Child Receives Electric Shock from Damaged Lamp-Post

Electronic Writer

A man I know knows a man who is now 40 something. When he was approximately 8 years old he received an electric shock from a street lamp post which had been vandalised. He , of course hadn't a clue what electricity could do but knows better now.


He has permanent injuries which include difficulty controlling the arm through which he received the shock. He has difficulty therefore lifting things such as a glass with liquid in it which may end up all over the place.


He also recently went to eat something using a fork and when putting the fork towards his mouth he just missed poking himself in the eye by a short distance.



Writing can be a severe problem after a short time.


Can he pursue compensation ?

nuac

Mod
Thread re-opened at poster's request

Bikerman2019

How can you actually prove any of this if it happened 32 years ago?

Tails142

The window for bringing a personal injury claim is two years? Am I right? Suppose there's always exceptions

Grolschevik

Doesn't it start running when the damage becomes apparent? Different from the OP's scenario, but say I got a kick in the bollocks when I was 12, but resultant sterility not diagnosed til I'm 40. How would that play out?

Or sometime comparable, given that I don't know if that's a realistic hypothetical...

hullaballoo

By my estimate, if your mate is say 45, the statute ran out on this around 1999.

I'm possibly wrong by a year or so either way but 1999 is 21 years ago so it's unlikely even on the narrow bases by which the statute can be extended in this case that it is possible to claim now.

That said of course if he is serious about it, he should consult with a legal professional and preferably one who has been in practice a while.

Peregrinus

Grolschevik wrote: »

Doesn't it start running when the damage becomes apparent? Different from the OP's scenario, but say I got a kick in the bollocks when I was 12, but resultant sterility not diagnosed til I'm 40. How would that play out?

Or sometime comparable, given that I don't know if that's a realistic hypothetical...

For limitation period purposes, a person's knowledge that he has a cause of action includes "knowledge which he might reasonably have been expected to acquire . . . from facts ascertainable by him with the help of medical or other appropriate expert advice which it is reasonable for him to seek".

So, if it would have been reasonable for him to seek medical advice on the consequences of the kick before reaching age 40, and that medical advice might reasanably be expected to disclose his sterility, he's cactus. And I guess whether it would have been reasonable to seek that advice will be one of the preliminary issues in the trial.

Electronic Writer

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

How can you actually prove any of this if it happened 32 years ago?

How can you ask me a question that could only be answered if the initial event happened ?

Electronic Writer

Grolschevik wrote: »

say I got a kick in the bollocks when I was 12, but resultant sterility not diagnosed til I'm 40.

Now, we've all had situations where kicks in the bollocks happen and more than once. But, we don't diagnose ourselves, we aren't blessed with the knowledge it takes trained professions years to obtain, we wouldn't know one symptom of one ailment from the same symptom of another.


Do your nuts hurt from a kick or are your jocks too tight ?


Are you shaking severely from being cold , or afraid , or are you a heroin addict , maybe alcoholic , or plain and simply did that fcuking lamp-post do it ?................////0//M99d=-

Electronic Writer

Peregrinus wrote: »

For limitation period purposes, a person's knowledge that he has a cause of action includes "knowledge which he might reasonably have been expected to acquire . . . from facts ascertainable by him with the help of medical or other appropriate expert advice which it is reasonable for him to seek".

So, if it would have been reasonable for him to seek medical advice on the consequences of the kick before reaching age 40, and that medical advice might reasanably be expected to disclose his sterility, he's cactus. And I guess whether it would have been reasonable to seek that advice will be one of the preliminary issues in the trial.

If the trained medical professionals had never specifically had the view , or were unwilling for whatever reason to admit , that the event had caused the effect , why would it be " reasonable " for the person to reach his own ignorant untrained totally correct conclusion ?

I would think it unreasonable , in my simple view .

CrabRevolution

Electronic Writer wrote: »

How can you ask me a question that could only be answered if the initial event happened ?

I'm not sure I understand your point here. The poster you replied to has a pretty pertinent question; even if the story is true, how would you prove it after ~35 years? What contemporary evidence has he to prove that the ESB/council's negligence are the cause of his issues?

