Fair play to that judge

NIMAN

I wouldn't be a fan of the compo culture which seems to be out of control in this country at present, and it saddens me to see vultures getting big money for such terrible injuries as banging their knee on a table.

But this story struck a chord with me
http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/i-cant-ban-games-in-school-judge-tells-mother-of-girl-6-injured-during-game-of-chase-35591576.html

There was another big refusal of compensation in court to a girl who a bus driver basically slagged off for dropping litter, but the linked story actually made me rejoice in the justice system.

As a father of 3 small kids, I feel their school lives could have been irreparably damaged had this woman won her case. I'm sure a lot of insurance companies would have told their schools to tell their kids, 'no running allowed anyway'. And all because one single woman wanted a few quid for an injury that happened 7 yrs ago. People like her have the potential to affect hundreds of thousands of others..

So for that, fair play judge, I'd like to shake your hand.

please helpThank YOU

But the Poor Child was Injured the Child is Paramount in Law?

amcalester

Good to see common sense prevail.

Hunchback

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

But the Poor Child was Injured the Child is Paramount in Law?

....and it is in the interests of children that the judge found as he did

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

The_Valeyard

Patww79 wrote: »

Two stories that put a small bit of my faith back in things.

Now if we can just reverse that restaurant claim.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Claims against schools and crèches for accident while kids are playing almost always fail. Kids will be kids, they will fall and they will get hurt and all the supervisors in the world won't prevent that.

Doctor Nick

Not read article but presume this is the skankhole. Precious little thing. Hopefully, as a result of the publicity, she'll be known as skankhole by everyone going forward. Fair play to the judge.

byhookorbycrook

As a primary teacher, I am thrilled to see this common sense prevail. It's a pity there aren't more judges who can see that children can't be bubble wrapped and need to run/jump/climb/get dirty.

please helpThank YOU

Hunchback wrote: »

....and it is in the interests of children that the judge found as he did

The Judge should not of done this to a very young child who was hurt Injured in the School as the law says a child is Paramount in Law so the Judge is totally wrong in Law.

bear1

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

The Judge should not of done this to a very young child who was hurt Injured in the School as the law says a child is Paramount in Law so the Judge is totally wrong in Law.

Did the child bring the case to court or the adult?
Kids get hurt, no way to stop it.
It's also needed so that they can learn and develop.. we are talking about a game called chase not Russian roulette.
Fair play judge

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

The Judge should not of done this to a very young child who was hurt Injured in the School as the law says a child is Paramount in Law so the Judge is totally wrong in Law.

If you really believe that then you have no understanding of law: there is no law that states someone must automatically be responsible every time there is an accident.

I got injured at school. Many times. As did most of us. Some of us even wound up in emergency wards. But we got up, we healed and we got on with it.

Venom

This sort of bollocks will continue until Judges start making all legal costs liable by the losing party.

please helpThank YOU

Venom wrote: »

This sort of bollocks will continue until Judges start making all legal costs liable by the losing party.

Who a Young Child?

please helpThank YOU

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

The Judge should not of done this to a very young child who was hurt Injured in the School as the law says a child is Paramount in Law so the Judge is totally wrong in Law.

You are completely confusing different areas of law, the interests of the child are paramount in matters like custody and access disputes, but the do not trump the law of negligence in tort...albeit that the standard of care is higher. Nonetheless, it is not so great as to displace common sense, kids play and kids fall, the Courts almost always throw out these claims.

please helpThank YOU

Deleted User wrote: »

You are completely confusing different areas of law, the interests of the child are paramount in matters like custody and access disputes, but the do not trump the law of negligence in tort...albeit that the standard of care is higher. Nonetheless, it is not so great as to displace common sense, kids play and kids fall, the Courts almost always throw out these claims.

So in one court the child is Paramount in law . and when the young child gets hurt Injured he/she is not Paramount why is that?

please helpThank YOU

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

So in one court the child is Paramount in law . and when the young child gets hurt Injured he/she is not Paramount why is that?

