Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Luas surfer

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Infini
    Registered Users Posts: 4,573 ✭✭✭Infini


    That reward is an utter load of bollocks. She got herself injured through her own stupidity and noone elses. The fact that this was actually settled instead of being fought really makes it even more disgusting. They need to tighten up some of these compo culture loopholes so people who get themselves injured through their OWN stupidity and negligence cant get a payout like this its one of the reasons insurance is so damn high.


  • Options
    #33
    Working class heroes
    Registered Users Posts: 3,508 ✭✭✭Working class heroes


    Infini wrote: »
    That reward is an utter load of bollocks. She got herself injured through her own stupidity and noone elses. The fact that this was actually settled instead of being fought really makes it even more disgusting. They need to tighten up some of these compo culture loopholes so people who get themselves injured through their OWN stupidity and negligence cant get a payout like this its one of the reasons insurance is so damn high.

    You are correct, to a point.
    However the company were extremely negligent in this case. They knew there was a problem with the set up which could have been fixed had a proper risk assessment been carried out. This is H&S class 101. This was a major contributing factor in this case.
    Yes there was a lot of stupidity here but it was not all exclusive to a 13 year old girl.

    I agree, with the information available the award seems excessive.

    Racism is now hiding behind the cloak of Community activism.



  • Options
    #34
    trellheim
    Registered Users Posts: 5,867 ✭✭✭trellheim


    However the company were extremely negligent in this case.
    Get up the YARD with that how are they negligent the passengers travel on the inside, the door closes and the passengers are transported carefully and safely by a licensed driver. CRR are legally responsible AFAIR for approving their safety case or they could not run.

    Dublin bus dont have a rear facing camera showing if scrotes are hanging on the back either and yet they are not found negligent.

    I wonder why they did not appeal


  • Options
    #35
    Working class heroes
    Registered Users Posts: 3,508 ✭✭✭Working class heroes


    trellheim wrote: »
    Get up the YARD with that how are they negligent the passengers travel on the inside, the door closes and the passengers are transported carefully and safely by a licensed driver. CRR are legally responsible AFAIR for approving their safety case or they could not run.

    Dublin bus dont have a rear facing camera showing if scrotes are hanging on the back either and yet they are not found negligent.

    I wonder why they did not appeal

    Don’t take my word for it.
    The company settled for god sake, they knew they were negligent. If it went before the judge they( following legal advice) obviously thought they would loose. I’m not saying it is right or wrong but those are the facts.
    Can you not see that?

    Racism is now hiding behind the cloak of Community activism.



  • Options
    #36
    cfuserkildare
    Registered Users Posts: 3,576 ✭✭✭cfuserkildare


    So if I step in front of a car I can claim half a million because the car has no cushioning system?
    Even although I admit it was a stupid thing to do?

    Legal system here is a joke!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    richiepurgas
    Registered Users Posts: 164 ✭✭richiepurgas


    I feel sorry for any young person paying a high price for horseplay, but this settlement has me baffled. I just cannot see how the company was negligent.


  • Options
    #38
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Absolute f*cking joke. It's cases like this that will inspire other skangers to do the same as her. Meanwhile the rest of us who actually have jobs and pay tax fund their m!ckey money and dole.


  • Options
    #39
    Bambaata
    Registered Users Posts: 4,086 ✭✭✭Bambaata


    I can't understabd how she's any more brain damaged than she was before the fall! Didn't seem to have much going on upstairs to do that in the first place!


  • Options
    #40
    trellheim
    Registered Users Posts: 5,867 ✭✭✭trellheim


    Don’t take my word for it.
    The company settled for god sake, they knew they were negligent. If it went before the judge they( following legal advice) obviously thought they would loose. I’m not saying it is right or wrong but those are the facts.
    Can you not see that?

    They are not the facts. Was the company found negligent ? Was that actually proved in court ? I think you will find not so


  • Options
    #41
    kravmaga
    Registered Users Posts: 1,945 ✭✭✭kravmaga


    This pay out sends out the wrong message to others, its good to train surf and guess what we will pay you over half a million euro to do it also.

    Absolutely unreal here the decision by the Judge and in my opinion she caused the injury to herself by endangering safety plus little regard for her own life.