I can't see the court just taking his word for it or the state would soon be bankrupted by decades old claims of people saying they got electrocuted, or fell down a manhole, or tripped on a pothole etc.

Electronic Writer

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand your point here.

You obviously don't. The point I was trying to make was that I was trying to get this person to think of a question to which I could supply an answer and that answer could only be given if the event had happened.

CrabRevolution wrote: »

What contemporary evidence has he to prove that the ESB/council's negligence are the cause of his issues?

An example may be the following, Vandalism to the locking mechanism on the lamp-post had resulted at the time in the ESB or Local Authority repairing it by placing stainless steel bands around the cover/door. When these bands were vandalised by children again then the cover was easily removed by children.


These bands were inadequate for purpose.

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I can't see the court just taking his word for it or the state would soon be bankrupted by decades old claims of people saying they got electrocuted, or fell down a manhole, or tripped on a pothole etc.

In modern terminology the person who is in contact with an electrical conductor is said to receive an electric shock. If it kills the person it is said to be electrocution.


In other words , because the person is alive, there is every chance the court will take his word that he received an electric shock while there would be no chance if he had have been electrocuted.


Falling down a manhole and tripping on a pothole are nothing compared to being in contact with an AC Voltage lamp - post. Had the current passed through the mans heart he would not give an fcuk about compensation.

Eggs For Dinner

Ah lads, 32 years ago. Seriously!

Irishphotodesk

Electronic Writer wrote: »

A man I know knows a man who is now 40 something. When he was approximately 8 years old he received an electric shock from a street lamp post which had been vandalised. He , of course hadn't a clue what electricity could do but knows better now.


He has permanent injuries which include difficulty controlling the arm through which he received the shock. He has difficulty therefore lifting things such as a glass with liquid in it which may end up all over the place.


He also recently went to eat something using a fork and when putting the fork towards his mouth he just missed poking himself in the eye by a short distance.



Writing can be a severe problem after a short time.


Can he pursue compensation ?

It would raise a few questions for the client to answer and very difficult questions he would be unable to answer in my opinion.

Can he prove he was given an electric shock by a lamppost ?
Can he prove he was a student who was on a par or above academic peers prior to the event ?
Can he prove a subsequent loss in ability ?
Can he link any loss in ability to the initial event ?
Can he prove he has not had any life event/illness/injury in the past 30+ years which may be the cause of or contributed to his motor skills ? Ie. Anything in his medical history for the past 30+years reported or not reported could have caused his difficulty in writing.

If he has ever been in hospital due to an injury from falling/car crash or sickness ? He could be challenged on any action taken against the ESB.

Who could he sue? The esb for being negligent 30+ years ago ? The hospital who treated him for not recognising he may have benefited from further treatment 30+ years ago, I would guess that at the time he was treated with current methods and practices, while they may be different now, I don’t think he could retrospectively claim they were negligent given that the modern approach may not have been available to the medics as an option.

OP it would be very difficult for the guy to prove negligence over 30years ago, but as others have said, check with an established and well practiced legal professional.

Edit: if he has suffered throughout his life, why wait until he is in his 40s to attempt to take an action, is he ready to answer under oath if someone else suggested to him that he should be compensated (ie. He is either influenced by someone else or under pressure by someone else to lodge a claim) why didn’t he lodge a claim when he was of age or why didn’t his parents lodge a claim on his behalf ....do we know if his parents were compensated 30+ years ago and never informed him ? Or was he given money on his 18th and he spent/wasted it? Is he willing to put his parents on the stand as witnesses to give evidence (quite a stressful thing for anyone, assuming they are still alive, they should only be in their 60/70s)

To be honest it could appear as though he is only pursuing a legal action because of some “pub talk” saying he is “entitled” to compo....or someone else is putting him up to it so he may pay a debt owed to them or the other person will get a share of any compo.

bobbyy gee

He's too late to claim
Are you sure its not a medical problem like parkenson or motor neuron .

https://www.anthonyjoyce.ie/personal-injury-claims-faqs/#:~:text=Under%20the%20Civil%20Liability%20and,on%20Irish%20personal%20injury*%20claims.

