Off Topic Thread 4.0

errlloyd

I fully agree with Venjur's Devils Advocate position and I'd go a step further and say much of the language about it being "unsupervised" etc probably came from her legal team, not her.

I think for the Hotel a simple sign that says "swings are decorative only" and then a policy of them ignoring anyone who ignored the sign would have worked.

I still can't believe she's taken this case though. She probably does have a legal position, but like also cop on. Every single girl on Instagram in Dublin has been on those swings without injuring themselves.

Bazzo

What about bar stools? Maybe we should have everyone in a pub sit into a bucket seat and strap in case somebody has too many and falls off.

Squidgy Black

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm going to play devil's advocate.

Is it reasonably foreseeable that if you place a swing in an area where people are consuming alcohol, there is a reasonable prospect that someone will fall backwards off it?

If that is reasonably foreseeable then the premesis has some liability.

I would never have the shame to take a case like this, it probably does have some legal merit.

But the above is exactly what's driving liability insurance up when people are able to put in claims like that, trying to absolve themselves of any personal liability and blaming it on others around them.

At what point do we draw the line of people taking responsibility for their own actions? Look at the case of the girl who jumped on the side of the Luas and put in a claim because there wasn't adequate grip for her to jump onto the side of a moving tram. It's absolutely mental.

Squidgy Black

Squidgy Black wrote: »

But the above is exactly what's driving liability insurance up when people are able to put in claims like that, trying to absolve themselves of any personal liability and blaming it on others around them.

At what point do we draw the line of people taking responsibility for their own actions? Look at the case of the girl who jumped on the side of the Luas and put in a claim because there wasn't adequate grip for her to jump onto the side of a moving tram. It's absolutely mental.

I never said she should be paid anything. I just pointed out it was foreseeable, likely even.

molloyjh

Our politicians should be setting the highest of standards for the population and should be looking to solve the issues society as a whole faces. This politician has done the absolute polar opposite. Insurance is one of the biggest issues facing this country. Excessive claims and awards are closing businesses and driving premiums up for everyone. And now we have a TD being a part of that because she couldn't sit on a swing.

Neil3030

There's no governing you people, is there?

Interested Observer

Deleted User wrote: »

If that is reasonably foreseeable then the premesis has some liability.

Are you a solicitor or in some other way experience with the law or is this just you musing?

irishbucsfan

Ah she’s clearly lied. If she has any sense she’ll withdraw the claim for the sake of her political career

troyzer

Interested Observer wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

If that is reasonably foreseeable then the premesis has some liability.

Are you a solicitor or in some other way experience with the law or is this just you musing?

Personally I think venjur is a former olympian working in some cushy job in the docks.

Interested Observer

Not that I have any sympathy but I don't know how she can extricate herself from this now other than win the case. I think she's done huge harm to her chances of being re-elected no matter what. If she withdraws the claim now she looks like a cheat who has been caught out.

Neil3030

Venjur = Shane Horgan, confirmed.

Neil3030

errlloyd wrote: »

I fully agree with Venjur's Devils Advocate position and I'd go a step further and say much of the language about it being "unsupervised" etc probably came from her legal team, not her.

I think for the Hotel a simple sign that says "swings are decorative only" and then a policy of them ignoring anyone who ignored the sign would have worked.

I still can't believe she's taken this case though. She probably does have a legal position, but like also cop on. Every single girl on Instagram in Dublin has been on those swings without injuring themselves.

So what then distinguishes a swing from, say, a staircase. It's reasonable to assume people consuming alcohol will use the stairs, and some may fall backwards. Do all staircases now need signs to warn people?

Interested Observer

Interested Observer wrote: »

Are you a solicitor or in some other way experience with the law or is this just you musing?

It's not musing, I don't practice law but it's a major part of how negligence is decided.

A court will look at an environment specifically catering for people who consume alcohol. It will look at a swing in the middle of that environment and ask

"is it likely a drunk person will sit here"
"is it likely a drunk person will sit here and have a fall"

I think both of those will be answered with yes and voila, the TD has a case.

Whether that transfers into an award of damages I don't know. I don't think the law takes personal responsibility into account nearly enough in some of the awards I've seen.

I think this will pass the first hurdle of establishing if the venue was negligent. I think a superior court will ultimately rule largely in favour of the venue but perhaps not costs.

For the record, the people I know who are most frustrated with stupid levels of awards are solicitors and they celebrate the most when they fail.

We've an army of ambulance chancers chasers who push these claims but most of the industry rejects it and would like to see better legislation.

Neil3030

Neil3030 wrote: »

distinguishes a swing from, say, a staircase.

If the staircase was wobbly or could move then it might be held to a similar standard.

Look, it's most likely a very frivolous action. If someone say, sat on the swing and it flipped underneath them and they landed on their neck causing serious trauma then most people would say fair enough.

But the fact that both *could* happen suggests why these things need to be heard regardless.

She is fishing for a settlement, it's cost her her career and any claims to integrity and I'd say the chances of her making a penny now are slim. She probably won't withdraw the claim as if she is successful (in any even remote way) it will give her some cover politically.

Interested Observer

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not musing, I don't practice law but it's a major part of how negligence is decided.

A court will look at an environment specifically catering for people who consume alcohol. It will look at a swing in the middle of that environment and ask

"is it likely a drunk person will sit here"
"is it likely a drunk person will sit here and have a fall"

I think both of those will be answered with yes and voila, the TD has a case.

How many people have sat on that swing, without supervision might I add, and managed to not fall off. Thousands? Tens of thousands? If this is the first case that has been taken against them then to me it's decidedly unlikely that you'd fall off and injure yourself. You'd have to be doing something really daft like holding a drink in one hand and your bag in the other.

