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; } } }

Woman claims from accident at Dublin Zoo

duffman3833

i was glancing through indo and seen this

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mum-who-slipped-on-manhole-cover-during-dublin-zoo-family-day-awarded-115000-34863998.html

Once again not all info here but there are millions of manhole covers in the country why does she get to sue is what i keep asking myself.
To me firstly its a big sum for something like this, secondly we cant bubble wrap everything, thirdly i might start suing for every injury i get cause everyone else taking advantage of it

What are they meant to do with the manhole, have people stand round it when it rains?

Find more posts tagged with

dublin

zoo

accident

awarded

sum

Quick Links

Comments

duffman3833

Can anyone tell me, is there anything been done to change these huge payouts or the way these cases are processed?

[Deleted User]

duffman3833 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me, is there anything been done to change these huge payouts or the way these cases are processed?

The Injuries Board was a pretty radical change.

What would you propose on either front? What value do you place on the claim if you think this is huge?

You might illustrate your answer by precise reference to her medicals, and any prognosis.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

The Injuries Board was a pretty radical change.

What would you propose on either front? What value do you place on the claim if you think this is huge?

You might illustrate your answer by precise reference to her medicals, and any prognosis.

never let facts get in the way of a good rant.

ScumLord

duffman3833 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me, is there anything been done to change these huge payouts or the way these cases are processed?

There probably are many things that could be done to streamline the process but there's probably just way too many variables to standardise payouts.

The medical industry as a whole is fleecing people and insurance companies. There's certainly money that can be saved there but I don't think people are going to accept they should get lower margins.

selastich2

There is another thread were people are arguing with farmers over being allowed to walk on their land

this is why the elephants get no breakfast and we can't have nice things

duffman3833

it shouldn't get to a point where a company cant defend themselves as it would cost more and just award the claim as a cheaper alternative

ScumLord

duffman3833 wrote: »

it shouldn't get to a point where a company cant defend themselves as it would cost more and just award the claim as a cheaper alternative

There's nothing stopping the company from defending themselves. I just don't see any way they'd win. It would be utterly daft to spend money fighting a lawsuit you know you're going to lose.

These places are usually covered in CCTV, signs everywhere, any area that can be closed off is closed off. If there was any chance that they could avoid the blame they would have avoided it. But given all the efforts they make to keep patrons safe this incident is clearly a failure in their safety procedures.

[Deleted User]

duffman3833 wrote: »

it shouldn't get to a point where a company cant defend themselves as it would cost more and just award the claim as a cheaper alternative

I'm not sure I get this.

Of course the company can defend itself. It could enter a defence. But they accepted responsibility. There is no suggestion that they only did so from a costs perspective, believe me if they had a defence they would have chosen to run it rather than pay €105,000. The suggestion that they pulled a legitimate defence because of costs concerns doesn't really stack up.

Zillah

ScumLord wrote: »

But there is the problem that someone may have similar injuries because they're tall. There's no way to fairly punish a person for being fat without some collateral damage.

I find it funny how people flip flop between giving out about the nanny state yet constantly asking for more nanny state. Punish the other people that suffer inadequacies but don't look at mine.

Being tall is genetic and therefore a different kettle of fish to being overweight; you missed the self-induced part again. Also, being tall doesn't have anything resembling the increased chance of injury that being overweight has.

I frequently approve of the nanny state. People are reckless and ignorant. Tax tobacco to hell. Tax sugary drinks. We drink too much, which should be curbed if possible - my only objection to reduced booze hours is that it doesn't work and quite possibly makes the situation worse.

mordeith

Must be different rules for different manhole covers

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/no-compo-after-manhole-cover-slip-408142.html

selastich2

She had suffered extreme pain in the fall on her son's first birthday in 2011 and cannot now take part in Breton folk dancing or cycle or walk long distances,

She's in to hill walking and can't manage a zoo in the rain, in ireland

[Deleted User]

mordeith wrote: »

Must be different rules for different manhole covers

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/no-compo-after-manhole-cover-slip-408142.html

I once knew a fellow who fell on his head and died, and a fellow who fell on his head and got a bump. Must be different rules for different heads.

