40k claim for a failed muscle-up

JJayoo

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Best bet is to engage a solicitor.

You could try and draw up something but you'd still need to get a solicitor to review.

Shouldn't be that expensive.

Yup because at the.moment it is dodgy, the problem is trying to.convince the people who make decisions to listen but hopefully this 40k claim will help enforce rules.

So I'm thinking before you are allowed to use the gym you have to sign a waiver and you have to be shown how to use the equipment. I have the qualifications for gym.instructor and PT so might even be worth while for me to get insured and do the initial demonstration. Now for people who have been using the gym for the past year it would be more a token gesture as it's the young bucks just beginning that are the biggest risk, boredom/hormones/ego = trouble.

And finally I want there to be a yearly membership of maybe 20 euro, as I find people always respect things more when they feel a sense of ownership, and the money can be used for buying bits of equipment here and there.

the_syco

Zillah wrote: »

If you leave food on the floor, and I slip on it and hurt myself, you can bet your ass I expect you to pay the bill.

You you put the food on the ground, and you slip on said food, seems you'll still get money if you sue...!

Brian?

JJayoo wrote: »

Just out of curiosity how would you remedy the situation in which the woman hit her leg of the table? Remove all furniture? Maybe have a padded room ?

I don't know the ins and outs of the case exactly. But liability in cases like this are based on negligence.

I know you think this is gone off the rails, but I was trying to reassure you that it may not be a valid claim that will stand up in court.


The tabloids love to to scream about "compo-culture", but in pretty much every case I've read about it was hard to argue with the judgement. Restaurants not cleaning up, equipment not being serviced, hazards being highlighted and ignored and so on. Don't ever take these things at face value.

Charlie-Bravo

JJayoo wrote: »

The main problem for our gym is that it is unstaffed, so just a gym at the football pitch that anyone can use, so little ****ts invite their even ****tier gimp friends for a messing session.
.

Who out of the group was allowed to be there. Do you have to have signed up or be a member of the club? I'd be calling the guards for trespassing if they're not supposed to be there. That'll change their tune.

Alf Veedersane

Mellor wrote: »

Waivers are fairly useless for gyms.
They cover sports like rugby, MMA, boxing, where there's an expectation of being injured. But if somebody gets hurt in the gym, the waiver is out the window.
See the calf raise example above. Signed waiver, familiar with equipment, personally to blame. Gets 100k from insurance claim.

I didn't say it had to be a waiver.

I meant something that would minimise the potential for claims insofar as is possible.

JJayoo

I always wonder how children's playgrounds can function and what their insurance is like, the amount of fall combined with parents looking for someone else to blame must be through the roof.

Brian?

JJayoo wrote: »

I always wonder how children's playgrounds can function and what their insurance is like, the amount of fall combined with parents looking for someone else to blame must be through the roof.

Because if a child falls and breaks their arm in a playground, the owner of the playground isn't liable unless they've been negligent. If they've poorly maintained the equipment or ignored complaints in the past about possible hazards.

I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but claims are not as straightforward as the tabloids would have you believe.

rubadub

Brian? wrote: »

Because if a child falls and breaks their arm in a playground, the owner of the playground isn't liable unless they've been negligent.

This was a case earlier this year, looking for €38k for a broken arm.

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

Veronika had been engaged in a game of chase with other children and when she fell other children had fallen on top of her. Falling to the ground had not been part of the game.

"She was engaged in a game of chase pure and simple and, while it is most regrettable that she became unbalanced and fell, this was simply an old fashioned accident and I fail to see any liability on the part of the school for that accident," Judge Groarke said.
Dismissing Veronika?s claim the judge said he believed no prudent, responsible and reasonable parent would have prohibited the game of chase that had been taking place in the school yard on the day.

