Swinging off a goal post insurance payout

freshpopcorn

Yet another ridiculous payout to child/mother for a child acting the Wally.

A teenage girl who required stitches to her forehead after a goalpost on which she was swinging fell on her has secured some €52,000 under a settlement of her High Court action.
Angelica Riabusko, suing by her mother Marina, of Charlesland Park, Greystones, Co Wicklow, sued Wicklow County Council over the accident which happened on the pitch at Arklow Leisure Centre on August 27, 2016.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons was told the girl, now aged 17, then aged 13, was out for a walk with her mother. The gate of the centre’s pitch, where they had not been before, was unlocked and they went in.
Angelica started to swing from the goal post, it fell on her, she hit her head off the ground and had to have stitches to her forehead.
Counsel for Ms Riabusko said a full defence had been filed in the Circuit Court and it was decided to bring the case to the High Court because of the possibility his client may decide to have cosmetic surgery in the future on her forehead.
He said the defence had pleaded contributory negligence and raised issues whether Ms Riabusko and her mother should have been in that section of the centre that day.
That impacted on the size of the settlement offer but his side considered there was a significant risk in proceeding to trial and was seeking approval of the offer, counsel said.
The judge said the girl had fallen while swinging from a goalpost in the presence of her mother and serious issues were raised concerning liability and contributory negligence.
The €50,000, plus special damages of €2,091, was close to the full value of the case, with a discount for contributory negligence, he said.
There was a likelihood she would have done worse if the case went to trial and, in the circumstances, he would rule this a “very good” settlement.

https://www.independent.ie/news/girl-awarded-52000-after-goalpost-she-was-swinging-on-fell-on-her-40164293.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=seeding&fbclid=IwAR29e0-wnO27zS9HT09feiN5PRbBZWoMdjs1psMPkTGtKzxLyYiuTQtLjfs

Be right back

Crazy stuff. No self responsibility anymore.

Irishphotodesk

Be right back wrote: »

Crazy stuff. No self responsibility anymore.

Common sense isn't very common

I'm not a fan of large compo layouts in general.
But, a goalpost fell over, this could have been a much worse incident, what if it fell in a small child? What if it was your child?

It's a small amount really, to learn to secure the goalpost and prevent a worse accident

Curse These Metal Hands

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm not a fan of large compo layouts in general.
But, a goalpost fell over, this could have been a much worse incident, what if it fell in a small child? What if it was your child?

It's a small amount really, to learn to secure the goalpost and prevent a worse accident

Or don't let your kids swing on goalposts. They aren't made to be swung on, poor parenting. Go to a swing to swing, not let yourself into a pitch and mess on goalposts.

timsey tiger

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm not a fan of large compo layouts in general.
But, a goalpost fell over, this could have been a much worse incident, what if it fell in a small child? What if it was your child?

It's a small amount really, to learn to secure the goalpost and prevent a worse accident

13 year old. What sort of goal post was this?

Curse These Metal Hands

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

Or don't let your kids swing on goalposts. They aren't made to be swung on, poor parenting.

Seriously?
Kids swing on goalposts all the time, Jesus I'm in my forties and we did it as kids!

Zebrag

The overal stupidity here is the fact that the mother allowed the child to go through the effort to swing out of a goalpost.
Had the goalpost not fallen and the child injured themselves anyways, who's to blame then, the mother or the council still for god knows what reasons?
Don't get me wrong we would all love to do some Del Boy action to gain ourselves a view quid but sometimes stupidity is from the fault of the parent that being said, they got rewarded which shows we can all go out and do stupid things and hope we can get compensation.
I'm off to the park, who's coming?

Curse These Metal Hands

bubblypop wrote: »

Seriously?
Kids swing on goalposts all the time, Jesus I'm in my forties and we did it as kids!

Then you bear the responsibility if something goes wrong. Why should someone else pay because you used something in way it wasn't designed for? Go to a playground to swing, not open a gate and enter a pitch. Jesus people need their hands held constantly these days.

Curse These Metal Hands

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

Then you bear the responsibility if something goes wrong. Why should someone else pay because you used something in way it wasn't designed for? Go to a playground to swing, not open a gate and enter a pitch. Jesus people need their hands held constantly these days.

The judge did say there was contributing negligence.

Curse These Metal Hands

bubblypop wrote: »

The judge did say there was contributing negligence.

Still, 52k for being a moron of a parent, not bad.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

The judge did say there was contributing negligence.

Even the defence said she'd get less if it went to a full trial.

