Woman sues after slipping and falling on a chip in shopping centre

NRR

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/i-am-unlucky-woman-sues-after-slipping-and-falling-on-a-chip-in-dublin-shopping-centre-35730781.html


These are usually good for a bit of a laugh on a Friday, but they seem to be becoming increasingly common. Does this notion of people taking the p*ss out of the system bother anyone else?

Parchment

She got the GHD curls done for court.

Winterlong

Given her other claim 3 years ago for which she got €10k she is indeed very 'unlucky'.

Does 'unlucky' mean 'fecking brass necked chancer'?

diomed

"there was an alleged failure to warn her of the danger posed by the chip" :pac:

SEPT 23 1989

The poor chip didnt stand a chance

Your Face

Its the thin end of the wedge.

donegal.

i wonder if she ate the chip afterwords?

Jaysis. Her kids are very unlucky.

thebiglad

NRR wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/i-am-unlucky-woman-sues-after-slipping-and-falling-on-a-chip-in-dublin-shopping-centre-35730781.html


These are usually good for a bit of a laugh on a Friday, but they seem to be becoming increasingly common. Does this notion of people taking the p*ss out of the system bother anyone else?

Not more claims, just greater amount of reporting.

Kimbot

Serial claimer tries to rack up another claim for ridiculous reason.

0gac3yjefb5sv7

She must have a chip on her shoulder about the system

daheff

Ongoing court case

Armchair Andy

Jeez the chips are down for that poor lady.

Glenster

Simple solution.

Businesses clean up your floors.

Pherekydes

Should I put my comment in here or in the "shallow" thread?

GBX

Glenster wrote: »

Simple solution.

Businesses clean up your floors.

Or people stop claiming just to bleed businesses dry at any miniscule opportunity

Seve OB

Are you the same Albert Gladstone Trotter............

Under cross examination by Declan Buckley SC for the cleaning company, Ms Misiunaite agreed she had settled a claim against Lidl supermarkets for €10,000 after she sued in relation to a slip and fall in February 2013.

Glenster

GBX wrote: »

Or people stop claiming just to bleed businesses dry at any miniscule opportunity

People are scum and will always go on the cheat tho.

Wipe the floor every now and again, save on courtcases.

Kimbot

Glenster wrote: »

People are scum and will always go on the cheat tho.

Wipe the floor every now and again, save on courtcases.

For all we know the woman could have dropped the chip herself.

Lux23

I slipped on a spilled drink in a bar seven years. I chipped by tailbone and have had intermittent pain every since. I never thought to sue. Maybe I was a fool not to.

ChikiChiki

Glenster wrote: »

Simple solution.

Businesses clean up your floors.

Not a chance in hell will she win compo. Also the footfall through LV foodcourt is massive. Very had to keep 100% clean at all times.

bucketybuck

Glenster wrote: »

Simple solution.

Businesses clean up your floors.

The floor could have been perfectly clean, somebody intent on their latest fraudulent claim could easily just throw a chip on the floor themselves, or get a friend to do it for them.

Wait a few minutes, stage a fall for the cameras and wait for the gravy train.

GBX

Glenster wrote: »

People are scum and will always go on the cheat tho.

Wipe the floor every now and again, save on courtcases.

Timing is everything. The cleaner/staff can't chase everybody for fear they could drop something on the floor and slip.

LirW

I'm saying it again, when I was 8 months pregnant in the beginning of this year I sprained my ankle on the road because there were gaps on the ground (Road in sh*te), injured my ankle and I felt like a horse that needs to be put down after a leg injury.
I joked around and said I should totally sue DCC because everyone does that.
Sad thing to see is that I probably would have won that.

What a chancer.

Glenster

jonnycivic wrote: »

For all we know the woman could have dropped the chip herself.

Then they can say we have a system in place for cleaning the floors here it is, here is the log that proves it was done regularly.

Then they can prove that they took all reasonable steps required to prevent her injury, case dismissed.

infogiver

thebiglad wrote: »

Not more claims, just greater amount of reporting.

People are starting to realise that it's the rest of us are paying for this malarkey and the Indo in particular are covering lots of the claims

Cee-Jay-Cee

Glenster wrote: »

People are scum and will always go on the cheat tho.

Wipe the floor every now and again, save on courtcases.

The fooor could have been swept clean 30 seconds before hand. If she maybe opened her eyes and looked where she was going then she wouldn't have fallen. She's a scam artist, I hope she gets zero with costs awarded against her.

miece16

i bet she smells of chip fat

Kimbot

Glenster wrote: »

Then they can say we have a system in place for cleaning the floors here it is, here is the log that proves it was done regularly.

Then they can prove that they took all reasonable steps required to prevent her injury, case dismissed.

Well so far its day 1 of the case, the cleaning company may not have given testimony etc yet so until thats done then we don't know the facts in the case and are only speculating.

In the article the cleaning company have said they have a system in place etc.

brevity

The courts are playing ketchup with all these claims.