Because they are completely different areas of law, with very different issues. And it's pretty obvious why. Because in custody and access cases, the interests of the child should be crucial. But in tort, it shouldn't automatically mean there was negligence when there was none.

pablo128

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

So in one court the child is Paramount in law . and when the young child gets hurt Injured he/she is not Paramount why is that?

If your child tripped over a sweeping brush in your kitchen and busted their arm or something, would you put in a personal injuries claim against your house insurance?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

So in one court the child is Paramount in law . and when the young child gets hurt Injured he/she is not Paramount why is that?

The child is not paramount in law - the child's interests are paramount. And in this case, the childs interests are not served by the handing of a large sum of money to the parent.

please helpThank YOU

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The child is not paramount in law - the child's interests are paramount. And in this case, the childs interests are not served by the handing of a large sum of money to the parent.

Yes the Injured Hurt Child should have been Compensated for his/hers Injuries as one law says the child is Paramount in Law but now the Hurt Injured Child is not why is that ?

please helpThank YOU

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

Yes the Injured Hurt Child should have been Compensated for his/hers Injuries as one law says the child is Paramount in Law but now the Hurt Injured Child is not why is that ?

Because they are completely different areas in l...wait, are we going round in circles?

Read Shatter on Family Law, and McMahon and Binchy on Tort. Otherwise it's just like saying "but one kid got stitches, one kid got a cast, why don't Doctors treat all kids the same".

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

Yes the Injured Hurt Child should have been Compensated for his/hers Injuries as one law says the child is Paramount in Law but now the Hurt Injured Child is not why is that ?

The bit in bold is not correct, as has been explained. Furthermore, the answer to your question was posted in the post you replied to.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

... in this case, the childs interests are not served by the handing of a large sum of money to the parent.

please helpThank YOU

Deleted User wrote: »

Because they are completely different areas in l...wait, are we going round in circles?

Read Shatter on Family Law, and McMahon and Binchy on Tort. Otherwise it's just like saying "but one kid got stitches, one kid got a cast, why don't Doctors treat all kids the same".

In my Opinion the Judge did not give the Injured/Hurt Child Compensation as The Judge is appoint by the government who own the schools that is why the child was not Paramount in law .

Esel

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

In my Opinion the Judge did not give the Injured/Hurt Child Compensation as The Judge is appoint by the government who own the schools that is why the child was not Paramount in law .

There is a Conspiracy Theories forum on Boards. You should feel right at home there.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Venom

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

In my Opinion the Judge did not give the Injured/Hurt Child Compensation as The Judge is appoint by the government who own the schools that is why the child was not Paramount in law .

please helpThank YOU

So Day one child in Family law court the child is Paramount. So Day two child civil court child is not Paramount and gets hurt/Injured in a Government School this case stinks .

cursai

belch!!!! paramount in laaaawwwww!!!!!

Noveight

Jaysus, the mother was trying fair hard to get money for nothing.

please helpThank YOU

My heart goes out to the Hurt/Injured Child and his mother . The Judges will have there big brandy steaks Tonite.

HeidiHeidi

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

But the Poor Child was Injured the Child is Paramount in Law?

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

The Judge should not of done this to a very young child who was hurt Injured in the School as the law says a child is Paramount in Law so the Judge is totally wrong in Law.

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

So in one court the child is Paramount in law . and when the young child gets hurt Injured he/she is not Paramount why is that?

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

Yes the Injured Hurt Child should have been Compensated for his/hers Injuries as one law says the child is Paramount in Law but now the Hurt Injured Child is not why is that ?

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

In my Opinion the Judge did not give the Injured/Hurt Child Compensation as The Judge is appoint by the government who own the schools that is why the child was not Paramount in law .

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

So Day one child in Family law court the child is Paramount. So Day two child civil court child is not Paramount and gets hurt/Injured in a Government School this case stinks .

Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true.

I think you need a new argument!

please helpThank YOU

them Judges will be out foxhunting in weekend blowing their Trumpets .

Noveight

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

My heart goes out to the Hurt/Injured Child and his mother . The Judges will have there big brandy steaks Tonite.