It’s also interesting that you say, “recently he had difficulty eating”- like it’s an issue that wasn’t there before- you’d imagine he either had this issue since the accident and mastered eating or it’s unrelated to that incident.
I’m surprised his parents or guardians didn’t take Legal action on his behalf - he could also have pursued this himself, up to the age of 21 is what’s in my mind, but that could have changed since

Electronic Writer

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Ah lads, 32 years ago. Seriously!

yes !

Electronic Writer

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

It would raise a few questions for the client to answer and very difficult questions he would be unable to answer in my opinion.

The more difficult the better. The truth will always have an answer.

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

Can he prove he was given an electric shock by a lamppost ?
Can he prove he was a student who was on a par or above academic peers prior to the event ?
Can he prove a subsequent loss in ability ?
Can he link any loss in ability to the initial event ?
Can he prove he has not had any life event/illness/injury in the past 30+ years which may be the cause of or contributed to his motor skills ? Ie. Anything in his medical history for the past 30+years reported or not reported could have caused his difficulty in writing.

Can he prove he was given an electric shock , well , great detail can be given about the experience. He doesn't have to imagine what happened , he can recollect from experience.


I'm supposing that proving he was on a par or above with peers is a way in which an amount of damages can be assessed. If he was just the fruit cake sitting in the corner , sure who cares ?


Everybody has abilities. Which one is in question ? The damaged ability to lift a simple glass of water in his right hand and drink it is quite different from the more balanced ability to try the same in his left. He is right handed and has spent quite a few years using the left to increase non-natural use.



My maths teacher use say that enough proof can be made with a singular event. He does not have to make many proofs even though he could. He had a large lump on his right wrist which appeared after he received his electric shock. He had this removed as severe wrist pain was causing many problems during writing in his college lectures not to mention he had this unsightly occurence in common with some who were known to have injected drugs.



Writing is only one problem. There are many effects.

Electronic Writer

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

If he has ever been in hospital due to an injury from falling/car crash or sickness ? He could be challenged on any action taken against the ESB

He did of course have other occurences along the way. Falling on his arse when hit by a car when cycling his bicycle has given him over 20 years of arthritis but he wouldn't be looking to the ESB (if applicable) for compensation relevant to his derriere. So, they would be welcome to have any details of anything they wished.

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

Who could he sue? The esb for being negligent 30+ years ago ? The hospital who treated him for not recognising he may have benefited from further treatment 30+ years ago, I would guess that at the time he was treated with current methods and practices, while they may be different now, I don’t think he could retrospectively claim they were negligent given that the modern approach may not have been available to the medics as an option.

Esb (if applicable), yes !



Children hide secrets for many reasons. Did you ever let your budgie fly out the window to see what it was like ?Hospital attention was never received. As far as the child was concerned nobody beyond other children who saw the event happening was told.

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

Edit: if he has suffered throughout his life, why wait until he is in his 40s to attempt to take an action, is he ready to answer under oath if someone else suggested to him that he should be compensated (ie. He is either influenced by someone else or under pressure by someone else to lodge a claim) why didn’t he lodge a claim when he was of age or why didn’t his parents lodge a claim on his behalf ....do we know if his parents were compensated 30+ years ago and never informed him ? Or was he given money on his 18th and he spent/wasted it? Is he willing to put his parents on the stand as witnesses to give evidence (quite a stressful thing for anyone, assuming they are still alive, they should only be in their 60/70s)

The man is prepared to do whatever is fair for his situation.

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

To be honest it could appear as though he is only pursuing a legal action because of some “pub talk” saying he is “entitled” to compo....or someone else is putting him up to it so he may pay a debt owed to them or the other person will get a share of any compo.

It could also appear he wasn't. He does not drink and has not heard pub talk in nearly 20 years , though why you could not have said , socially distant golf club bar chat , I don't know.