Crazy money.

whisky_galore

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

Or don't let your kids swing on goalposts. They aren't made to be swung on, poor parenting. Go to swing to swing, not let yourself into a pitch and mess on goalposts.

Can't even swing on a swing anymore unsupervised.

Stupid adult and equally stupid child.

Stihl waters

There we have it folks, bad parents and stupid people get rewarded for being stupid, compo in Ireland is like a failsafe for utter fcuking morons who can chance their arms without it costing them anything, and all the while normal joe public will pick up the bill by paying more for their premiums, the no win no fee bottom feeders needs a radical reform to stop these leeches

olestoepoke

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

Then you bear the responsibility if something goes wrong. Why should someone else pay because you used something in way it wasn't designed for? Go to a playground to swing, not open a gate and enter a pitch. Jesus people need their hands held constantly these days.

Unfortunately there's a long set precedent in Irish law regarding occupiers liability. Yes there is a question of contributory negligence but if you own a property it is on you make it secure and safe in the event that people, kids or other wether trespassing or not don't come to any harm on your property. The goal post falling was clearly a health hazard and the unlocked gate showed no awareness. Now before you reply to give me a bollocking I'm not condoning our comps culture, I agree it's a problem. But the law is pretty set on this and has been for a long time, you own a property it is up to you to make it safe and thats the law. All follows from the seminal case of McNamara V ESB where a young lad had his arms blown off after he trespassed into an electrical station.

Irishphotodesk

bubblypop wrote: »

Seriously?
Kids swing on goalposts all the time, Jesus I'm in my forties and we did it as kids!

The difference is that when you were a kid, goalposts were solid and built to hold their shape, now they are made of all sorts of engineering feats to allow for easy assembling and dismantling for storage.

I have probably done it as a kid, I played as a goalkeeper in my early teenage years.

In an ideal world they should have been awarded a nominal fee of a few grand and the parent should have gotten a tongue lashing from the judge....in reality, the legals on both sides benefit from the system, the child/family benefit and the club suffers the cost.

Curse These Metal Hands

olestoepoke wrote: »

Unfortunately there's a long set precedent in Irish law regarding occupiers liability. Yes there is a question of contributory negligence but if you own a property it is on you make it secure and safe in the event that people, kids or other wether trespassing or not don't come to any harm on your property. The goal post falling was clearly a health hazard and the unlocked gate showed no awareness. Now before you reply to give me a bollocking I'm not condoning our comps culture, I agree it's a problem. But the law is pretty set on this and has been for a long time, you own a property it is up to you to make it safe and thats the law. All follows from the seminal case of McNamara V ESB where a young lad had his arms blown off after he trespassed into an electrical station.

You can come to harm on any property if you are stupid enough. What about running head first into a wall? Should the walls have been padded? It's getting to the point of insanity, and needs to be looked at.

The young lads parent wasn't standing there allowing him to get electrocuted. They haven't accounted nowhere near enough for the negligence of the parent here.

Irishphotodesk

Stihl waters wrote: »

There we have it folks, bad parents and stupid people get rewarded for being stupid, compo in Ireland is like a failsafe for utter fcuking morons who can chance their arms without it costing them anything, and all the while normal joe public will pick up the bill by paying more for their premiums, the no win no fee bottom feeders needs a radical reform to stop these leeches

Or if you want to view it from another angle, incompetence and negligence allows people opportunity.

this and every other club should put clear signage up, unauthorized entry into these grounds will be deemed as trespassing - trespassers should be prosecuted and this would allow clubs to financially claim back some of the money from claimants (and the legals would benefit from double the cases)

olestoepoke

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

You can come to harm on any property if you are stupid enough. What about running head first into a wall? Should the walls have been padded?

Now you are just being facetious, of course running head first into a wall would probably be deemed 100% contributory negligence but thats not what happened in this particular case is it? Again, the owner should have had the foresight to secure the goal post and lock the gate. I'd wager if the gate had been locked the payout would've been a lot less.

Irishphotodesk

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

You can come to harm on any property if you are stupid enough. What about running head first into a wall? Should the walls have been padded? It's getting to the point of insanity, and needs to be looked at.

The thing that should be looked at is the legal profession, without the legal profession and the variable interpretation of law, these cases would be rare.

The amount of cases we do not hear about is massive , most of them settle before they get to court, in the case of minors (under18) the judge must approve a settlement offer, so this is how we hear some of the claims made.

dubrov

olestoepoke wrote:

Now you are just being facetious, of course running head first into a wall would probably be deemed 100% contributory negligence but thats not what happened in this particular case is it? Again, the owner should have had the foresight to secure the goal post and lock the gate. I'd wager if the gate had been locked the payout would've been a lot less.