Dinging

This woman slipped on a grape and got 1.25 million. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-who-slipped-on-grapes-has-tesco-award-cut-to-125m-35500896.html

Maybe the chip lady chose the wrong food to slip on.

BattleCorp

LirW wrote: »

I'm saying it again, when I was 8 months pregnant in the beginning of this year I sprained my ankle on the road because there were gaps on the ground (Road in sh*te), injured my ankle and I felt like a horse that needs to be put down after a leg injury.
I joked around and said I should totally sue DCC because everyone does that.
Sad thing to see is that I probably would have won that.

What a chancer.

You have 2 years from the date of the incident to put in a claim. Just sayin.

check_six

I am curious to know what the thinking is behind the 'on the phone' shot that is always put up in relation to these cases. Is it that people are just always on the phone, or something more significant?

LirW

BattleCorp wrote: »

You have 2 years from the date of the incident to put in a claim. Just sayin.

Nah, I know a million better ways to invest my time and energy.

Kimbot

check_six wrote: »

I am curious to know what the thinking is behind the 'on the phone' shot that is always put up in relation to these cases. Is it that people are just always on the phone, or something more significant?

Because they are just after walking out of the court room so are ringing their family etc to update them or ringing a taxi/lift to get home.

Summer wind

"Taken from the shop to an ambulance in a wheelchair" She knows how to work it that much is certain.

Do I imagine, or is it nearly always women of certain age these claims happen from?

henryporter

A great man (Mr. Robert Zimmerman AKA Mr. Bob Dylan), once wrote "to live outside the law, you must be honest".

On another note given the shape of that woman, she doesn't appear to accept any personal responsibility for her sojourn on this planet

bucketybuck

check_six wrote: »

I am curious to know what the thinking is behind the 'on the phone' shot that is always put up in relation to these cases. Is it that people are just always on the phone, or something more significant?

People are self conscious if they know somebody is looking at them, taking out the phone and fiddling with it is an easy way of pretending that you are busy and means you don't have to make eye contact with those photographers.

pickarooney

Dinging wrote: »

This woman slipped on a grape and got 1.25 million. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-who-slipped-on-grapes-has-tesco-award-cut-to-125m-35500896.html

Maybe the chip lady chose the wrong food to slip on.

She didn't have such grape expectations

madanall

Judge should tell her to burger off !

check_six

BattleCorp wrote: »

You have 2 years from the date of the incident to put in a claim. Just sayin.

There was a thing on the radio where an insurance fella was claiming that fraudsters would go in to a shop in a pair. One would spill something, the other would slip on it. Then he said that they would wait a good long time before claiming in the hope that the video surveillance would be overwritten. He also said that sometimes they wouldn't even report the fall in the shop.

I have to question the logic of that though. At that point why would you even need to go into a shop at all? Just ring up any random shop. Say you fell over there 1 year and 364 days ago, you had gruesome injuries (which you have now completely recovered from), and a solicitor's letter is on the way. Surely it can't work like that? Can it?

annie.t

donegal. wrote: »

i wonder if she ate the chip afterwords?

Id say she spotted that chip and was running to eat it that's why she fell
😀

The_Kew_Tour

Im sceptical about this happening as no Tsunami happened after she fell, or earthquake even

check_six

jonnycivic wrote: »

Because they are just after walking out of the court room so are ringing their family etc to update them or ringing a taxi/lift to get home.

bucketybuck wrote: »

People are self conscious if they know somebody is looking at them, taking out the phone and fiddling with it is an easy way of pretending that you are busy and means you don't have to make eye contact with those photographers.

These are good reasons for using the phone. I was wondering if there was some other significance to the paper choosing to use an 'on the phone' shot in the article.

"There they are on the phone, plotting again!" That kind of thing. Maybe I'm reading too much into it?

Kimbot

check_six wrote: »

These are good reasons for using the phone. I was wondering if there was some other significance to the paper choosing to use an 'on the phone' shot in the article.

"There they are on the phone, plotting again!" That kind of thing. Maybe I'm reading too much into it?

The photographers only get to see them when they leave the front door and take pics asap to get a pic for their article. No other reason behind it at all

AudreyHepburn

And people wonder why their Insurance premiums are through the roof.

Glad to see some common sense prevail....based on a few recent cases it seems like our Judges are finally stepping up to the plate and dealing with Compo Culture as they should.

Glenster

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

And people wonder why their Insurance premiums are through the roof.

Public liability insurance isn't that bad tbf.

BattleCorp

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

And people wonder why their Insurance premiums are through the roof.

Glad to see some common sense prevail....based on a few recent cases it seems like our Judges are finally stepping up to the plate and dealing with Compo Culture as they should.

Eh, where has common sense prevailed? The court case is still ongoing.

BattleCorp

Glenster wrote: »

Public liability insurance isn't that bad tbf.

Lots of businesses are self-insured up to a certain level and only then does insurance pay out.

I know one business with a yearly excess of €700,000. So any claims up to that amount per year comes directly out of the Company's pockets.

Roger Hassenforder

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

The poor chip didnt stand a chance

A lot of chips didn't stand a chance