    Whats happened where is very poor form, you couldnt make this up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Aravo
    Registered Users Posts: 854 ✭✭✭Aravo


    She was 13 at the time so a minor. Case was taken through the parent which is standard. All "minor" settlements have to be rubber stamped by a judge even if it's agreed by both sides before hand. If it was an adult case it would be an out of court settlement that no-one would ever hear about. But the minor ones have to get rubber stamped and that's why the media always have them and why they always have the story of the toddler falling in the creche etc etc.

    Not agreeing with the settlement amount myself. It's total crazy.


  • Options
    #43
    Working class heroes
    Registered Users Posts: 3,508 ✭✭✭Working class heroes


    trellheim wrote: »
    They are not the facts. Was the company found negligent ? Was that actually proved in court ? I think you will find not so

    They knew they were negligent. They settled.
    If they thought they weren’t they would hardly have settled, would they?

    Racism is now hiding behind the cloak of Community activism.



  • Options
    #44
    Damien360
    Registered Users Posts: 6,382 ✭✭✭Damien360


    Working class heroes wrote: »
    They knew they were negligent. They settled.
    If they thought they weren’t they would hardly have settled, would they?

    No. If they operate like CIE/IR/BE they always go to the steps of the court and settle. They don't want to risk a big reward. Settling at 550k is odd. No mention of what brain injury occured but I am assuming she can't work for life and a possible judge payout might have reflected that.


  • Options
    #45
    kravmaga
    Registered Users Posts: 1,945 ✭✭✭kravmaga


    Aravo wrote: »
    She was 13 at the time so a minor. Case was taken through the parent which is standard. All "minor" settlements have to be rubber stamped by a judge even if it's agreed by both sides before hand. If it was an adult case it would be an out of court settlement that no-one would ever hear about. But the minor ones have to get rubber stamped and that's why the media always have them and why they always have the story of the toddler falling in the creche etc etc.

    Not agreeing with the settlement amount myself. It's total crazy.

    ah I know she was a minor and I know that the case was taken by her mother on her behalf, but she at 13 should have know right from wrong, I mean coomon sense went out the window here with the Judge Cross awarding such a large payout, I see she is a mother now pushing the pram into court, so there is no medical evidence as to how bad or not as the case maybe be on the brain injury she sustained when she fell off the moving tram


  • Options
    #46
    fritzelly
    Registered Users Posts: 17,312 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    Compensation culture is way outta control in this country
    She admitted everything was her fault (stupid, shouldn't have done it blah blah) yet the company has to pay out over half a million because...well I'm not sure why?

    What is going on in this country seriously?

    With robbers suing owners of the shop they were robbing because they hurt themselves - time for some politicians/party to come down hard on this crap.
    End of the day its normal people who end paying for all this.

    Makes my blood boil


  • Options
    #47
    Garciag5
    Registered Users Posts: 1 ✭Garciag5


    Can any of the H&S affiliates here find any kind of similar case abroad...


  • Options
    #48
    Odyssey 2005
    Registered Users Posts: 21,065 ✭✭✭✭Odyssey 2005


    fritzelly wrote: »
    Compensation culture is way outta control in this country
    She admitted everything was her fault (stupid, shouldn't have done it blah blah) yet the company has to pay out over half a million because...well I'm not sure why?

    What is going on in this country seriously?

    With robbers suing owners of the shop they were robbing because they hurt themselves - time for some politicians/party to come down hard on this crap.
    End of the day its normal people who end paying for all this.

    Makes my blood boil
    Politicians will saySFA. Look what is happening to Peter Casey .


  • Options
    #49
    Grab All Association
    Registered Users Posts: 3,917 ✭✭✭Grab All Association




    What happened in the immediate aftermath of the case.


  • Options
    #50
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    Working class heroes wrote: »
    trellheim wrote: »
    They are not the facts.  Was the company found negligent ?  Was that actually proved in court ?  I think you will find not so

    They knew they were negligent. They settled.
    If they thought they weren’t they would hardly have settled, would they?
    Companies settle all the time without liability been found because the costs of fightening a case can simply so high. The people arguing the Luas operators are not being pragmatic at all. Even if the driver saw her what he do? Chase them off with a stick? If she feel from a stationary Luas she could still have gotten badly hurt. The Luas is run with every reasonable provision to safety possible considered how many dangers there are from congested and moron kids. This case isn't even an exception. Mad compensation cases occur all the time.