Are you saying if the gate was locked and the child broke in and fell off the goalpost, there would still be a payout?

olestoepoke

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

Or if you want to view it from another angle, incompetence and negligence allows people opportunity.

this and every other club should put clear signage up, unauthorized entry into these grounds will be deemed as trespassing - trespassers should be prosecuted and this would allow clubs to financially claim back some of the money from claimants (and the legals would benefit from double the cases)

I'm involved in our local under 11s soccer team. We are well aware the hazard that the goal posts carry and we make sure they are weighed down at the back with sandbags and large iron saucer type weights on astro or spiked down into grass if its on the field, I've watched 3 or 4 kids swing on the post at the same time and it holds with the weights, common sense to do this really.

alchemist33

timsey tiger wrote: »

13 year old. What sort of goal post was this?

Possibly the sort that isn't driven into the ground, but is carried about the field and placed in different locations as the owners want. They're not designed as toys though, and if it is that type, it would have been pretty obvious.

Curse These Metal Hands

olestoepoke wrote: »

Now you are just being facetious, of course running head first into a wall would probably be deemed 100% contributory negligence but thats not what happened in this particular case is it? Again, the owner should have had the foresight to secure the goal post and lock the gate. I'd wager if the gate had been locked the payout would've been a lot less.

It's still using something that it's not designed for, with an adult present. It's impossible to make every property completely safe if people are going to let their kids do something they shouldn't be doing. It's disgusting that they pursued it and even worse they they got paid 52k.

I guarantee it was the lightweight movable goalposts too, the type any adult should be able to tell immediately can't support a teenagers weight.

olestoepoke

dubrov wrote: »

Are you saying if the gate was locked and the child broke in and fell off the goalpost, there would still be a payout?

Yes I am 100% saying that. I'm confident that they still would have been compensated, maybe not as much as locking the gate showed some awareness. As I flagged earlier the McNamara V ESB case a young lad broke into a locked electrical station and touched something that blew both his arms off and the family were compensated. This is the seminal case in occupiers liability and was back in 1975, there has been hundreds of cases since so a strong precedent set in case law. For example, lets say you live in a corner house and local kids climb your wall to retrieve their ball, you better not have anything hazardous on your property or you can and will be liable. Thats the law, I'm old enough to remember when people in residential house would imbed broken glass into concrete on top of their walls, you dont see that so much anymore because you'll be sued if or when a person tries to climb your wall and cuts themselves.

El Gato De Negocios

This is precisely the problem.

Parent allows child to do something they shouldn't be doing.

A piece of equipment was used for purposes that it was in no way, shape or form intended to be used.

An accident occurred and the child got a few stitches.

Let's give them €50k for being reckless.

Sports clubs and public amenities the length and breadth of the country are closing or having difficulties paying massive insurance premia and this case and others like it are the reason why.

Not profiteering by insurance companies.

Not price gouging of businesses by insurance companies.

Because insurance companies are having to pay ridiculous amounts of compensation because of the greed and stupidity of the public.

If its not addressed we simply won't have anywhere to bring our children to play or exercise because everywhere will be bloody well closed cos they can't get public liability insurance.

olestoepoke

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

It's still using something that it's not designed for, with an adult present. It's impossible to make every property completely safe if people are going to let their kids do something they shouldn't be doing. It's disgusting that they pursued it and even worse they they got paid 52k.

I guarantee it was the lightweight movable goalposts too, the type any adult should be able to tell immediately that they can't support a teenagers weight.

Children will do irrational things as we all know, such as using something it is not designed for, according to the law it is up to you as the owner of the property to make sure your property is safe. This is why you see hoarding and gates around building sites or even residential renovations. If a kids or other did break in and harm themselves at least you made every effort to secure the site with gates or hoarding and signs. What if the goalpost had hit the child in the right place and brain damaged them or worse killed them? Who's fault would it be then? I understand why people get annoyed and yes we do have a problem with compo culture but the law is pretty clear on this one.

Curse These Metal Hands

olestoepoke wrote: »

Children will do irrational things as we all know, such as using something it is not designed for, according to the law it is up to you as the owner of the property to make sure your property is safe. This is why you see hoarding and gates around building sites or even residential renovations. If a kids or other did break in and harm themselves at least you made every effort to secure the site with gates or hoarding and signs. What if the goalpost had hit the child in the right place and brain damaged them or worse killed them? Who's fault would it be then? I understand why people get annoyed and yes we do have a problem with compo culture but the law is pretty clear on this one.

