Woman sues Dunnes Stores over glass jug which shattered after she poured hot water in

kildare lad

punisher5112 wrote: »

Should be a warning on the oven or microwave to not insert any body parts including head
.....

Similar to coffee cups, content may be hot for example....

What's the best warning or funniest others have seen....

I bought a packet of pistachio nuts last year and it said " This product contains nuts ".

ahnowbrowncow

suicide_circus wrote: »

I wish it were just stupidity of judges that resulted in awards like this. The more cynical side of me wonders whether it's about keeping the legal gravy train going. Fair play to Dunnes for challenging this and the appeals court for pointing out in plain language just how absurd it was.

What happens if the judge awards costs against her? I doubt she'd be able to pay, do Dunnes Stores and her legal representatives chase her for their legal fees? I doubt the judges would be happy with solicitors not getting paid.

Do most of these chancers' solicitors do this on a no win no fee basis? I know they're not allowed to advertise as such but it doesn't stop them operating like it though as far as I know.

Meeoow

Be right back wrote: »

Or a teapot! Delighted that it was overturned.

Hopefully not a chocolate teapot, or she'll sue Cadburys when it melts.

gozunda

kildare lad wrote: »

I bought a packet of pistachio nuts last year and it said " This product contains nuts ".

I think the problem there - is that just when you think you're covered for all levels of idiocracy - universal laws dictate that a more advanced form of idiocracy will automatically evolve.

Be right back

Meeoow wrote: »

Hopefully not a chocolate teapot, or she'll sue Cadburys when it melts.

Does she know that chocolate melts?

GreeBo

I have much less of an issue with her than I have with the original judge and his award.

She got some pretty serious injuries, basically due to cultural differences.
I wouldnt have had much issue with her getting medical expenses covered (but I also wouldnt have minded if she didnt) but she should have never been given more than her medical costs.

That said, she was still only found to be 25% culpable...

biko

Maybe next time simply ask in the shop; "it is ok to pour hot water into this glass thing?"

ahnowbrowncow

GreeBo wrote: »

I have much less of an issue with her than I have with the original judge and his award.

She got some pretty serious injuries, basically due to cultural differences.
I wouldnt have had much issue with her getting medical expenses covered (but I also wouldnt have minded if she didnt) but she should have never been given more than her medical costs.

That said, she was still only found to be 25% culpable...

Her having injuries is not in question.

Responsibility and negligence is the sole issue. I don't see how Dunnes should even have to cover her medical fees.

Can you explain how Dunnes stores are at fault for her putting boiling water in a glass jug? Should cutlery come with warnings not to stick forks into live electric connections?

Where does that end and personal responsibility begin?

Edgware

GreeBo wrote: »

I have much less of an issue with her than I have with the original judge and his award.

She got some pretty serious injuries, basically due to cultural differences.
I wouldnt have had much issue with her getting medical expenses covered (but I also wouldnt have minded if she didnt) but she should have never been given more than her medical costs.

That said, she was still only found to be 25% culpable...

So her medical expenses should have been paid!!
Stupid people please form orderly queue. Sorry sir, you have to wait. This lady who put her head in the over to dry her hair has priority

Vic_08

GreeBo wrote: »

I have much less of an issue with her than I have with the original judge and his award.

She got some pretty serious injuries, basically due to cultural differences.
I wouldnt have had much issue with her getting medical expenses covered (but I also wouldnt have minded if she didnt) but she should have never been given more than her medical costs.

It's exactly this sort of shyte that is the problem, people being awarded compo because something bad happened.

Compo should only be given if another party caused the injury through negligence, sympathy for the the injured party, no matter how bad the injury is should have no relevance on the judgement whatsoever.

Unfortunately the exact opposite happens here all too often. There have been awards of millions paid out where the judge has even admitted in summary that the "guilty" party was not really to blame, but sure <sob story, sob story> here you go have a big wedge from the big company/government's bottomless bank account.

Geuze

GreeBo wrote: »

I have much less of an issue with her than I have with the original judge and his award.

She got some pretty serious injuries, basically due to cultural differences.
I wouldnt have had much issue with her getting medical expenses covered (but I also wouldnt have minded if she didnt) but she should have never been given more than her medical costs.