All this talk of chips reminds me I have leftovers from "fish n chip day" :pac:

nice_guy80

signage everywhere
members workout at their OWN risk
centre not held responsible
consult a doctor before beginning exercise
look after equipment

cctv. inside and outside.
our local gym has had equipment walk out the door

electronic key fobs. to be handed in at end of every year.
or just change them - they are cheap.

signage at all equipment explaining how it works - threadmill, squat rack etc

Mellor

nice_guy80 wrote: »

signage at all equipment explaining how it works - threadmill, squat rack etc

This was a big factor in our case above.
The warning label says dont life too much was missing. Complete nonsense that if label was there this hero wouldn't have tried to do all the weights. But compo would have been less or non-existent

Markcheese

Use your "waiver form" to explain that the gym is not giving fitness advice.. Or how to use equipment safely advice (although a folder or laminate with each piece of equipment may be worthwhile...), you could explain the cleaning and maintenence schedules and any users or members have a responsibility to inform management of any issues they see... (a note book by the changing room door) or even place a warning sign on any equipment they feel is damaged..
. .. Use the entire thing as an ass covering exercise / useful safety procedure check...
. . And make sure users properly read and understand whatever form you come up with..

nice_guy80

Get a nice big folder
do a health and safety audit before the gym opens and make a record of all potential hazards and record how they are going to be tackled
and when you put up signage, take a photo of it in place, and then keep the photos as evidence that signage existed

CrankyHaus

OP the document you're thinking of is one in which the person signing voluntarily consents to the risk inherent in the activity.

Some sporting bodies give these to their member clubs to have participants sign, off the top of my head the horse riding body AIRE has one.
Your sporting body may well have one or your Insurer may have suggestions.

It won't stop claims arising from dodgy equipment causing accidents but will help with ones arising from people causing accidents by their own actions, like making a hames of a muscle-up. As mentioned above doing it in conjunction with a H&S Audit, regular documented equipment checks, regular and recorded cleaning, warning signs and documented gym inductions for new members will all help.

Guy Sajer

If a label on the machine says to get instruction on how to use, but there is no staff member present, is it the customers fault for not waiting for instruction, or the gyms for not providing instruction during opening hours?

Avatar MIA

Two things about waivers.

1. A person cannot waive their rights. So, if the gym was poorly maintained. $Kaching$.
2. There may be a false sense of security. 'We've a waiver, be grand'. $Kaching$

While a case may be weak, an insurance company will weigh up the cost of defending and may pay out regardless. They will recoup some or all off the insured eventually with higher premiums.

Am I too cynical?

kippy

Zillah wrote: »

If you leave food on the floor, and I slip on it and hurt myself, you can bet your ass I expect you to pay the bill.

Crazy.
Have you any personal responsibility at all? Why not sue the person who dropped the chip as well.
Chip may only had been on the floor seconds.
OP unfortunately the culture and the courts being as they are open up setups like your own to all manner of nonsense.

Brian?

kippy wrote: »

Crazy.
Have you any personal responsibility at all? Why not sue the person who dropped the chip as well.
Chip may only had been on the floor seconds.
OP unfortunately the culture and the courts being as they are open up setups like your own to all manner of nonsense.

You don't do nuance at all? The restaurant was negligent in not cleaning the floor. This was proven in court.

Zillah

kippy wrote: »

Crazy.
Have you any personal responsibility at all? Why not sue the person who dropped the chip as well.
Chip may only had been on the floor seconds.
OP unfortunately the culture and the courts being as they are open up setups like your own to all manner of nonsense.

You understand that a court will hear all of the pertinent elements and make a decision, right?

Half the people in this thread keep coming up with examples where the establishment was not negligent and then get enraged that there is compensation, but in the real world a court considers the factors involved and if the establishment was not negligent there isn't a pay out.

Your problem isn't the courts, it's your imagination and the tabloid rags you're taking too seriously.

LiamaDelta

Zillah wrote: »

If you leave food on the floor, and I slip on it and hurt myself, you can bet your ass I expect you to pay the bill.

Ah now, you're just baiting the tabloid readers :pac: I'll rephrase it for you - ' If you're negligent and I hurt myself, I expect you to pay the bill' :D

Zillah

Zillah wrote: »

You understand that a court will hear all of the pertinent elements and make a decision, right?

Half the people in this thread keep coming up with examples where the establishment was not negligent and then get enraged that there is compensation, but in the real world a court considers the factors involved and if the establishment was not negligent there isn't a pay out.