Or, alternatively, incidents actually may be different. Like the one here, where there was negligence, and the one you linked, where there was no negligence.

gramar

mordeith wrote: »

Must be different rules for different manhole covers

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/no-compo-after-manhole-cover-slip-408142.html

That sounds like a reasonable conclusion for the judge to come to.
The 'pleasant' lady involved may well have suffered injuries and been out of pocket as a result but it most likely wasn't anyone's fault much the same as the Dublin Zoo case.

[Deleted User]

gramar wrote: »

it most likely wasn't anyone's fault much the same as the Dublin Zoo case.

But the zoo said it was their fault.

The King of Moo

selastich2 wrote: »

She had suffered extreme pain in the fall on her son's first birthday in 2011 and cannot now take part in Breton folk dancing or cycle or walk long distances,

She's in to hill walking and can't manage a zoo in the rain, in ireland

Where does it mention hillwalking? Even if "walking long distances" referred to hillwalking and not walking on concrete and asphalt as would be the logical conclusion, she'd be prepared for hillwalking with hiking boots.

You shouldn't have to wear particular footwear to visit a zoo.

purplecow1977

I always learn a lot about a person by their interactions with others online.
We try to encourage our youngsters to communicate appropriately with others online yet the example that some adults set is abysmal!
The negativity demonstrated towards the woman in question is wrong - she didn't invent this compensation figure herself!

Is there a formula or method used in working out suitable compensation values?
I think people can get overly defensive about an issue like this because of the increasing number of fraudulent claims we hear about with motor insurance etc.

Compensation costs awarded should be fair.
Checks on all claims should be stringent.

mordeith

Deleted User wrote: »

I once knew a fellow who fell on his head and died, and a fellow who fell on his head and got a bump. Must be different rules for different heads.

Or, alternatively, incidents actually may be different. Like the one here, where there was negligence, and the one you linked, where there was no negligence.

I don't know. Two wet manhole covers seems to be the connection.

Nermal

It's patently obvious a manhole cover near a freaking crowd of sealions might be a bit slippy. Do Dublin Zoo have to put up signs pointing out the patently obvious?

An appropriate amount for her injuries would be €0 and a reminder to watch where she's going in future.

gramar

Nermal wrote: »

It's patently obvious a manhole cover near a freaking crowd of sealions might be a bit slippy. Do Dublin Zoo have to put up signs pointing out the patently obvious?

An appropriate amount for her injuries would be €0 and a reminder to watch where she's going in future.

It would appear the manhole cover was covered by some surface water that the Zoo had a duty to clear thereby leading to them accepting responsibility.

gramar

Deleted User wrote: »

But the zoo said it was their fault.

Fecking eejits..you never admit liability...it's the first thing they tell you renting a car is never admit liability!

ScumLord

Nermal wrote: »

It's patently obvious a manhole cover near a freaking crowd of sealions might be a bit slippy.

Well if it's patently obvious that the manhole cover would be slippy that just makes it worse for Dublin zoo. They should have removed that danger before someone got injured.

RDM_83 again

What I don't get is these injuries seem attract higher payouts than people loosing fingers and limbs etc.

The European countries many on here laud as perfect states pay out comparitivly tiny amounts for uncertain back injuries.

ohnonotgmail

RDM_83 again wrote: »

What I don't get is these injuries seem attract higher payouts than people loosing fingers and limbs etc.

The European countries many on here laud as perfect states pay out comparitivly tiny amounts for uncertain back injuries.

what are you basing that on? the quantum for the loss of a hand STARTS at €108,000. Fingers and thumbs start at approx €30K each.

