell playing chase in school yard

JCX BXC

That's shocking, no wonder health and safety has gone so heavy lately.

I assume in a few years we'll all have bubble wrapping around us to prevent us from the outside world?

Samuel T. Cogley

JCX BXC wrote: »

That's shocking, no wonder health and safety has gone so heavy lately.

I assume in a few years we'll all have bubble wrapping around us to prevent us from the outside world?

:rolleyes:

Every single thread.

JCX BXC

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Every single thread.

Do you not agree with that I said?

Yano, contribute and all?