But there was an adult present here, and their negligence hasn't been accounted for to an acceptable degree. Kids wondering around getting up to mischief and getting hurt is one thing, a dopey parent watching and enabling it is very different.

Curse These Metal Hands

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

But there was an adult present here, and their negligence hasn't been accounted for to an acceptable degree.

To whose acceptable degree?

olestoepoke

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

But there was an adult present here, and their negligence hasn't been accounted for to an acceptable degree. Kids wondering around getting up to mischief and getting hurt is one thing, a dopey parent watching and enabling it is very different.

You could argue that there was some level of contributory negligence because there was an adult present yes, to what extent depends on the individual case and the judge. You could also argue that not everyone is aware of the hazard that those goal posts carry if not weighed down. What you cannot argue with is that the owners made no effort to secure the posts and no effort to secure the premises by locking the gate. If you are the owner it is up to you to know the law and do everything in your power within reason to secure your property. If I owned that facility I'd ask the questions 'what can happen here' Is that gate secure? Could people come in and pull those posts down and injure themselves? All the while being aware of the law and knowing that I am liable even if they trespass.

Curse These Metal Hands

bubblypop wrote: »

To whose acceptable degree?

To any intelligent person. You seem to think 52k is fair though, because you played on goalposts as a kid. Still trying to figure out the logic behind that one.

sebdavis

The age of the person, the fact it fell on the ground I expect this was a set of nets which could be moved around and not the stationary ones which are in the ground.

A parent letting their child swing out of them, the parent should be fined
No excuse for a gobs**t parent

olestoepoke

sebdavis wrote: »

The age of the person, the fact it fell on the ground I expect this was a set of nets which could be moved around and not the stationary ones which are in the ground.

A parent letting their child swing out of them, the parent should be fined
No excuse for a gobs**t parent

But that would go against 45 years of case law. You may not agree with it, you can argue it was too much €52k, I don't know how injured the child was. But thats the law wether you like it or not.

Irishphotodesk

olestoepoke wrote: »

I'm involved in our local under 11s soccer team. We are well aware the hazard that the goal posts carry and we make sure they are weighed down at the back with sandbags and large iron saucer type weights on astro or spiked down into grass if its on the field, I've watched 3 or 4 kids swing on the post at the same time and it holds with the weights, common sense to do this really.

So... You and your club are aware of the need to ensure the goalposts are secure, in this case it would appear that the club and its people failed to ensure this happened and somehow...the parent was not held properly accountable for their decisions in not assessing the danger properly and failing to protect/supervise their child.

olestoepoke

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

To any intelligent person. You seem to think 52k is fair though, because you played on goalposts as a kid. Still trying to figure out the logic behind that one.

Judges for the most part are highly intelligent and extremely versed in the law of the land. I'm not a solicitor but I think scaring to the face carries weight when it comes to compensation so maybe thats why it is excessive.

Curse These Metal Hands

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

To any intelligent person. You seem to think 52k is fair though, because you played on goalposts as a kid. Still trying to figure out the logic behind that one.

I never said it is fair enough, I said it is a cheap lesson for the club to learn.
Things could have been much worse.
Kids play in all sorts of unsuitable things, that's kids for you.

olestoepoke

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

So... You and your club are aware of the need to ensure the goalposts are secure, in this case it would appear that the club and its people failed to ensure this happened and somehow...the parent was not held properly accountable for their decisions in not assessing the danger properly and failing to protect/supervise their child.

I think it is reasonable to assume that some people would not know or even think about how goal posts are secured.

Curse These Metal Hands

olestoepoke wrote: »

I'm involved in our local under 11s soccer team. We are well aware the hazard that the goal posts carry and we make sure they are weighed down at the back with sandbags and large iron saucer type weights on astro or spiked down into grass if its on the field, I've watched 3 or 4 kids swing on the post at the same time and it holds with the weights, common sense to do this really.

Still, if a kid climbs the up the net and falls over the top, you're back to quare one and it's compo time.

You could have signage, but the kids might have reading difficulties. Better just to close down the club, too risky.

olestoepoke

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

Still, if a kid climbs the up the net and falls over the top, you're back to quare one and it's compo time.

Yeah most probably, this is why me and the managers and several other parents supervise. The club also padlocks the astro gate and its is almost impossible for a kid to climb the gates and even if they did manage to do this the goals are all weighed down and padlocked. There have been loads of cases over the years where people have done stupid things and been rewarded and this has many people feeling peed off but I think this particular case was cut an dry, unlocked gate, unsecured goal post and child's face scared.

