nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Young boy who lacerated arm on pull-out bed awarded €18,000

duffman3833

A five-year-old schoolboy, who lacerated his left arm on a pull-out bed in a Dublin hotel, was awarded €18,000 damages in the Circuit Civil Court.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/young-boy-who-lacerated-arm-on-pullout-bed-at-plush-dublin-hotel-awarded-18000-34800463.html

Is it me or is there no such thing as accidents these days that you can sue for anything.
I know this article doesn't give much details, they never do, but this seems a bit ridiculous.
are the parents wanting easy money?
What you think?

Find more posts tagged with

sue

court

boy

awarded

Quick Links

Comments

ohnonotgmail

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I have loads of permanent scars from being a kid. I wager bouncing on the bed was the causation of the exposure of the mechanism. As a parent I would check the room for faults pretty odd they did not call the front desk and complain about a faulty bed.

So its the kids fault then?

AnonoBoy

DrumSteve wrote: »

These threads some come with a complementary pitchfork and torch.

Mind yourself you could get a nasty laceration from one of them.

maudgonner

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

Settled out of court!
Can't understand why anyone would have a problem with that apart from those who are jealous!
cost the taxpayers nothing!

And there was obvious injury and negligence

Cost the taxpayers nothing.

Cost the insurance payers something.

Costs the hotel something which contributes to higher costs of doing business.

The money to pay these claims does not magically come from nowhere. Whether they are justified or not, there is an associated cost to us all.

andekwarhola

Surely settling out of court doesn't always mean genuine liability. It could just be acceptance that the judge may have awarded more (irrationally or not) or to avoid further bad publicity.

Pro Hoc Vice

maudgonner wrote: »

Cost the taxpayers nothing.

Cost the insurance payers something.

Costs the hotel something which contributes to higher costs of doing business.

The money to pay these claims does not magically come from nowhere. Whether they are justified or not, there is an associated cost to us all.

The benefit to all in society is that all persons doing business must make sure negligent practices are reduced as it's cheaper to be right than payout for being negligent.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

[Deleted User]

maudgonner wrote: »

Cost the taxpayers nothing.

Cost the insurance payers something.

Costs the hotel something which contributes to higher costs of doing business.

The money to pay these claims does not magically come from nowhere. Whether they are justified or not, there is an associated cost to us all.

Own a hotel do you?
If you are as negligent you should be taken to court.

Gatling

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so because nobody else was injured that is ok is it?

Maybe the kid should have sued his parents for having him in a hotel room

darkpagandeath

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So its the kids fault then?

If you read what I wrote you will find out who's fault it is.

whiskeyman

DrumSteve wrote: »

These threads some come with a complementary pitchfork and torch.

I just pierced myself with your pitchfork and burnt myself with your torch as no safety instructions were given...

I'll see you in court!!

maudgonner

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

Own a hotel do you?
If you are as negligent you should be taken to court.

I don't own a hotel.

I do occasionally stay in them. I do pay insurance. I rely on industry for a job (not the hospitality industry), so it's in my interest for the cost of doing business in Ireland to be sustainable.

This payout may well be justified, although it sounds quite high to me. But to suggest that there is no associated cost to the public is plainly untrue.

Pro Hoc Vice

maudgonner wrote: »

I don't own a hotel.

I do occasionally stay in them. I do pay insurance. I rely on industry for a job (not the hospitality industry), so it's in my interest for the cost of doing business in Ireland to be sustainable.

This payout may well be justified, although it sounds quite high to me. But to suggest that there is no associated cost to the public is plainly untrue.

It is a sum not decided by the judge it would have either been a award made by PIAB and agreed by the defendant or an offer made by the defendant. So the person paying decided it was a justified amount based on all the facts.

maudgonner

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The benefit to all in society is that all persons doing business must make sure negligent practices are reduced as it's cheaper to be right than payout for being negligent.

Agreed. It encourages businesses to take sensible precautions - although what 'sensible' is defined as would seem to be arbitrary in many cases, not necessarily this one.

But there is a cost to the public for these claims, even if they are not paid from the exchequer. The 'taxpayer' is affected by them and has a right to be concerned.

maudgonner

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

It is a sum not decided by the judge it would have either been a award made by PIAB and agreed by the defendant or an offer made by the defendant. So the person paying decided it was a justified amount based on all the facts.

The article says it was offered by the defendant. Presumably on advice from their legal team. I'm sure this is influenced by payouts in similar cases.

That does not mean I can't state that it seems quite high to me, a layperson, based on the facts mentioned in the article. I'm entitled to hold that opinion, surely? I'm not claiming that the decision should be revised accordingly

Pro Hoc Vice

maudgonner wrote: »

Agreed. It encourages businesses to take sensible precautions - although what 'sensible' is defined as would seem to be arbitrary in many cases, not necessarily this one.

But there is a cost to the public for these claims, even if they are not paid from the exchequer. The 'taxpayer' is affected by them and has a right to be concerned.