The straw that breaks the camels back is the final straw. Before the straw is put upon the camel the camel is fine , though increasingly loaded. After , the camel is different. The fork near the eye is the final straw.

Electronic Writer

bobbyy gee wrote: »

He's too late to claim
Are you sure its not a medical problem like parkenson or motor neuron .

https://www.anthonyjoyce.ie/personal-injury-claims-faqs/#:~:text=Under%20the%20Civil%20Liability%20and,on%20Irish%20personal%20injury*%20claims.

Parkinsons has been discounted.

Ronin247

Electronic Writer wrote: »

Parkinsons has been discounted.

If Parkinsons has been discounted then it was "in the frame" at some point in time, so I suspect there is no definitive proof that his ailments arise from when he was electrocuted.

Is he going on the premise of " I don't know what caused this so it must have been when I was electrocuted"?.

Hopefully he improves.

Electronic Writer

Deleted User wrote: »

It’s also interesting that you say, “recently he had difficulty eating”- like it’s an issue that wasn’t there before

Recently he put the toaster on to make some toast, it's not presumed he never made toast before.

Deleted User wrote: »

- you’d imagine he either had this issue since the accident and mastered eating or it’s unrelated to that incident.

He has had the control of his right arm as an issue since the incident and has never been able to properly eat with it. In college he avoided at all costs being in a place where many may see the effects of spilling liquids or carrying a plate as he was afraid of ridicule such as being compared to an alcoholic with the shakes or a drug addict with the dt's.

Deleted User wrote: »

I’m surprised his parents or guardians didn’t take Legal action on his behalf - he could also have pursued this himself, up to the age of 21 is what’s in my mind, but that could have changed since

He did not tell them, so they did not know.

Electronic Writer

Ronin247 wrote: »

If Parkinsons has been discounted then it was "in the frame" at some point in time, so I suspect there is no definitive proof that his ailments arise from when he was electrocuted.

It was considered as his symptoms of damage have things in common with Parkinsons. In his mind definitive proof is when he went to a lamp-post and got a shock , he is unable to control his arm properly in a lot of situations which began then . Interestingly alcoholics offered him whiskey when they saw he was shaking so severely as the solution to their diagnosis of him being cold and it could warm him up.



He does not have 40 years previous to the incident to compare the last nearly 40 years to.

Ronin247 wrote: »

Is he going on the premise of " I don't know what caused this so it must have been when I was electrocuted"?

He was there, he traces problems he has back to an origin and they meet at this event.

Ronin247 wrote: »

Hopefully he improves.

Unfortunately , he knows that the older he gets the worse it becomes. He would thank you for your wishes.

Irishphotodesk

Electronic Writer wrote: »

He did of course have other occurences along the way. Falling on his arse when hit by a car when cycling his bicycle has given him over 20 years of arthritis but he wouldn't be looking to the ESB (if applicable) for compensation relevant to his derriere. So, they would be welcome to have any details of anything they wished.

If he has had accidents since the first event, how can he prove the first event caused the issues he is experiencing.

Electronic Writer wrote: »

Children hide secrets for many reasons. Did you ever let your budgie fly out the window to see what it was like ?Hospital attention was never received. As far as the child was concerned nobody beyond other children who saw the event happening was told.

Children hide secrets, so how do we know that this person - as a child - didn’t cause the ESB pole to be tampered with ? And how do we know that they were electrocuted.... there is no proof....without proof, they could have made the story up.

Electronic Writer wrote: »

Can he prove he was given an electric shock , well , great detail can be given about the experience. He doesn't have to imagine what happened , he can recollect from experience

To put it as simple as possible, if you are going to sue anyone, you want to prove your version of events, if you cannot prove anything, you cannot attempt to sue a person or a business. Anyone can give great detail of an event, it doesn’t mean the event happened.

Electronic Writer wrote: »

It could also appear he wasn't. He does not drink and has not heard pub talk in nearly 20 years , though why you could not have said , socially distant golf club bar chat , I don't know.

Pub talk is an expression for someone giving advice which may not be correct, and in most cases is the wrong advice.