Hosp are tax-financed in Ireland, so she wouldn't have much hosp expenses.

Okay, unless she has a med card, she faces GP fees and pharmacy prices.

pgj2015

punisher5112 wrote: »

Should be a warning on the oven or microwave to not insert any body parts including head
.....

Similar to coffee cups, content may be hot for example....

What's the best warning or funniest others have seen....

I remember reading about some ejt in America who put their rv on cruise control and went off to make a sandwich, the rv obviously crashed. The rv makers had to warn people in the manual not to do such a thing.

alias no.9

Mr Justice Noonan said his provisional view was Dunnes would be entitled to its legal costs in the High Court and Court if Appeal against Ms Cekanova but she had 14 days to consider whether to argue for an alternative costs order.

A glimmer of hope?

deandean

And I note from that article that she was cross claiming against the judge finding her just 25% negligent. LOL!

Edgware

But but but the Insurance company and Dunnes have loads of money and she is of child bearing age.

Church on Tuesday

gozunda wrote: »

I think the problem there - is that just when you think you're covered for all levels of idiocracy - universal laws dictate that a more advanced form of idiocracy will automatically evolve.

kildare lad

A judge gave a drunk fella a hundred grand for slipping on a tile outside his council gaf. I don't know how it went on appeal . But it's a prime example that the judges here are on another planet


A man who was awarded €105,000 by a High Court judge after he claimed he slipped on tiles on the front porch of his local authority home will have to have his action reheard.

The Court of Appeal sent Thomas Keegan’s case back to the High Court for a new hearing on liability after Sligo County Council won its appeal over the original decision in his favour.

The three judge appeal court found the High Court judge had discounted alcohol as a factor in Mr Keegan’s fall “purely on the basis of the judge’s own opinion and not on the basis of evidence.

The trial judge had also not considered the question of Mr Keegan’s own knowledge of the porch tiles in a house where he had lived for nine years, the appeal court added.

Mr Keegan(49) of McNeill Drive, Cranmore, Sligo, had sued Sligo County Council after he slipped on the porch which had a mosaic tile floor, fracturing his left ankle.

He had told the court he was on his way home from a funeral and had consumed five pints on the day of the accident on November 18th 2013.

Sligo County Council had claimed Mr Keegan had failed to take reasonable care for his own safety when entering the property.

When making the award in 2017, Mr Justice Anthony Barr said Mr Keegan had candidly admitted he had five pints of beer before returning home on the day of the accident .

“Having regard to the fact this is a man who has worked in manual labouring jobs all his life, I decline to make any adverse finding against him having regard to the level of alcohol consumed by him that day,” Mr Justice Barr said.

The judge granted a stay on the award in the event of an appeal providing €30,000 was paid out immediately to Mr Keegan

Meeoow

I'm waiting on Hozier to tweet that we are all racist for not tagging our glass jugs with 'do not put hot water in here'.

punisher5112

Glass jugs matter

ohnonotgmail

punisher5112 wrote: »

Glass Big jugs matter

FYP

eagle eye

Criticising the judges shows little understanding of how the legal system works. Judges are happy for their awards to be overturned on appeal, what they don't want is for them to give nothing and then it to be overturned in favour of the plaintiff on appeal on a point of law as this makes them look bad.
There's been many cases where this has happened and the ruling from the appeal court is scathing in its language basically saying the judge didn't understand the law. No judge wants that opinion from a higher court.

Edgware

punisher5112 wrote: »

Glass jugs matter

All jugs should be handled carefully

Raisins

“The problem is these Irish judges. What they really think is...”.

“No you’re wrong it’s even worse...what they really think is...”

“Will you put on another pint for me there? No, no, no you’re wrong you don’t understand. The way judges think...”.

Gaoth Laidir

gifted wrote: »

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/court-overturns-e65000-award-over-e10-dunnes-jug-that-shattered-1067747.html

How the f... did she originally get awarded that kind of money?

And almost as bad, what kind of gob****e wrote that article? Headline says €65,000 but the rest of the article says €56,000. And what's the Court if Appeal? Journalists are as thick as that Judge Crown.

gozunda

There once was a young woman from Slovak
Tea in a glass jug was the knack
With the boiling water it exploded
She then sued and became loaded
But cried when she had to give it all back

When someone gets 500k after getting injured while commuting an illegal act, we should no longer be surprised

...Ghost...