The taxpayer is usually a beneficiary in fact, as in most cases included in the damages is the bill from the A&E in fact in motor cases the state is entitled to recover all medical costs associated with the injury. In the super big cases million plus the vast majority of such awards is for ongoing care of the injured person thereby taking the burden off the state.

maudgonner

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The taxpayer is usually a beneficiary in fact, as in most cases included in the damages is the bill from the A&E in fact in motor cases the state is entitled to recover all medical costs associated with the injury. In the super big cases million plus the vast majority of such awards is for ongoing care of the injured person thereby taking the burden off the state.

Not in this case. Unless you're suggesting that the majority of the 18k settlement went to pay an A&E bill for a child who was discharged the same day?

I would hazard a guess that the proportion of the settlement going to legal bills far outweighed what went to paying medical bills. Of course I'm not a legal expert, or a medical expert...

[Deleted User]

maudgonner wrote: »

I don't own a hotel.

I do occasionally stay in them. I do pay insurance. I rely on industry for a job (not the hospitality industry), so it's in my interest for the cost of doing business in Ireland to be sustainable.

This payout may well be justified, although it sounds quite high to me. But to suggest that there is no associated cost to the public is plainly untrue.

Sounds quite high to you?
How can you claim to know what's high and what isn't when it comes to out of court payments on a case you don't know all the details about?

mikeym

The one good thing about this country is that there is no adverts on Tv that encourage people to sue.

If anyone watches American Daytime Tv those bloody Injury Claim ads are annoying.

maudgonner

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

Sounds quite high to you?
How can you claim to know what's high and what isn't when it comes to out of court payments on a case you don't know all the details about?

As I mentioned above, I'm basing my opinion on the facts given in the article.

As are all of us in this thread, this being a discussion forum on the internet, not a tribunal on personal injury payouts, or a courtroom dealing with the case in question.

andekwarhola

mikeym wrote: »

The one good thing about this country is that there is no adverts on Tv that encourage people to sue.

If anyone watches American Daytime Tv those bloody Injury Claim ads are annoying.

They have ambulance chaser adverts on the radio here. I've definitely heard them.

[Deleted User]

maudgonner wrote: »

As I mentioned above, I'm basing my opinion on the facts given in the article.

As are all of us in this thread, this being a discussion forum on the internet, not a tribunal on personal injury payouts, or a courtroom dealing with the case in question.

What do you think they should have offered out of court?
Petrol money?

Pro Hoc Vice

maudgonner wrote: »

Not in this case. Unless you're suggesting that the majority of the 18k settlement went to pay an A&E bill for a child who was discharged the same day?

I would hazard a guess that the proportion of the settlement going to legal bills far outweighed what went to paying medical bills. Of course I'm not a legal expert, or a medical expert...

I never said other wise I was replying to a post in relation to general claims, I ask specifically kept my comment to 3 things the A&E admission costs which are small and motor claims where all medical costs can be claimed and large million plus claims. I never claimed anything in relation to this case.

Pro Hoc Vice

maudgonner wrote: »

As I mentioned above, I'm basing my opinion on the facts given in the article.

As are all of us in this thread, this being a discussion forum on the internet, not a tribunal on personal injury payouts, or a courtroom dealing with the case in question.

The fact is that the person who has to write the cheque made the decision on the amount they would have done so with sight of medical report and reports on liability. The judges only role in this case is to make sure that the child's interests are looked after he did not decide on the amount.

y0ssar1an22

pwurple wrote: »

There's a personal injuries table of estimated payouts I think... for an elbow injury it sounds about normal.

Here are the estimates ( which are there to keep claims reasonable, as far as I know.)
http://www.injuriesboard.ie/eng/How-to-make-a-claim/Estimate-your-claim/

A 5 year old child hospitalised overnight needing stitches and ending up with a permanent scar from a bed in a hotel room... I dunno. If it was my 5 year old child with his elbow in bits, and my holiday which ended up getting diverted to hospital, I'd be fairly pissed off.

I don't think there's any question of the child deliberately lacerating his own elbow. Beds should not behave like knives.

I wonder was he admitted to hospital, or was he sitting in A and E all night cos his injury was so minor? :pac:

Pro Hoc Vice

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

I wonder was he admitted to hospital, or was he sitting in A and E all night cos his injury was so minor? :pac:

"hospitalised overnight" would look like it was taken as a quote from medical report which would lead me to believe he was admitted to a ward after going through A&E.

darkpagandeath

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

"hospitalised overnight" would look like it was taken as a quote from medical report which would lead me to believe he was admitted to a ward after going through A&E.

Lol sure he was thought the hospitals were overflowing with people on trolleys... put in a ward that's a good one for a few stitches.

wakka12

Fairly steep. Sure the parents are happy with that.

Gatling

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

"hospitalised overnight" would look like it was taken as a quote from medical report which would lead me to believe he was admitted to a ward after going through A&E.

Was he not released on the same day he got a few stiches

"where the laceration was stitched. He had been discharged home the same day"

Pro Hoc Vice

Gatling wrote: »

Was he not released on the same day he got a few stiches

"where the laceration was stitched. He had been discharged home the same day"

I was responding to another poster whom I quoted they may have been talking about another case.

Gatling

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I was responding to another poster whom I quoted they may have been talking about another case.

Ah ok