Electronic Writer wrote: »

The straw that breaks the camels back is the final straw. Before the straw is put upon the camel the camel is fine , though increasingly loaded. After , the camel is different. The fork near the eye is the final straw.

???

_Brian

It’s been too long.

Claw Hammer

This question sounds like somebody's homework. It has the flavour of an exam question or at least a sample exam question. If the OP is relying on the answers here, he will fail his exam.
In an exam, difficulties of proof are not relevant and should not be mentioned unless the exam is an evidence exam or there is reason to comment on some presumption in law relevant to the particular issue. In a case where negligence arises it may be necessary to comment on the principle of res ipsa loquitur.
Only some of the issues which exam student would be expected to comment on have been raised so far. The Statute of Limitations, the extension of time for minors, the date of knowledge of injury and there is a vague reference to other issues.
I am not going to do anybody's homework.

Electronic Writer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

This question sounds like somebody's homework. It has the flavour of an exam question or at least a sample exam question. If the OP is relying on the answers here, he will fail his exam.
In an exam, difficulties of proof are not relevant and should not be mentioned unless the exam is an evidence exam or there is reason to comment on some presumption in law relevant to the particular issue. In a case where negligence arises it may be necessary to comment on the principle of res ipsa loquitur.
Only some of the issues which exam student would be expected to comment on have been raised so far. The Statute of Limitations, the extension of time for minors, the date of knowledge of injury and there is a vague reference to other issues.
I am not going to do anybody's homework.

It's not an exam question.



A child received an electric shock from a lamp-post when he was approximately 8 years old. The lamp-post was situated at the roadside outside his parents house. He had been told on multiple occasions to stay away from the lamp-post by his parents who watched as children and youths vandalised it on multiple occasions. The relevant authority had implemented makeshift repairs by placing stainless steel straps around the top and the bottom of the cover.


These had been vandalised easily. When the child was playing near the lamp-post another child had approached him explaining he had a difficulty trying to twist off a fuse holder. The child, held the fuse holder in his right hand and immediately received an electric shock. He was unable to release the fuse holder easily as his hand was stuck to it.


He could not hear much which is comparable to being under water in a swimming pool. He managed to force his hand open and released the fuse holder. Suddenly his hearing returned like a crowd had suddenly started shouting.


2 mins later he was lying on a bed and " fell asleep ". When he awoke he stood up and has been shaking ever since.

And no adult was aware of this happening or noticed any change in the child afterwards, scarring,shaking etc?

Electronic Writer

_Brian wrote: »

It’s been too long.

Presumably then , in 20 years time , it will therefore be too long + 20 years.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

And no adult was aware of this happening or noticed any change in the child afterwards, scarring,shaking etc?

This!

Kitchen Favourites

How well do you know this person? You started the thread by saying "A man I know knows a man" but you seem to have a lot of detail about him. Very odd. Do you have a college assignment coming up or something?

Notmything

So, despite being warned by his parents to stay away from the post as it was a danger due to vandalism he still interfered with it, but it's the esb's fault.

KaneToad

I'll take the bait....

So, he's claiming that he suffers with the limb that grabbed the fuse all those years ago. Does that not suggest a physical abnormality that is a remnant from physical damage caused by electricity passing through the limb?

Has "your friend" had any scans/investigation to show that he has a physical abnormality in this limb, in the first instance.

If so, has the medical practitioner offered any opinion for the reason why this abnormality may exist?

Claw Hammer

Electronic Writer wrote: »

It's not an exam question.


.

If it is not an exam question, it is a sample exam question. Do your own homework.

Electronic Writer

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

If he has had accidents since the first event, how can he prove the first event caused the issues he is experiencing.

Everybody has accidents. Indeed , how can he prove .......... he knows what began that day ........... interestingly if he were to approach a GP and say he had a pain in his knee , a cert would be proof of a pain in the knee but the doctor is gifted with the blessing of declaration of proof even if it is a ly.