Your problem isn't the courts, it's your imagination and the tabloid rags you're taking too seriously.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/man-who-tripped-over-hole-at-halting-site-gets-60-000-1.3041074

LiamaDelta

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/man-who-tripped-over-hole-at-halting-site-gets-60-000-1.3041074

The Council didn't even try to deny negligence. They unsuccessfully tried to infer that the injury was received elsewhere and they weren't able to prove their point. Seems like they knew they couldn't get out of the negligence side so tried another angle, but did so very poorly.

JJayoo

McCambridges on shop street in Galway has seen its insurance jump from 14k to over 100k in the last 5 years due to claims. Due to the insurance continuing to rise they have had to settle a large number of claims before it gets to the courts, pretty much a solititors letter shows up and you take a gamble.

ford2600

OP if it was me I'd ask for guidance from laywer.

I wouldn't allow pay as you go, but make ever user of premises a member of club. The law on club members suing club is tricky for a Plaintiff I would think
http://hcalaw.ie/liability-of-club-members-for-personal-injuries/

Have a nose around Legal Discussion forum for similar threads, some lawyers post there.

Get every member to do a basic safety walk through the gym.

Disclaimers are useless I would think.

Lads are comparing cases for someone falling on a chip in a shopping centre to falling on street in a public area. They are completely different in terms of duty of care.

Local Authorities can make a defence (which is successful quite often) of non feasance; they can't be found negligent for doing nothing. If road/footpath breaks up through normal wear and tear and you fall, tough luck. misfeasance is where they acted, but made a boll1x of a repair for example.

In a shop/private premises once a Defendant can show they had a robust checking system with records they can often defend those types of cases

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/man-who-tripped-over-hole-at-halting-site-gets-60-000-1.3041074

The council didn't dispute that they were negligent and instead implied the claimant was a liar. I'm not getting how this is relevant.

Either the council were negligent and knew it or their defence team were awful.

kippy

Zillah wrote: »

You understand that a court will hear all of the pertinent elements and make a decision, right?

Half the people in this thread keep coming up with examples where the establishment was not negligent and then get enraged that there is compensation, but in the real world a court considers the factors involved and if the establishment was not negligent there isn't a pay out.

Your problem isn't the courts, it's your imagination and the tabloid rags you're taking too seriously.

My problem is the courts, the legal profession and the people who extract the urine. In the case mentioned the plaintiff had similar issues in the past. Judge commented on same I believe.
The factors need to be changed if that is the cause of these ridiculous payouts. We are going to get to a point where people and business will be restricted from going about their daily business as a result of these issues.

JJayoo

Ford that is an extremely interesting read. Pretty much exactly what I wanted to find out.

bladespin

kippy wrote:

My problem is the courts, the legal profession and the people who extract the urine. In the case mentioned the plaintiff had similar issues in the past. Judge commented on same I believe. The factors need to be changed if that is the cause of these ridiculous payouts. We are going to get to a point where people and business will be restricted from going about their daily business as a result of these issues.

Previous 'issues' cannot be taken into account in court, doesn't matter if it's their 1st or 50th claim, each case is considered on it's own.

bladespin

kippy wrote:

My problem is the courts, the legal profession and the people who extract the urine. In the case mentioned the plaintiff had similar issues in the past. Judge commented on same I believe. The factors need to be changed if that is the cause of these ridiculous payouts. We are going to get to a point where people and business will be restricted from going about their daily business as a result of these issues.

Previous 'issues' cannot be taken into account in court, doesn't matter if it's their 1st or 50th claim, each case is considered on it's own.

bladespin

kippy wrote:

My problem is the courts, the legal profession and the people who extract the urine. In the case mentioned the plaintiff had similar issues in the past. Judge commented on same I believe. The factors need to be changed if that is the cause of these ridiculous payouts. We are going to get to a point where people and business will be restricted from going about their daily business as a result of these issues.

Previous 'issues' cannot be taken into account in court, doesn't matter if it's their 1st or 50th claim, each case is considered on it's own.

rondog

It really infuriates me when I hear of these nonsensical claims.It will ruin businesses and put them out of being able to afford insurance.
There should be a new common sense law brought in.Readin gabout serial claimers with ridiculous claims and getting away with it time and time again.
Its beyond ridiculous the judiciary lets people away with these ridiculous claims.