[Deleted User]

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what are you basing that on? the quantum for the loss of a hand STARTS at €108,000. Fingers and thumbs start at approx €30K each.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

What I don't get is these injuries seem attract higher payouts than people loosing fingers and limbs etc.

The European countries many on here laud as perfect states pay out comparitivly tiny amounts for uncertain back injuries.

Irish Injuries Board guidelines for payouts.

Loss of both arms €141,000 to €197,000
Loss of both hands (below elbow amputation) €136,000 to €192,000
Loss of one arm above elbow €111,000 to €145,000
Loss of one hand (below elbow amputation) €108,000 to €142,000
Loss of Thumb €33,900 to €80,800
Loss of Ring, Index or Middle Finger(s) €28,800 to €69,300
Loss of Little Finger(s) €28,800 to €50,400

Relevant to this particular instance -

Dislocations
Ankle dislocations normally heal without ligament instability and generally have a good
outcome with little, if any residual disability. Where the dislocation involves open
wounds, infection is a constant concern and a considerable permanent disability may
arise.
Substantially recovered €17,400 to €29,000
Significant ongoing €24,200 to €58,200
Serious and permanent conditions €50,700 to €78,500

Edit: got mixed up between this and the other "claim culture" thread, which was 64K.

gandalf

Dublin Zoo admitted liability immediately when this case started and changed the type of manhole cover in this location and others right after the accident because the one in situ was wholly unsuitable from a grip perspective on a slope.

keyboard_cat

Deleted User wrote: »

Loss of both arms €141,000 to €197,000
Loss of both hands (below elbow amputation) €136,000 to €192,000
Loss of one arm above elbow €111,000 to €145,000
Loss of one hand (below elbow amputation) €108,000 to €142,000
Loss of Thumb €33,900 to €80,800
Loss of Ring, Index or Middle Finger(s) €28,800 to €69,300
Loss of Little Finger(s) €28,800 to €50,400
.

jeez you really get shafted if you just straight up loose both your hands or arms. loosing 2 thumbs is only 36k less then loosing both your arms.

BattleCorp

Armchair Andy wrote: »

Is he not entitled to an opinion either way?

I'd look on your rash decision to label him as not a nice person as more a negative than his coarse outlook.

As it's AH, you may be just thankswhoring, in that case, bate away.

He called the woman a fat c**t and blamed her weight for the accident. The comment has since been removed.

That's why I said he wasn't a very nice person.

Perhaps I should have called him a c**t?

keyboard_cat

BattleCorp wrote: »

He called the woman a fat c**t and blamed her weight for the accident. The comment has since been removed.

That's why I said he wasn't a very nice person.

Perhaps I should have called him a c**t?

I noticed a mod also banned him after removing his posts but he seems to be unbanned pity as i can only assume he was here trolling. i dont think anyone could be that stupid
edit: his account is now marked as closed

Steve F

duffman3833 wrote: »

i was glancing through indo and seen this

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mum-who-slipped-on-manhole-cover-during-dublin-zoo-family-day-awarded-115000-34863998.html

Once again not all info here but there are millions of manhole covers in the country why does she get to sue is what i keep asking myself.
To me firstly its a big sum for something like this, secondly we cant bubble wrap everything, thirdly i might start suing for every injury i get cause everyone else taking advantage of it

What are they meant to do with the manhole, have people stand round it when it rains?

Could be wrong but in other European countries she would have been awarded a much smaller amount
Have we become sue nation?
Is this why were are paying silly amounts for car insurance?

[Deleted User]

Steve F wrote: »

Could be wrong but in other European countries she would have been awarded a much smaller amount
Have we become sue nation?
Is this why were are paying silly amounts for car insurance?

No its not.

The reason insurance has shot up is because 7 years ago the companies were told there would be new criteria this year, they continued to try and undercut each other, and this year they now have to meet the requirements about reserves. They were playing a game of chicken almost, trying to increase market share as D Day loomed.