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

Children hide secrets, so how do we know that this person - as a child - didn’t cause the ESB pole to be tampered with ? And how do we know that they were electrocuted.... there is no proof....without proof, they could have made the story up.

He didn't damage the pole. As a theory , because his parents had told kids to stop vandalising the pole maybe he was tricked into being electrocuted.

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

To put it as simple as possible, if you are going to sue anyone, you want to prove your version of events, if you cannot prove anything, you cannot attempt to sue a person or a business. Anyone can give great detail of an event, it doesn’t mean the event happened.

Yes , I went to town today , I can't prove it. Proof by belief is not proof , proof by accident could be , did I see you there ? I passed by the CCJ , was that you and your tripod. I thought I'd go over and see , then ................ on I passed .

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

Pub talk is an expression for someone giving advice which may not be correct, and in most cases is the wrong advice.

Sounds like personal opinion to me .

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

???

If you load a camel with straw one piece by one piece , at a point in time he will collapse under the load . He has had more than enough . Metaphorically , the expression has evolved that there is a straw that breaks the camels back . Here , that is an event which the man concludes is enough . That event , if you read all the thread , and you probably have , was attempting to eat some food and just missing his eye with a fork as his tremor in his arm jerked.

Electronic Writer

Deleted User wrote: »

And no adult was aware of this happening or noticed any change in the child afterwards, scarring,shaking etc?

As has been said , adults did notice the child . As an example he was offered whiskey by alcoholics who thought he was cold . It became easier to agree with such souls that he was cold than to explain he had received an electric shock and had been shaking ever since .

Electronic Writer

Kitchen Favourites wrote: »

How well do you know this person? You started the thread by saying "A man I know knows a man" but you seem to have a lot of detail about him. Very odd. Do you have a college assignment coming up or something?

I know the person as well as he could ever be known.

Very odd , does that imply unusual to the point of belief ?

I don't attend college . My college days are in the past .

Electronic Writer

Notmything wrote: »

So, despite being warned by his parents to stay away from the post as it was a danger due to vandalism he still interfered with it, but it's the esb's fault.

Yes , he had no idea what electricity could do , was not aware of any danger to himself , just tried to remove a fuse and the rest is history .



It's the ESB's fault ?????????



I don't know , but is it the childs fault ? Damaged lamp - post , inadequate repairs , open cover , children playing , severe shock is life changing .


Would you agree that this scenario is either an elaborate lie or the total truth ?

Electronic Writer

KaneToad wrote: »

I'll take the bait....

So, he's claiming that he suffers with the limb that grabbed the fuse all those years ago. Does that not suggest a physical abnormality that is a remnant from physical damage caused by electricity passing through the limb?

Has "your friend" had any scans/investigation to show that he has a physical abnormality in this limb, in the first instance.

If so, has the medical practitioner offered any opinion for the reason why this abnormality may exist?

Video can be provided at any time from multiple cameras at different angles showing the man lifting a cup of water.

If a medical practitioner thinks that what he sees is normal then he would not be a medical practitioner for long .

More than interestingly , the man has had numerous GP's over the years who tend to say nothing upon what they observe . I'm sure if he were to pop down to the private clinic he would have a line of GP's willing to consider his ailments for a few bob .

Electronic Writer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

If it is not an exam question, it is a sample exam question. Do your own homework.

Neither , just the truth .


Just to ask , who in the name of fcuk gives homework like this ?

04581466

Electronic Writer wrote: »

I know the person as well as he could ever be known.

But you said a man you know knows this person in your opening post? You don't directly know this person as per your opening statement on the thread so you cannot possibly know him as well as he could ever be known - that implies he is one of your closest mutual friends.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Rather than beating around the bush why don't you book an appointment with a solicitor and figure out with them if compensation can be sought? Otherwise it's only all academic.

Electronic Writer

04581466 wrote: »

But you said a man you know knows this person in your opening post? You don't directly know this person as per your opening statement on the thread so you cannot possibly know him as well as he could ever be known - that implies he is one of your closest mutual friends.

How well do you know yourself ? Do you know yourself as well as you could ever be known ?