Hold on. You do realise that the child in question was the woman's daughter, not her son? A name like Veronika might have given it away.

Did you even read the article, actually?

please helpThank YOU

Noveight wrote: »

Hold on. You do realise that the child in question was the woman's daughter, not her son? A name like Veronika might have given it away.

Did you even read the article, actually?

Type error:cool:

please helpThank YOU

So when your child him/her falls in the school yard and gets brain damage guess what this Judge will send you and your brain damage child packing so that is right?

Esel

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

So when your child him/her falls in the school yard and gets brain damage guess what this Judge will send you and your brain damage child packing so that is right?

Who would be at fault in that scenario?

please helpThank YOU

Esel wrote: »

Who would be at fault in that scenario?

So your Child is the school playground sum other child pushes your child and your child hits her/his head of the ground. resulting in your child having brain damage and you and your child are up in front of this Judge/Lord and he tells you and your brain damage child will not get a cent today.

Baron Kurtz

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

So your Child is the school playground sum other child pushes your child and your child hits her/his head of the ground. resulting in your child having brain damage and you and your child are up in front of this Judge/Lord and he tells you and your brain damage child will not get a cent today.

Sounds like it's not only the child that has brain damage

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

So your Child is the school playground sum other child pushes your child and your child hits her/his head of the ground. resulting in your child having brain damage and you and your child are up in front of this Judge/Lord and he tells you and your brain damage child will not get a cent today.

Child child child, childy mc child face.

Your arguments are outlandish.

please helpThank YOU

Priscilla Gentle Tadpole wrote: »

Child child child, childy mc child face.

Your arguments are outlandish.

So are you tell me no Child has never been pushed by other child in school play yard?. Hit his/her head off the ground/wall received brain damage Injury?.

Esel

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

So are you tell me no Child has never been pushed by other child in school play yard?. Hit his/her head off the ground/wall received brain damage Injury?.

If I get brain damage from repeatedly banging my head off the wall, can I successfully sue you?

Canis Lupus

Priscilla Gentle Tadpole wrote: »

Child child child, childy mc child face.

Your arguments are outlandish.

That's because he's trolling you. Look at all the compensation claim threads. He does the same in each. No idea why though.

please helpThank YOU

Mother and her child should appeal her case to the higher courts for Justice. for Injured/hurt child .

4ensic15

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

So in one court the child is Paramount in law . and when the young child gets hurt Injured he/she is not Paramount why is that?

The child in school is in the same position as a child getting injured while on an outing with the parents to the seaside or some other venue or falling in their garden. Who would the child sue if she had fallen in her garden?

barneystinson

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

and when the young child gets hurt Injured he/she is not Paramount why is that?

Because Paramount is a major Hollywood film studio...?

Trekker09

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

Mother and her child should appeal her case to the higher courts for Justice. for Injured/hurt child .

The blame lays squarely on the mothers shoulders for not wrapping her child in enough cotton wool.

Dravokivich

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

Mother and her child should appeal her case to the higher courts for Justice. for Injured/hurt child .

They never even said what the "injury" was. As it's a girl we're talking about I suspect she was wearing a skirt and probably scraped her knee.

Little CuChulainn

Dravokivich wrote: »

They never even said what the "injury" was. As it's a girl we're talking about I suspect she was wearing a skirt and probably scraped her knee.

Broken arm I think.

K.Flyer

Dravokivich wrote: »

They never even said what the "injury" was. As it's a girl we're talking about I suspect she was wearing a skirt and probably scraped her knee.

It clearly says in the O.P.'s link to the news item that she broke her arm.

K.Flyer

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

So Day one child in Family law court the child is Paramount. So Day two child civil court child is not Paramount and gets hurt/Injured in a Government School this case stinks .

Say if you have taken your child out to play in the park and there are other parents there who you know and they are with their children who your child is good friends with.
While you are chatting and watching the children play the children start running a little, all having a great time together, maybe playing chasing, your child falls, other children fall on your child and unfortunately your child ends up with a broken arm.
Who do you think is at fault and who do think should be sued?