The fact she ran a 10k soon after the incident despite the court papers saying she couldn't run for 3 months shows she is also a liar. I don't believe a word she says about her injuries and hopefully the judge won't either.

irishbucsfan

Any solicitor I’ve heard give thoughts on it seem to think she has little chance. The fact they’ve seemingly probably lied about the extent of her injuries in court documents has surely seen the end of any chance she has of winning.

But interested observer could well be right, she might have no real way out at this stage.

troyzer

Deleted User wrote: »

Neil3030 wrote: »

distinguishes a swing from, say, a staircase.

If the staircase was wobbly or could move then it might be held to a similar standard.

Look, it's most likely a very frivolous action. If someone say, sat on the swing and it flipped underneath them and they landed on their neck causing serious trauma then most people would say fair enough.

But the fact that both *could* happen suggests why these things need to be heard regardless.

She is fishing for a settlement, it's cost her her career and any claims to integrity and I'd say the chances of her making a penny now are slim. She probably won't withdraw the claim as if she is successful (in any even remote way) it will give her some cover politically.

As I was reading your comment:

Swing case TD Maria Bailey drops compensation claim against hotel

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/swing-case-td-maria-bailey-drops-compensation-claim-against-hotel-38147952.html

Interested Observer

Interested Observer wrote: »

How many people have sat on that swing, without supervision might I add, and managed to not fall off. Thousands? Tens of thousands? If this is the first case that has been taken against them then to me it's decidedly unlikely that you'd fall off and injure yourself. You'd have to be doing something really daft like holding a drink in one hand and your bag in the other.

The fact she ran a 10k soon after the incident despite the court papers saying she couldn't run for 3 months shows she is also a liar. I don't believe a word she says about her injuries and hopefully the judge won't either.

I'd say someone falls off every second night. Just most have self respect enough not to sue for damages.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Any solicitor I’ve heard give thoughts on it seem to think she has little chance. The fact they’ve seemingly probably lied about the extent of her injuries in court documents has surely seen the end of any chance she has of winning.

But interested observer could well be right, she might have no real way out at this stage.

Running a 10k two weeks later looks absolutely terrible, but doesn't mean there wasn't an injury.

I really don't want to play devils advocate on this, I think it's a stupid action to take but it's worthwhile looking at it critically because that's what a court will do and occasionally these things are justified.

As Troyzer has posted, she is looking to distance herself now and get this out of the media. I'd say she is goosed in the next GE, I think the hotel is limited in what it can action on foot of reputational damage but wouldn't mind seeing them try!

Interested Observer

What makes it even more galling is her 95k salary and god knows what in pension, expenses etc.

Her father's Wikipedia page makes fascinating reading.

irishbucsfan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Running a 10k two weeks later looks absolutely terrible, but doesn't mean there wasn't an injury.

I really don't want to play devils advocate on this, I think it's a stupid action to take but it's worthwhile looking at it critically because that's what a court will do and occasionally these things are justified.

As Troyzer has posted, she is looking to distance herself now and get this out of the media. I'd say she is goosed in the next GE, I think the hotel is limited in what it can action on foot of reputational damage but wouldn't mind seeing them try!

She said she couldn’t run for 3 months

thomond2006

Is this not fraud? Saying you can't run for three months in a civil case which turns out to be a malicious lie?

FG surely have to consider kicking her out of the party.
(I know! No politics!)

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

She said she couldn’t run for 3 months

Oh lol, really?

That's quite likely insurance fraud in that case, if she wasn't going to be deselected by FG she definitely will be now.

Quite likely staring down the barrel of a visit from the Gardai also.

Greed and dishonesty are powerful drugs to the wrong person.

Squidgy Black

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh lol, really?

That's quite likely insurance fraud in that case, if she wasn't going to be deselected by FG she definitely will be now.

Quite likely staring down the barrel of a visit from the Gardai also.

Greed and dishonesty are powerful drugs to the wrong person.

The hotel offered to pay her medical bills also and she turned it down.

Court papers describe her as a "keen runner prior to the accident but could not run at all for three months post-accident and has had to reduce her activities significantly since".

Was also stated that she could not sit or stand for prolonged periods without experiencing severe pain, but she went to Longitude 8 days after the accident.

troyzer

I don't know if anyone read my comment but she's dropped the case. I'd say it's over.

Squidgy Black

troyzer wrote: »

I don't know if anyone read my comment but she's dropped the case. I'd say it's over.

I wouldn't say "it's over".

It'll certainly be a discussion point for the next while and possibly a counter-suit from the hotel as there would have been legal costs involved up until this point on their end, plus they could claim for negative publicity.

And that's not even taking into account any political action that should (but likely won't) happen from the party.

Bridge93

Leaving the claim and the rights and wrongs aside for a second. How stupid do you have to be to lie and then have posts and pictures on your Facebook page that clearly show you to be lying.

Fraud 101 would tell you to clear all evidence

Zzippy

Perhaps I'm just a cynic but the timing of this story about a fraudulent/frivolous claim in the week when the insurance industry are being investigated for running a cartel is a tad suspicious.

CatFromHue

thomond2006 wrote: »

Is this not fraud? Saying you can't run for three months in a civil case which turns out to be a malicious lie?

FG surely have to consider kicking her out of the party.
(I know! No politics!)

seemingly not as this type of thing happens very regularly

molloyjh

Zzippy wrote: »

Perhaps I'm just a cynic but the timing of this story about a fraudulent/frivolous claim in the week when the insurance industry are being investigated for running a cartel is a tad suspicious.

Why would someone ruin their career and their name in the process though?