Electronic Writer

Beckham Repulsive Grinder wrote: »

Rather than beating around the bush why don't you book an appointment with a solicitor and figure out with them if compensation can be sought? Otherwise it's only all academic.

Thanks Supersonic .

Notmything

Electronic Writer wrote: »

Yes , he had no idea what electricity could do , was not aware of any danger to himself , just tried to remove a fuse and the rest is history .



It's the ESB's fault ?????????



I don't know , but is it the childs fault ? Damaged lamp - post , inadequate repairs , open cover , children playing , severe shock is life changing .


Would you agree that this scenario is either an elaborate lie or the total truth ?

He had no idea what electricity was? Tbh I'm starting to think this is an elaborate wind up.
I would blame him for interfering with the pole despite being told not to. I would blame his parents for not supervising him when they were aware that an electric pole had been vandalised and posed a risk. I would blame his friend who convinced him to help remove a fuze. I would not blame the ESB, they put a cover on the damaged part and would have arranged a proper repair.

Electronic Writer

Notmything wrote: »

He had no idea what electricity was? Tbh I'm starting to think this is an elaborate wind up.

Well , he had a lack of knowledge that he could not have had at the time . Electricity became well understood from then onwards .

Notmything wrote: »

I would blame him for interfering with the pole despite being told not to. I would blame his parents for not supervising him when they were aware that an electric pole had been vandalised and posed a risk.

The ESB or local authority didn't fix problems then like they do now. Compo culture probably woke them up .

Notmything wrote: »

I would blame his friend who convinced him to help remove a fuze. I would not blame the ESB, they put a cover on the damaged part and would have arranged a proper repair.

I'd accept friend as he would be given the benefit of the doubt as to whether he understood electric shock . In my opinion a proper repair would have been a repair to the locking mechanism and not two stainless steel bands put around the top and bottom of the cover. You might think they arranged a proper repair but they didn't . If they did then the kids would not have removed the cover from the lamp-post . If it's not kid proof it's not proper .

I think my original question has been answered .

Tork

Can you tell us what this man had for breakfast this morning? You seem to know just about everything else about him.

ohnonotgmail

Electronic Writer wrote: »

It's not an exam question.



A child received an electric shock from a lamp-post when he was approximately 8 years old. The lamp-post was situated at the roadside outside his parents house. He had been told on multiple occasions to stay away from the lamp-post by his parents who watched as children and youths vandalised it on multiple occasions. The relevant authority had implemented makeshift repairs by placing stainless steel straps around the top and the bottom of the cover.


These had been vandalised easily. When the child was playing near the lamp-post another child had approached him explaining he had a difficulty trying to twist off a fuse holder. The child, held the fuse holder in his right hand and immediately received an electric shock. He was unable to release the fuse holder easily as his hand was stuck to it.


He could not hear much which is comparable to being under water in a swimming pool. He managed to force his hand open and released the fuse holder. Suddenly his hearing returned like a crowd had suddenly started shouting.


2 mins later he was lying on a bed and " fell asleep ". When he awoke he stood up and has been shaking ever since.

so his hand has been shaking since he was 8 years old and his parents didn't notice?

Electronic Writer

Tork wrote: »

Can you tell us what this man had for breakfast this morning? You seem to know just about everything else about him.

No, apparently he got out of bed just before lunchtime, so he didn't have breakfast this morning.

Tork

All of which confirms to me that this thread is a wind up.

Electronic Writer

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so his hand has been shaking since he was 8 years old and his parents didn't notice?

No.



They just did not attribute any difference to the event which they knew nothing about. Of course this child can not know what people thought but from what has been said to him over years he assumes that like many other people they found adequate explanation in thinking he was possibly cold , nervous , afraid , etc and as he got older explanations of a few too many when he'd had only a few seemed plausible .



He was happy to let people think what they wanted to think as long as he had no blame for being at the lamp-post .


.......................................................................................................


As OP , my original question has been answered and I think more than enough information is in the thread for people to decide their opinions and if they want , then to give them . So , I will not be answering any more questions .


Electronic Writer