PCeeeee

SouthWesterly wrote: »

Even the defence said she'd get less if it went to a full trial.

Crazy money.

This.

Curse These Metal Hands

olestoepoke wrote: »

Yeah most probably, this is why me and the managers and several other parents supervise. The club also padlocks the astro gate and its is almost impossible for a kid to climb the gates and even if they did manage to do this the goals are all weighed down and padlocked. There have been loads of cases over the years where people have done stupid things and been rewarded and this has many people feeling peed off but I think this particular case was cut an dry, unlocked gate, unsecured goal post and child's face scared.

You said earlier you saw four kids swinging out of the goalposts. Risky.

olestoepoke

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

You said earlier you saw four kids swinging out of the goalposts. Risky.

Yes very, and?

Irishphotodesk

olestoepoke wrote: »

I think it is reasonable to assume that some people would not know or even think about how goal posts are secured.

And do you believe that ignorance is acceptable in a court of law ? As I mentioned in my first post on this thread, common sense isn't very common.

It could also be considered reasonable to assume that a parent should be mindful of their child when allowing/encouraging them to climb....and not permit them to climb objects which may not be secure.

I have seen a vast amount of cases through the civil court over the past 20+ years, having worked there, and I can safely say that the system is wrong.... Everyone involved needs their payment and the system requires multiple levels of people involved to apportion blame in a case, which in turn means the legal profession benefit and payouts are (in my opinion) inflated.

Curse These Metal Hands

olestoepoke wrote: »

Yes very, and?

Doesn't sound like great supervision as you claim. You've dodged a major bullet by the sounds of things.

sebdavis

olestoepoke wrote: »

But that would go against 45 years of case law. You may not agree with it, you can argue it was too much €52k, I don't know how injured the child was. But thats the law wether you like it or not.

Maybe but at some stage people need to take responsibility otherwise everything will just shut down.

The same people will be out crying their children have nowhere to go and its the governments fault they are turning into little criminals. Yet if anyone opens something for young people they will sue it for a stubbed toe.

In this case it is clear it was the parents fault. No one elses

olestoepoke

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

Doesn't sound like great supervision as you claim.

I said I've seen kids swing on the goal post I didn't say we don't tell them to stop or get down as we do all the time but they are children and often don't listen. You mistakingly presumed that we just stand there and let them swing on the posts. We are a very well supervised club with plenty of help, kids will be kids so its just as well we have the posts secured.

McCrack

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

To any intelligent person. You seem to think 52k is fair though, because you played on goalposts as a kid. Still trying to figure out the logic behind that one.

Clearly the injury reflected that as the insurance company agreed the figure

Irishphotodesk

Just to mention I do agree with you olestoepoke the negligence on behalf of the club is the major factor in play in this case,
but the parental responsibility seems to be overlooked as a massive contributing factor, it was noted but not in such a way to minimise the payout... Which in my opinion should have been the best way to push for less of these claims.
it would have been easy for the judge to say, the payout should be in the region of €50k but owing to the negligence of the parent to observe/protect and allow their child to climb the goalposts the amount should have been sub €10k.

Curse These Metal Hands

olestoepoke wrote: »

I said I've seen kids swing on the goal post I didn't say we don't tell them to stop or get down as we do all the time but they are children and often don't listen. You mistakingly presumed that we just stand there and let them swing on the posts. We are a very well supervised club with plenty of help, kids will be kids so its just as well we have the posts secured.

It only takes a second for accidents to happen unfortunately. Then it's game over.

Beasty

Thread title updated to reflect the story

olestoepoke

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

And do you believe that ignorance is acceptable in a court of law ? As I mentioned in my first post on this thread, common sense isn't very common.

It could also be considered reasonable to assume that a parent should be mindful of their child when allowing/encouraging them to climb....and not permit them to climb objects which may not be secure.

I have seen a vast amount of cases through the civil court over the past 20+ years, having worked there, and I can safely say that the system is wrong.... Everyone involved needs their payment and the system requires multiple levels of people involved to apportion blame in a case, which in turn means the legal profession benefit and payouts are (in my opinion) inflated.

I never agreed with the system and I said many times I agree we have a problem. Argue that the law needs to change or that judges need to interpret the law differently or that the level of payout is excessive all valid arguments but some posters are arguing that the club is not at fault here and this is 100% incorrect according to the law of the land, like it or not thats the law.