  • Options
    #51
    Wishbone Ash
    Registered Users Posts: 24,961 ✭✭✭✭Wishbone Ash


    Working class heroes wrote: »
    They knew they were negligent. They settled.
    If they thought they weren’t they would hardly have settled, would they?
    My employer settles cases all the time when they are not at fault because they are advised that it is often cheaper to do so.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Wishbone Ash
    Registered Users Posts: 24,961 ✭✭✭✭Wishbone Ash


    trellheim wrote: »
    ...I wonder why they did not appeal
    Haven't you read the article? They settled. You can't settle and then appeal.


  • Options
    #53
    Praetorian
    Registered Users Posts: 3,711 ✭✭✭Praetorian


    I understand the company settling if they were fairly sure they were going to lose if they went to trial. I don't understand why they would lose if they went to trial. Any person even a 13-year-old child knows taking a risk as she did is stupid.

    Who is at fault for this stupidity? I'm not talking about the girl's stupidity. Is it our judiciary? Our laws? Then who?


  • Options
    #54
    kencoo
    Registered Users Posts: 212 ✭✭kencoo


    With liability a company causing the danger is 100 percent liable. That 100 percent is reduced with various safety steps they put in place until that number deduces to zero. Most companies cannot reach zero unfortunately as its too expensive or they dont forsee the danger. The point is the brain injury was probably worth 2 or 3 million at 100 percent liability. There own safety standards reduced their liability but they were always going to have to pay something.


  • Options
    #55
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,545 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    XPS_Zero wrote: »
    Didn't you all just know what she'd look like, right down to the look on her face, before you opened the link?
    oh, seriously? did the woman who tried to sue the NPWS when she fell and hurt her knee look like that and have that look on her face.
    i don't know what the rest of your post says (i would refuse to read it) so can't comment on it, but the opening line is a thundering disgrace.


  • Options
    #56
    yosser hughes
    Registered Users Posts: 3,880 ✭✭✭yosser hughes


    Will this person now be means tested with regard to her continued eligibility to live in a council flat in Dublin 2?


  • Options
    #57
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,536 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    yosser hughes wrote: »
    Will this person now be means tested with regard to her continued eligibility to live in a council flat in Dublin 2?
    You know that the settlement is calculated to get her back to where she would have been if the incident hadn't happened - cost of surgery, extensive rehab, lifetime support services and more, right? It's not a lottery win.


  • Options
    #58
    Amalgam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,026 ✭✭✭Amalgam


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    You know that the settlement is calculated to get her back to where she would have been if the incident hadn't happened - cost of surgery, extensive rehab, lifetime support services and more, right? It's not a lottery win.

    You have cases where, [nudge] [nudge] [wink] [wink], the injury only really has an impact within the four walls of the court.

    I'm not saying that this is the case here, but eh..


  • Options
    #59
    PCeeeee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,465 ✭✭✭PCeeeee


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    You know that the settlement is calculated to get her back to where she would have been if the incident hadn't happened - cost of surgery, extensive rehab, lifetime support services and more, right? It's not a lottery win.

    How much did the surgery cost her family do you reckon?


  • Options
    #60
    NIMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 33,148 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Damien360 wrote: »
    No. If they operate like CIE/IR/BE they always go to the steps of the court and settle. They don't want to risk a big reward. Settling at 550k is odd. No mention of what brain injury occured but I am assuming she can't work for life and a possible judge payout might have reflected that.

    No harm, but I'd hazard a guess this one mightn't have done much work for the rest of her life anyway, brain injury or not.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    NIMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 33,148 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    PCeeeee wrote: »
    How much did the surgery cost her family do you reckon?

    I'm sure all her assistance and rehab from her injury up to now has been paid for by the HSE and the taxpayers.

    Now that she gets such a huge lump sum, which you often hear will pay for future rehab and medical expenses, does that mean she will be going private from now on? I seriously doubt it, its the HSE that will be helping her for the rest of her life, and she'll keep the half mill for her own use.


Advertisement