Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

WishUWereHere

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

She sounded half cut on SOR tbh.

Each time she said to SOR (when asked a question ) “Seán you know me” - it was cringeworthy listening to her.

WishUWereHere

Wonder what the Independent has up its sleeve for tomorrow’s installment.

Plumbthedepths

WishUWereHere wrote:

Wonder what the Independent has up its sleeve for tomorrow’s installment.

If there is anything further, I doubt it will be the type of BS Alison O Connor wrote in the Examiner.

WishUWereHere

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

If there is anything further, I doubt it will be the type of BS Alison O Connor wrote in the Examiner.

True PlumbTheDepths, but in fairness to the Indo, everything ( afaik) that they have written so far has been proved correct.

I wonder did MB have any gnashing of teeth when the Indo revealed about the €60k?

Plumbthedepths

WishUWereHere wrote:

I wonder did MB have any gnashing of teeth when the Indo revealed about the €60k?

You mean the letter seeking 20k, the circuit court can award up to 60k.
It would be interesting if the Indo reveals who the author of the letter was or who advised Bailey to write it if she was the author. Someone I doubt Bailey sought a 20k payout without advise.

McMurphy

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You mean the letter seeking 20k, the circuit court can award up to 60k.
It would be interesting if the Indo reveals who the author of the letter was or who advised Bailey to write it if she was the author. Someone I doubt Bailey sought a 20k payout without advise.

Josepha prob has the Andrex in the fridge already.

WishUWereHere

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You mean the letter seeking 20k, the circuit court can award up to 60k.
It would be interesting if the Indo reveals who the author of the letter was or who advised Bailey to write it if she was the author. Someone I doubt Bailey sought a 20k payout without advise.

So right PTD, so many different numbers where MB is concerned, one can get mixed up.

Though she certainly didn't, I suspect.

Patrick2010

But Sean I was injured, I know I was tipsy sitting on the swing with a bottle of beer in one hand and reaching for a bottle of wine with the other hand but the hotel should have supervised me better.
Is that the gist of the claim?

Suckit

I doubt Josepha is this stupid, but I wonder is she seen telling MB she should/could make a claim in the cctv..
That would be both hilarious and insane for FG.

salmocab

Patrick2010 wrote: »

But Sean I was injured, I know I was tipsy sitting on the swing with a bottle of beer in one hand and reaching for a bottle of wine with the other hand but the hotel should have supervised me better.
Is that the gist of the claim?

Kinda but she claims to have had only one drink before then and what she was reaching for was really for a court to decide.

WishUWereHere

salmocab wrote: »

Kinda but she claims to have had only one drink before then and what she was reaching for was really for a court to decide.

I think You are reasonably accurate there SC, though in truth only MB can answer that question, and going on the spiel she has spewn out so far, I wonder can anyone believe a word out of her mouth?

Again let's just hope this IS captured on CCTV.

Suckit

The blockades FG put up to make sure that this didn't get into the public domain has me thinking the cctv footage must be fairly bad. In which case Leo would have no option but to take action. As long as it we don't get to see it, he will feel he doesn't have to take any action.
So, if the cctv footage does get leaked, and it shows that she was fairly intoxicated, enough to cause the fall herself - should Leo be held accountable too?

McMurphy

Suckit wrote: »

The blockades FG put up to make sure that this didn't get into the public domain has me thinking the cctv footage must be fairly bad. In which case Leo would have no option but to take action. As long as it we don't get to see it, he will feel he doesn't have to take any action.
So, if the cctv footage does get leaked, and it shows that she was fairly intoxicated, enough to cause the fall herself - should Leo be held accountable too?

There is no doubt whatsoever that leo hasn't seen the CCTV, remember Kennedy was to establish all the facts - and undoubtedly he was liaising with the hotel and / or its legal team.

They (The Dean) were going to use the CCTV footage in their defence in court, so I think it's inconceivable that both Kennedy and Varadkar didn't get a peak at it.

Only the sh1t had hit the fan so badly, the two of them prob would have soaked their jocks laughing at it too I bet.

Augme

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Suckit wrote: »

The blockades FG put up to make sure that this didn't get into the public domain has me thinking the cctv footage must be fairly bad. In which case Leo would have no option but to take action. As long as it we don't get to see it, he will feel he doesn't have to take any action.
So, if the cctv footage does get leaked, and it shows that she was fairly intoxicated, enough to cause the fall herself - should Leo be held accountable too?

There is no doubt whatsoever that leo hasn't seen the CCTV, remember Kennedy was to establish all the facts - and undoubtedly he was liaising with the hotel and / or its legal team.

