Luas Surfing

beauf

Regardless we'll all be paying for it.

Nermal

RaichuMGS wrote: »

because the practice could kill someone. If they’re operating the service and people are doing something dangerous the company has to take measures to prevent people from doing so.

Why should they? They were not careless, let alone malicious. If the tram was used properly, there would be no issue. Why should the consequences of illegal behavior be borne by the rest of us, rather than the criminal?

Dravokivich wrote: »

I'd imagine it'd be done via insurance as opposed to straight out their back pocket?

Where do you think insurance payouts come from? Society has to bear the cost of this nonsense. Money spent on insurance premiums and idiot-proofing trams could have be spent on something useful.

Gimme A Pound

"We all did stupid stuff as kids" is such a feeble argument.

Yeah we did but there is a scale.

I will say **** parenting is part of the problem too though.

Fart

Should probably fine her 550k.

EdgeCase

The problem is they settled. It's not a court ruling at all.
This keeps happening because for whatever reason the insurance sector seems to think that setting is cheaper and easier.

That points to a very expensive legal system which was actually something that Troika kept raising and asking that we did during the crisis but for some reason the government misinterpreted this as an urgent call to rollout water metering instead.

McCrack

EdgeCase wrote: »

The problem is they settled. It's not a court ruling at all.
This keeps happening because for whatever reason the insurance sector seems to think that setting is cheaper and easier.

That points to a very expensive legal system which was actually something that Troika kept raising and asking that we did during the crisis but for some reason the government misinterpreted this as an urgent call to rollout water metering instead.

No insurance companies will most definitely defend a high value claim (550k plus costs) if they can escape liability or in other words their insured is not to blame

Silent Running

If it was a design fault with the tram, could the operator not sue the manufacturer, or at least recover the cost of settlement?

BTW, I'm not in any way condoning the behaviour of this stupid lowlife. There should be a limit to what is expected to make anything idiot proof. If people are determined to do stupid stuff on otherwise safe equipment, they should be liable for the lost revenue, or other expenses they cause.

We need to stop rewarding stupidity.

henryforde80

u okay hun?

endacl

henryforde80 wrote: »

u okay hun?

I think they've been through hell and back?

henryforde80

endacl wrote: »

I think they've been through hell and back?

Most of been, hope op is okay xx

Kitty6277

Can't sleep OP?

U ok? chat me hun.

Atoms for Peace

Sent the evidence you've gathered to veolia, their insurance company, the fraud squad etc.. It would be interesting to hear their response OP.

Through Hell and Back

Is there anyone who might have an idea if she could be prosecuted for fraud, and the money taken off her?

Samuel T. Cogley

NIMAN wrote: »

So Ferrari should put speed limiters on their cars?

Many high performance cars have limiters to prevent them being driven at speeds which could cause them to essentially take off. If they didn't it would be negligence. Massive claims against one care manufacturer due to fuel tanks explaoding is the text book example of the cost negligence having hurt to get companies to do things.

Samuel T. Cogley

Through Hell and Back wrote: »

I have been so disgusted with this case, that I decided to look up her Facebook page.

It took me about 10 minutes to find this one's Facebook account, and it goes back a few years. This lovely girl has had a Debs, can go out independently by herself anytime, cycle a bike, there was a photo of two people lying on top of her - no problem to her at all.She was not in hospital or had any serious medical issues at all. She is able to drink, get pregnant, give birth, and the one I love the most there was a video of her jumping off a pier which was at least 15 foot high, no bother to her at all.

There is more than enough evidence that she can lead a full life, and it can be clearly seen that her "Severe head injury" is complete lies and exaggeration, and her Facebook page proves all of this. It took me about half an hour to forty minutes to see all of this, and the legal tea from the insurance company could not find all of this prior to settling her case for more than half a million???

It is an absolute disgrace, and her case is complete lies and a huge fraud. Total disgrace this one is, and her knacker family.

Personally I thinks she's a fraud also, but there are plenty of brain injuries that mean she could lead a relatively normal life but not be fit to be in the work place. For all we know she has crippling seizures. The point being none of us here are the Doctor who would have had to produce a medical report under pain of purjury.

KevinCavan

erica74 wrote: »

The case was taken by her mother on her behalf while she was still a child (under 18) so that's why it's worded that she sued through her mother. Once she turned 18, I think she could have applied to have the proceedings changed to her own name but maybe continuing through her mother was better for her case.

The payout in this case is absolutely outrageous. How did they come to that figure? What losses are they factoring into their calculations? She may have significant medical expenses if she really did suffer a "severe brain injury" but those expenses couldn't possibly amount to over half a million! Did they assume that, had she not had this accident, she would have become a productive member of society and the figure includes potential loss of earnings?
I also don't understand how someone who suffered a "severe brain injury" could be responsible for a child?

The whole brain injury thing seems very vague.

mfceiling

Business Cat wrote: »

I didn't say they were?

My point was we live in a society where we can indulge in reckless behaviour then make others carry the can for it. At what point does personal accountability end?

I've been saying this for ages.
Personal responsibility is a thing of the past. Look at Ms Cash...no way of supporting 1 or 2 kids? Sure have 7 then.
The state is a great tit to suck on for those that can't be arsed. Unfortunately the state also seems happy enough with this relationship.