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Do most of these chancers' solicitors do this on a no win no fee basis? I know they're not allowed to advertise as such but it doesn't stop them operating like it though as far as I know.

No-win, no-fee should be illegal. 1 free consultation is about as good as it gets with fees accruing regardless of outcome.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

How the f... did she originally get awarded that kind of money?

And almost as bad, what kind of gob****e wrote that article? Headline says €65,000 but the rest of the article says €56,000. And what's the Court if Appeal? Journalists are as thick as that Judge Crown.

Look what happens when you switch the 6 and 5.

1874

GreeBo wrote: »

I have much less of an issue with her than I have with the original judge and his award.

She got some pretty serious injuries, basically due to cultural differences.
I wouldnt have had much issue with her getting medical expenses covered (but I also wouldnt have minded if she didnt) but she should have never been given more than her medical costs.
That said, she was still only found to be 25% culpable...

No, she is on the make, she couldnt be that stupid and if she is, thats unfortunate for her, she knew what she was up to.
Glad I read this thread as I only saw this online as news elsewhere and I thought she was awarded 56k reduced from 72k or thereabouts.
I was surprised to see the thread goes back so far. some neck on her, anyone who has made it to adulthood and doesnt know that certain materials cant withstand boiling water, ie glass is thick!


Was in Court and saw a number of cases being brought by parents for children slipping in shops and the like, I know there are a lot of decent people here from Central Europe, but everyone of them on that day like they were on the make, kids I saw looked none the worse.


Be interested to see what the end result of this is

eagle eye wrote: »

Criticising the judges shows little understanding of how the legal system works. Judges are happy for their awards to be overturned on appeal, what they don't want is for them to give nothing and then it to be overturned in favour of the plaintiff on appeal on a point of law as this makes them look bad.
There's been many cases where this has happened and the ruling from the appeal court is scathing in its language basically saying the judge didn't understand the law. No judge wants that opinion from a higher court.

Well why dont they award 2k and give them a warning, with a solicitors percent of that, fewer will take cases, or the rest have to be made up by the person making the claim.
Reminded in here of this book of quantum? someone mentioned, why isnt it adhered to.

ShatterAlan

kildare lad wrote: »

A judge gave a drunk fella a hundred grand for slipping on a tile outside his council gaf. I don't know how it went on appeal . But it's a prime example that the judges here are on another planet


A man who was awarded €105,000 by a High Court judge after he claimed he slipped on tiles on the front porch of his local authority home will have to have his action reheard.

The Court of Appeal sent Thomas Keegan’s case back to the High Court for a new hearing on liability after Sligo County Council won its appeal over the original decision in his favour.

The three judge appeal court found the High Court judge had discounted alcohol as a factor in Mr Keegan’s fall “purely on the basis of the judge’s own opinion and not on the basis of evidence.

The trial judge had also not considered the question of Mr Keegan’s own knowledge of the porch tiles in a house where he had lived for nine years, the appeal court added.

Mr Keegan(49) of McNeill Drive, Cranmore, Sligo, had sued Sligo County Council after he slipped on the porch which had a mosaic tile floor, fracturing his left ankle.

He had told the court he was on his way home from a funeral and had consumed five pints on the day of the accident on November 18th 2013.

Sligo County Council had claimed Mr Keegan had failed to take reasonable care for his own safety when entering the property.

When making the award in 2017, Mr Justice Anthony Barr said Mr Keegan had candidly admitted he had five pints of beer before returning home on the day of the accident .

“Having regard to the fact this is a man who has worked in manual labouring jobs all his life, I decline to make any adverse finding against him having regard to the level of alcohol consumed by him that day,” Mr Justice Barr said.

The judge granted a stay on the award in the event of an appeal providing €30,000 was paid out immediately to Mr Keegan

If it's so easy to get "paid, yo!" then why don't you just go and slide across the floor in your local Centra and bang your head and then get rich?

ILoveYourVibes

am i supposed to care?

shrug ..umkay ..