They (The Dean) were going to use the CCTV footage in their defence in court, so I think it's inconceivable that both Kennedy and Varadkar didn't get a peak at it.

Only the sh1t had hit the fan so badly, the two of them prob would have soaked their jocks laughing at it too I bet.

Legally The Dean wouldn't be allowed give them access to the CCTV. If Leo had any sense he'd completely avoid the CCTV footage anyway.

Ash.J.Williams

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You mean the letter seeking 20k, the circuit court can award up to 60k.
It would be interesting if the Indo reveals who the author of the letter was or who advised Bailey to write it if she was the author. Someone I doubt Bailey sought a 20k payout without advise.

Is she financially ok I wonder...

Ash.J.Williams

This is it wrote: »

€60,000? Where does it say that?

When you take legal action you are advised to sit back and let the professionals deal with it, if they get a whiff of compo they will pursue for the maximum award....so a simpleton like mb can say she only wants 6-20 grand for being an eejit but in reality she is going to get the highest award her team can get ...which is 60k

sportsfan90

Question for any legal people here..

Once an injury claim has been withdrawn, is there anything to stop a claimant from changing their mind and in fact choose to proceed with the claim again?

My reason for asking is that presuming that Bailey will no longer be a TD after the next election, she could well need the money after losing out on her TD salary.

Plumbthedepths

sportsfan90 wrote:

My reason for asking is that presuming that Bailey will no longer be a TD after the next election, she could well need the money after losing out on her TD salary.

Her overriding problem is her proven willingness to lie and exaggerate is now public knowledge plus the Dean will still use the CCTV footage.
I'm not a legal professional, but I have been involved in a compensation case where it was thrown out after we showed the CCTV footage in court. The annoying fact is the guys taking the case walked away with no consequences.

Suckit

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

When you take legal action you are advised to sit back and let the professionals deal with it, if they get a whiff of compo they will pursue for the maximum award....so a simpleton like mb can say she only wants 6-20 grand for being an eejit but in reality she is going to get the highest award her team can get ...which is 60k

She said €6000 - €7000 for hospital bills, but that was a lie too because if she was only looking for that amount she wouldn't have taken a claim in the circuit court.



Madigans family law firm would have got up to €11,500 if she had won the case.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/madigans-familys-law-firm-in-line-for-11500-if-bailey-case-was-won-38350553.html

Suckit

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Her overriding problem is her proven willingness to lie and exaggerate is now public knowledge plus the Dean will still use the CCTV footage.
I'm not a legal professional, but I have been involved in a compensation case where it was thrown out after we showed the CCTV footage in court. The annoying fact is the guys taking the case walked away with no consequences.

I know of a guy who made a lot of claims, many were thrown out of court. He made enough money from the claims to start a loan shark business. Smashed up cars and property if the loan wasn't paid back in time. One guy got a loan for tools and car, while in work they smashed the car and took the tools, so he was effectively down twice as much.
The loan shark serial claimer now has a very lucrative contract with a massive state owned company and is cleaning up, in what some regard to be dodgy means.

He walked without consequence for every claim that was flagged, and was still able to go back whatever length of time later with another claim. Ridiculous.

Snow Garden

Phone problems. Deleted post

Johnny Dogs

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Anyone that plays the lotto plays for the jackpot, ie the maximum amount available.

Yes anyone will be happy with one of the lesser prizes, but the eye is always on the top prize.

Perhaps Ms Bailey had other motives for trying to extract 20k by letter, and when the Dean didn't flinch, go to a court where 60k is the max amount that can be awarded, but alas, even though she did nothing fraudulent, (and leo sanctioned her for same), she nonetheless dropped the claim, leaving us forever wondering.

Sorry, but I have to go back to this.

Exaggerating a claim is fraudulent.

I personally wouldn't be happy if such a high profile case like this isn't investigated by the Gardaí.

If we are to start changing the culture, we have to really lean on the high profile cases, or else we're all as guilty of it.

Ash.J.Williams

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry, but I have to go back to this.

Exaggerating a claim is fraudulent.

I personally wouldn't be happy if such a high profile case like this isn't investigated by the Gardaí.

If we are to start changing the culture, we have to really lean on the high profile cases, or else we're all as guilty of it.

She overstated the effects of her injuries

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

She overstated the effects of her injuries

...and why do you think she did that?

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry, but I have to go back to this.

Exaggerating a claim is fraudulent.

I personally wouldn't be happy if such a high profile case like this isn't investigated by the Garda

If we are to start changing the culture, we have to really lean on the high profile cases, or else we're all as guilty of it.

Sorry Pappa, I should've used the inverted commas, "nothing fraudulent" according to Leo. :cool:

pinkyeye

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Paid the price?

On the face of it, she "fibbed" on a sworn affidavit to financially benefit herself, and fibbed to her Taoiseach and the media about what happened before and afterwards.

This is in direct contrast to her party claiming to clamp down on the compensation culture, and spurious claims, and what knock on affect this has to private citizens and businesses within the state.

She got off scott free so far as I'm concerned.

Maria Bailey has paid the price for political foot in mouth, it’s time to move on

Using her fathers death is the lowest of the low.

If her father had motor neurone then he was obviously sick for a good while.

Did she not think to herself "there's more important things in life than screwing an insurance company for a few bob". I know I would if my father was dying.

walshb

pinkyeye wrote: »

Using her fathers death is the lowest of the low.

If her father had motor neurone then he was obviously sick for a good while.

Did she not think to herself "there's more important things in life than screwing an insurance company for a few bob". I know I would if my father was dying.

Screwing an insurance company? Nobody screws insurance companies. They screw people...they welcome claims...

She was screwing a business...

Snow Garden

Augme wrote: »

Legally The Dean wouldn't be allowed give them access to the CCTV. If Leo had any sense he'd completely avoid the CCTV footage anyway.

Leo had no sense during this whole debacle.

His first action was to try and find the link. It was all about protecting the party rather than investigate whether his TD was trying to commit insurance fraud.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/taoiseach-hunts-for-leak-at-centre-of-maria-bailey-swing-row-38242721.html

The Irish Independent first reported on May 20 that a case recorded as "Maria Bailey Ryan v Holtend Limited trading as The Dean Hotel" was listed for mention in the Circuit Court County Registrar that day.

Compensation awards in this court can be as high as €60,000.
It was established that the first-time TD's claim was based on an incident which occurred while on a night out with friends in July 2015. Ms Bailey fell backwards out of an indoor swing. She was holding a bottle of beer and reaching for a friend's drink at the time.

In the circuit court proceedings, she has accused the hotel of negligence, saying the swing was "unsupervised" and there were no signs telling patrons how to safely use it.

This newspaper will not be co-operating with Fine Gael's attempt to expose potential sources linked to the story.

BattleCorp

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry, but I have to go back to this.

Exaggerating a claim is fraudulent.

I personally wouldn't be happy if such a high profile case like this isn't investigated by the Gardaí.

If we are to start changing the culture, we have to really lean on the high profile cases, or else we're all as guilty of it.

The problem though is that nobody can prove that the claim was fraudulent. Not 100%. You can suspect it was fraudulent but many of the inconsistencies in Bailey's storey could be argued away in court as mistakes and not lies. I'm not standing up for her by the way. I think she should be shown the door pronto.

How can the Gardaí prove the claim was fraudulent?

She did fall off the swing, that's not in question so what can the Gardaí do there?

She'll have doctors reports to show she was injured. Doctors are experts in this area, not Gardaí. The Gardaí can suspect she is exaggerating her injuries but they won't be able to go against the word of a doctor.

She'll say the inconsistencies in the Affidavit were mistakes and not lies. How can the Gardaí prove anything there? Oops, I meant to type three weeks instead of three months. I was stressed after the injury and mixed up my dates etc. Easy enough thing to argue away.

Again, not standing up for her but it's next to impossible to prove she was lying or that her claim was fraudulent.

Even if the CCTV shows that she fell scuttered from the swing because of her own actions, that still doesn't mean that the claim is fraudulent.

irishproduce

walshb wrote: »

Screwing an insurance company? Nobody screws insurance companies. They screw people...they welcome claims...

She was screwing a business...

You're right.
The insurance cartel here is delicately balanced and tightly knit, such that all participating members have to work closely in step.
For example, if my business is sued, and a payout is made by insurer A, I will get a higher premium upon renewal from insurer A.
If I then go to speak to insurer B, they cannot even entertain discussing the ins and outs of the case/ blame/ responsibility in an attempt to look past the claim, form an opinion on insurance risk, so as to offer me a good quote, setting aside the unfortunate claim against my business.

If they did, then the coordination will fail leaving the previous insurer exposed.

All for one and one for all.

They have to work closely together and no external entity can be allowed in to disrupt it, for to not have very tight compliance between them, would mean the racket fails and they all lose money.