KevinCavan

She would probably be doing medicine in Trinity College now, only for the brain injury. So in a way you can see why she got 500k.

Harry Palmr

Just heard on the news that she is afraid to go out due to internet trolls

Harry Palmr

Silent Running wrote: »

If it was a design fault with the tram, could the operator not sue the manufacturer, or at least recover the cost of settlement?

BTW, I'm not in any way condoning the behaviour of this stupid lowlife. There should be a limit to what is expected to make anything idiot proof. If people are determined to do stupid stuff on otherwise safe equipment, they should be liable for the lost revenue, or other expenses they cause.

We need to stop rewarding stupidity.

You just answered your own question! I suppose barbed wire could be fixed to the flanks of the trams but...nah!

colmufc

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Just heard on the news that she is afraid to go out due to internet trolls

Ah yes the famous outside where the internet lives ,anyway I've seen kids do this year's ago out by bluebell ,a bunch of them got on one time with there mate who fell off the previous tram and they were taking him home cause he got a concussion

cripplefight

I don't know if its been posted, but here we go....


...she hasn't received the pay-out as it was awarded on the to her because she supposedly has the cognitive abilities of a 7 year old.

from what I understand there's very little if anything wrong with her.

the judge did not award her they money, this was agreed upon outside the courts.
the judge was only signing off on the matter to close it.

because of this the judge has ordered that the money be put into care of the courts and she has to apply and give reasons to what she needs it for.

she has also had her social welfare stopped and her name taken off the housing list

one hand gives, the other takes away...

CrankyHaus

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

The point being none of us here are the Doctor who would have had to produce a medical report under pain of purjury.

Under pain of perjury?

Expert witnesses are effectively free to say whatever they're paid to say. The only "pain" they are under is the risk that the court does not accept their evidence. There is no legislation specifically imposing a duty upon them to be truthful, independent or impartial and they are even given immunity from being sued.

The LRC has proposed legislation to address this but at present there is no real restriction on expert witnesses advancing any "professional opinion" they like.

More generally perjury is not taken seriously in Ireland. The threshold is high and the punishments are minimal to none. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/willie-o-dea-will-not-face-perjury-case-prosecution-1.622200

jay0109

cripplefight wrote: »

she has also had her social welfare stopped and her name taken off the housing list

one hand gives, the other takes away...

Interesting as I wasn't sure if compo payouts fell into means-testing reviews.
Where have you heard this?

Pyr0

cripplefight wrote: »

I don't know if its been posted, but here we go....


...she hasn't received the pay-out as it was awarded on the to her because she supposedly has the cognitive abilities of a 7 year old.

from what I understand there's very little if anything wrong with her.

the judge did not award her they money, this was agreed upon outside the courts.
the judge was only signing off on the matter to close it.

because of this the judge has ordered that the money be put into care of the courts and she has to apply and give reasons to what she needs it for.

she has also had her social welfare stopped and her name taken off the housing list

one hand gives, the other takes away...

Any links for where you got the info? Not having a go, just genuinely curious.

Through Hell and Back

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Personally I thinks she's a fraud also, but there are plenty of brain injuries that mean she could lead a relatively normal life but not be fit to be in the work place. For all we know she has crippling seizures. The point being none of us here are the Doctor who would have had to produce a medical report under pain of purjury.

Where on earth did her or her mother get the idea to see if they could sue when she caused the injury to herself, and it was her own fault. Says alot about them when they went to a solicitor to see if they had a case.

She admitted it was her own fault, and therefore she should have been entitled to zero.

She has made a mockery of people who have very serious, genuine cases and have and will struggle for the rest of their lives and need continuous care and medical help.

I remember reading about the lady from Cork, who took the Irish government all the way to the European Courts of Justice for the abuse she endured at the Launderies, and she received E150,000, which in my opinion is far more significant that this one, who by her Facebook page seems to lead a normal life.

Why is there not further details published about her "Severe head injury" so the public know how "unwell" she has been left from the entire matter? In many other cases the details of the injuries are published, what not in this case?

Through Hell and Back

I would also really like to know how much was taken from her claim when she admitted it was her fault. How much for contributory negligence? :mad::mad:

ohnonotgmail

Through Hell and Back wrote: »

Where on earth did her or her mother get the idea to see if they could sue when she caused the injury to herself, and it was her own fault. Says alot about them when they went to a solicitor to see if they had a case.

She admitted it was her own fault, and therefore she should have been entitled to zero.

She has made a mockery of people who have very serious, genuine cases and have and will struggle for the rest of their lives and need continuous care and medical help.

I remember reading about the lady from Cork, who took the Irish government all the way to the European Courts of Justice for the abuse she endured at the Launderies, and she received E150,000, which in my opinion is far more significant that this one, who by her Facebook page seems to lead a normal life.

Why is there not further details published about her "Severe head injury" so the public know how "unwell" she has been left from the entire matter? In many other cases the details of the injuries are published, what not in this case?

Because there was no need to disclose it. the medical evidence presented by the plaintiff was not disputed. the case was also settled out of court. It was only in court to be approved by the judge and that only had to happen because she was a minor when the incident happened.

Through Hell and Back

The legal team for the Luas company seemed to have been an absolute joke. They never even looked up her Facebook account, and seemed to have completely forgotten about contributory negligence? :mad::mad: