Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

Suckit

BattleCorp wrote: »

I don't know if you know much about solicitors but receiving a payment of €11,500 for services given is hardly a substantial gain for a law firm.

Suckit wrote: »

Yeah, but the point is still that they thought €11,500 was substantial enough for them to take the case.

BattleCorp wrote: »

And why wouldn't they. Firms aren't in the business of turning away business.

Lets be realistic, if Bailey wasn't a TD, then we would never have heard of this case, she wouldn't have dropped the case and might well be sitting pretty with a good chance of winning her claim. So why wouldn't a law firm take on a case like that where they had a reasonable chance of winning?

That's kinda my point. Although stretched out much longer than need be.

James Brown

BattleCorp wrote: »

The hot tea spill, the falling off the Luas stuff etc. were all successful cases.

And the claimants were admired far and wide :rolleyes:

BattleCorp

Matt Barrett wrote: »

And the claimants were admired far and wide :rolleyes:

And I'm sure they don't give a sh1t once they get a big lob of money.

givyjoe

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not trying to be insulting but you don't know she didn't slip off the seat. Not 100%. You didn't carry out an engineering inspection on the swing with Bailey present to explain the chain of events to determine if the swing was dangerous of if all precautionary measures that were reasonably practicable were in place. You don't know if anybody else fell off the swing previously and if they did (which is likely), then what action did the Dean take to prevent it happening again.

So, with respect, you can't say for certain what the cause of this accident was. And with no court case, and no engineering inspection etc. we will more than likely never know 100% if the Dean were somewhat responsible for the incident.

Bu the way, from a health and safety point of view, having a swing in a premises that sells alcohol is a recipe for disaster given the litigious nature of Irish people.

Im going by her own words, she stumbled once SOR had rumbled how she actually fell off, if she had a drink in one hand and was reaching for another, how many hands does that leave on the swing ropes? Seriously, you'd need industrial strength super glue to keep someone on a swing in that case, or as I said earlier, a seatbelt.

For someone who repeatedly claims to not defending MB, you really are bending over backwards on a consistent basis to defend her position, no matter how completely incredulous or unbelievable it may be.

You're actually taking the p1ss at this point, do we need an engineer to work out the cause of someone falling off a swing, when they had no hands on the swing at the time?!

As I said, if the dean didn't have CCTV, they might have lost the case, but they do. Not a chance she would be winning the case with such clear cut video evidence against negligence on their part.

James Brown

BattleCorp wrote: »

And I'm sure they don't give a sh1t once they get a big lob of money.

I couldn't care less what they think. We speak on the neck of such individuals. Winning their case, as in Maria's, doesn't excuse the chancery IMO. If Maria won a wheelbarrow load it wouldn't excuse her.

ChikiChiki

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

As above, I'd say they'd need to have put in one hell of an effort to convince a court that a 39 year old TD should have had lessons/signage instructions on the principles of how a swing works.

How (with a straight face) could you be telling a judge that someone - who was elected in to parliament, and entrusted with legislation that affects everyone in the states daily lives, couldn't operate a child's play thing completely stone cold sober (according to her)?

I feel like they have been involved in dubious claims before and been successful. How would any straight laced self respecting Lawyer take on such a weak claim. Perhaps there is a lot more skeletons in the closet of Madigans law firm.

WishUWereHere

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

That's Paddy making himself losty for a week or two again.

Talk about lurking in the shadows in silence, sticking your oar in and being burned.

Wonder whose turn is it next? Flash Johnny won’t be able to use the Shenzhen excuse after next month, Hainan are dropping the route.

Suckit

ChikiChiki wrote: »

I feel like they have been involved in dubious claims before and been successful. How would any straight laced self respecting Lawyer take on such a weak claim. Perhaps there is a lot more skeletons in the closet of Madigans law firm.

Imagine if the lawyer had witnessed the event? :eek:

Tin Foil Hat

givyjoe wrote: »

Or that the fall was CLEARLY due to her own stupidity. no hands leaning forwards/backwards on a SWING.

The hotel clearly stated they had CCTV. How on earth could she demonstrate negligence on the hotels part, considering what she stated on the SOR show, along with CCTV footage of the incident.

Judges have a habit of finding against those with the the deeper pockets. It lubricates the wheels of their former profession.

Suckit

Politicians reveal €9m claimed back on expenses
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/politicians-reveal-9m-claimed-back-on-expenses-942797.html
Would love to see you-know-who's 'expenses'. But after Alison O'Connors article, it feels like she was purposely omitted.
Another paper might have published them all.

To rob a sentence I'm sure I have seen on the gangland thread - "dirty scrounging b*st*rds"..
The threads could merge.

Pintman Paddy Losty

Suckit wrote: »

Politicians reveal €9m claimed back on expenses
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/politicians-reveal-9m-claimed-back-on-expenses-942797.html
Would love to see you-know-who's 'expenses'. But after Alison O'Connors article, it feels like she was purposely omitted.
Another paper might have published them all.

To rob a sentence I'm sure I have seen on the gangland thread - "dirty scrounging b*st*rds"..
The threads could merge.

Unsurprisingly you show total ignorance concerning how that particular expense works.

It's called the leaders expense. It's paid based on the number of TDs your party have in the Dail. So Maria Bailey herself wouldn't have claimed anything. Leo/FG would have claimed money they spent on political consultants etc. You can be sure every penny is properly accounted for

Independent TDs not belonging to a party or having a leader receive the money themselves. Independents tend to be self serving and dim so that's how you've arrived at a numskull like Sean Canny spending 3200 on restaurants and calling it Policy development. At least he listed what he spent it on though(likely out of stupidity rather than honesty) . The others didn't even bother providing a breakdown.

Can't pin this one on FG. It's the feckless independent TDs.

golfball37

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

Judges have a habit of finding against those with the the deeper pockets. It lubricates the wheels of their former profession.

Correct- it’s also why so many repeat offenders get a slap on wrist. Legal aid gravy train keeps solicitors from slumming it like the rest of us

BattleCorp

givyjoe wrote: »

For someone who repeatedly claims to not defending MB, you really are bending over backwards on a consistent basis to defend her position, no matter how completely incredulous or unbelievable it may be.

It may seem like I'm defending Bailey. I'm not. I'm more criticising the system that makes it so difficult to defend personal injury claims. The current system places too much onus on businesses and very nearly absolves individuals of any personal responsibility. I've seen workers do the stupidest things and get rewarded in court.

You're actually taking the p1ss at this point, do we need an engineer to work out the cause of someone falling off a swing, when they had no hands on the swing at the time?!

You might not believe me but yes. If an engineer inspected the swing and could prove that it was faulty in any way, then that would aid Bailey's case. Sure, Bailey not holding on would be contributory negligence, but it wouldn't absolve The Dean if there was anything wrong with the swing (and I'm not suggesting that). And speaking from experience, the employee/member of the public can do 10 things wrong but if the business/employer do 1 thing wrong, usually the employee/member of the public wins their case.

I've seen a case against where someone didn't stop at a stop sign in a warehouse and had an accident. They won their case because the company couldn't prove that trainees were told to stop at a stop sign on their training.

I've seen a case succeed where someone jumped approx. 1m from a tail lift of a truck and fractured their ankle. They won their case because the training documentation didn't tell people not to jump off tail lifts.

I've seen a RSI injury claim succeed because an engineer determined that the person was sitting on an 8 hour chair when they should have been using a 24 hour chair. Who the fcuk even knew such a thing existed.

Never underestimate the effectiveness of an engineering report in court.

As I said, if the dean didn't have CCTV, they might have lost the case, but they do. Not a chance she would be winning the case with such clear cut video evidence against negligence on their part.

We haven't seen the CCTV (unless you have) so how can we know that it was very damaging to Bailey's case. I reckon the only way the CCTV would be damaging to Bailey's case would be if it showed minimal impact occurred, for example if she barely tipped herself when she came off the swing.

McMurphy

Don't think battle corp is defending Bailey, I read his posts more as an example of the absolute ludicrous softy approach our courts have when it comes to claims.

The odds seem to be stacked against the business defending the claims at all times.

Shemale

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Unsurprisingly you show total ignorance

Are you going to answer any questions put to you or just jump in with a pitchfork periodically.

Rabble rabble rabble...

Shefwedfan

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Unsurprisingly you show total ignorance concerning how that particular expense works.

It's called the leaders expense. It's paid based on the number of TDs your party have in the Dail. So Maria Bailey herself wouldn't have claimed anything. Leo/FG would have claimed money they spent on political consultants etc. You can be sure every penny is properly accounted for

Independent TDs not belonging to a party or having a leader receive the money themselves. Independents tend to be self serving and dim so that's how you've arrived at a numskull like Sean Canny spending 3200 on restaurants and calling it Policy development. At least he listed what he spent it on though(likely out of stupidity rather than honesty) . The others didn't even bother providing a breakdown.

Can't pin this one on FG. It's the feckless independent TDs.

Paddy.....now tell me......I work for a company with huge staff, at least 3-4 times the amount of politicians in Ireland.....if we had expenses of over 7.5 million the company would close tomorrow morning...we have audits, consultancy etc...customer meetings/dinners out etc.....all kept within our budgets



Do we have a break down of what the 7.5 went on? seeing as FG don't have an issue with it?



Pointing at one person for 3k is like giving out to the child that took a sweet out of the pack that the other child eat the whole pack

Shemale

BattleCorp wrote: »

It may seem like I'm defending Bailey. I'm not.

I couldnt agree more.

There a tons of scheisters getting claim paid in court or on the steps that never in a million years they should get, all it takes is one minor flaw in the defences duty of care.

is_that_so

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Do we have a break down of what the 7.5 went on? seeing as FG don't have an issue with it?



Pointing at one person for 3k is like giving out to the child that took a sweet out of the pack that the other child eat the whole pack

All that needs to happen for the leader's allowance is that there is a "justification" for it. Much of the time it is for parliamentary activities, staff recruitment and research. If you're looking for breakdowns go to SIPO. Here's a breakdown on the amount they can claim.

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/762d55-parliamentary-activities-allowance/

Suckit

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Unsurprisingly you show total ignorance concerning how that particular expense works.

It's called the leaders expense. It's paid based on the number of TDs your party have in the Dail. So Maria Bailey herself wouldn't have claimed anything. Leo/FG would have claimed money they spent on political consultants etc. You can be sure every penny is properly accounted for

Independent TDs not belonging to a party or having a leader receive the money themselves. Independents tend to be self serving and dim so that's how you've arrived at a numskull like Sean Canny spending 3200 on restaurants and calling it Policy development. At least he listed what he spent it on though(likely out of stupidity rather than honesty) . The others didn't even bother providing a breakdown.

Can't pin this one on FG. It's the feckless independent TDs.

Sorry to disappoint Paddy, I probably could have worded it better, but I was inquiring about all the expenses, I had mentioned them a few pages back and maybe linked to the allowances (where so many of them claim the exact amount allowed, right down to the 3 cents) pages on oireachtas.ie with salaries. Fwiw, I wasn't trying to pin that one on FG alone (I actually voted for them the last elections ), I think it is a disgrace that they (all of them) even get the sort of allowances that allow them to spend all day in a pub. I would be the first to hold my hands up though, and admit I am flummoxed as to how politicians (claim they) work, but that's for another thread.

Nice to see you have resorted to hovering over this thread and are waiting there ready to pounce or protect us when you perceive something to be incorrect.
It must be cold out there, come on in and sure if the mood takes you, you could answer the questions that have been asked of you.
You're coming across as very FG they way you go into hiding and then jump out pretending to do something every now and then.

McMurphy

Paddy is very opinionated on everything except the actual subject of the thread.

There's 20k - 60k reasons to make some comment on the actions of Farrell - Bailey - Madigan and Varadkars inaction, yet Paddy wants to nitpick on other shyte.

I thought I read that he had finished giving us his thoughts on the thread weeks ago?

Lamp/Moth.

Snow Garden

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Hopefully the full facts of the case are laid out in the report. If there is a case to answer I'm sure FG will put the right measures in place to prevent it happening in the future. That's if there was anything untoward in the first place.

From 25th June.

:pac::D;):rolleyes:

James Brown

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Unsurprisingly you show total ignorance concerning how that particular expense works.

It's called the leaders expense. It's paid based on the number of TDs your party have in the Dail. So Maria Bailey herself wouldn't have claimed anything. Leo/FG would have claimed money they spent on political consultants etc. You can be sure every penny is properly accounted for

Independent TDs not belonging to a party or having a leader receive the money themselves. Independents tend to be self serving and dim so that's how you've arrived at a numskull like Sean Canny spending 3200 on restaurants and calling it Policy development. At least he listed what he spent it on though(likely out of stupidity rather than honesty) . The others didn't even bother providing a breakdown.

Can't pin this one on FG. It's the feckless independent TDs.

Really? You know Fine Gael went 9 years without paying any taxes?

I like the way you talk about Independents, very condescending and arrogant. Sure you could be a Fine Gaeler yourself with that attitude.
At least Canny was above board on the financing of his own dinners.

JohnnyFlash

Bump.

Pintman Paddy Losty

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Bump.

You out doing bumps of Colombian marching powder Johnny?

JohnnyFlash

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

You out doing bumps of Colombian marching powder Johnny?

Not tonight, P. Knocking the skull open on a few tins of Guinness, while watching the Liverpool game. There was 48 of them for 50 eurons in Dunnes Stores last week. Then throw the tenner off 50 voucher on em. Less than a euro for a can. Can’t complain about that. Might have what caught Maria Bailey. Cheap grog.

tuxy

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Bump.

Checking to see if this topic has run its course?

tayto lover

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Not tonight, P. Knocking the skull open on a few tins of Guinness, while watching the Liverpool game. There was 48 of them for 50 eurons in Dunnes Stores last week. Then throw the tenner off 50 voucher on em. Less than a euro for a can. Can’t complain about that. Might have what caught Maria Bailey. Cheap grog.

Hope you have no swing in your sitting room.

salmocab

tayto lover wrote: »

Hope you have no swing in your sitting room.

You’d have to be an idiot to fall off a swing if you are an adult

tayto lover

salmocab wrote: »

You’d have to be an idiot to fall off a swing if you are an adult

Ha ha read the instructions.

tuxy

tayto lover wrote: »

Ha ha read the instructions.

No need they usually come with supervisors.