Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Another ridiculous court award

24

Comments

  • #32
    C3PO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,899 ✭✭✭C3PO


    irish bloke wrote: »
    Public Liability Insurance is there to protect businesses in cases like this where members of the public injure themselves on your premises.

    My understanding is that the business must be proved to be negligent and I would argue that the supermarket in this case could not be said to be negligent!

    A definition of the "Duty of Care" owed under Public Liability:

    "You must take reasonable care to ensure the premises are safe. They in turn must take reasonable care for their own safety"


  • #33
    Barry Badrinath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,460 ✭✭✭Barry Badrinath


    irish bloke wrote: »
    Public Liability Insurance is there to protect businesses in cases like this where members of the public injure themselves on your premises. Would it be fair if that woman was out of work unpaid for 6 months and had medical bills to pay?

    Thats where income protection comes into play.

    Would it be fair if you owned a shop and a person was injured on your premises due to a third party....and you had to foot the bill?

    No, it wouldnt be fair.


  • #34
    Your Face
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,275 ✭✭✭Your Face


    irish bloke wrote: »
    Good one, but at the end of the day she tripped over a hazard that shouldn't have been there, regardless of who put it there. If it happened to your mother/sister/wife etc, I bet it would be a different story.

    Public Liability Insurance is there to protect businesses in cases like this where members of the public injure themselves on your premises. Would it be fair if that woman was out of work unpaid for 6 months and had medical bills to pay?

    The bait isn't tasty enough.


  • #35
    Kalimah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,669 ✭✭✭Kalimah


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    did you fracture your knee?
    Well obviously not since I got up as quickly as I could and slunk away. If I had injured myself all I would have wanted would have been medical bills covered - not enough to pay off my mortgage. Maybe that's why I have no retirement slush fund and will get only get a private pension of 3k a year at 65 and no state pension til 68.
    Not that I'm complaining or cynical mind you!


  • #36
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    irish bloke wrote:
    Good one, but at the end of the day she tripped over a hazard that shouldn't have been there, regardless of who put it there. If it happened to your mother/sister/wife etc, I bet it would be a different story.

    Even if it was myself, it wouldn't be a different story. A man, who has nothing to do with the shop, put down a case of beer. It could very easily have been a basket or other which happens on a very regular basis. If I then came along and fell over it, it would be my own fault for being a clumsy ejit.
    irish bloke wrote:
    Public Liability Insurance is there to protect businesses in cases like this where members of the public injure themselves on your premises. Would it be fair if that woman was out of work unpaid for 6 months and had medical bills to pay?

    See this is why insurance is getting out of hand. If she was out 6 months then it's unfortunate but that's what happens when you don't watch where you are going. Just because the injury may be bad doesn't make the shop any less or more at fault than if you got a bruise. If anyone is at fault, it's the guy who left the beer case down. He is not part of the shop.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Sam Kade
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,297 ✭✭✭✭Sam Kade


    whiskeyman wrote: »
    Would I intentionally fracture my knee and live with the possibility of pain and early arthritis, and damage my love of sport?



    Nope.


    Seems one of the more genuine cases around to be fair.
    I've seen a lot more awarded for a lot less.

    Ffs last week I fell from a height of 5 feet down onto a concrete yard and got up and walked away unscathed. These fools that trip at ground level and somehow manage to get life long injuries from it, they must have very brittle bones.


  • #38
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,365 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Sam Kade wrote: »
    Ffs last week I fell from a height of 5 feet down onto a concrete yard and got up and walked away unscathed. These fools that trip at ground level and somehow manage to get life long injuries from it, they must have very brittle bones.

    sure aren't you only marvelous.


  • #39
    westcoast66
    Closed Accounts Posts: 211 ✭✭westcoast66


    She'll probably have to pay over half of it in tax anyway, so at least the state will get half the money back.....


  • #40
    Sam Kade
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,297 ✭✭✭✭Sam Kade


    Kalimah wrote: »
    Funny that- she said she had had to give up football and running. Isn't it always the way with these these cases. I remember donkeys years back slipping on a squashed mushroom in our local Spar. I picked myself up and prayed no one had seen me- I was mortified. Wouldn't have dreamed of claiming.

    If she is a fit young woman who plays football she should be less prone to an injury from a trip, how many times did she fall playing football?


  • #41
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    BrokenArrows wrote: »
    Ya its insane.

    Thats a ruling that basically means if you injure yourself on any property because of your own fault and not paying basic attention then you can get a payout.

    That basically means anyone, anywhere who injures themselves can get a payout.

    Even if the court ruled that you were 95% responsible for the accident thats still a 3k payout.

    I broke my wrist playing football years and years ago when the ball smacked my wrist back. In todays world i probably could have got a nice payout because the sports centers fault the ball came in my direction. lol.

    Again no, this is wrong.

    The court considered her liability and assessed it at 20%. That matter was not overlooked, it was addressed, it is far from throwing the law of negligence out the window as you claim, we have not witness the undoing of 100 years of negligence jurisprudence and anyone can claim for a broken wrist when a ball hits it.

    Where I have concerns is why the shop was fixed with primary responsibility when it would seem to me it should rest with the other shopper. Of course, the may be more detail, the shop asked him to move it so knew it was a danger but did nothing themselves, another member of staff moving it to that place after it was left down etc. On the face of what is reported, that is not made clear so prima facie there seems to be a concern about why the shop was collared.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Sam Kade wrote: »
    Ffs last week I fell from a height of 5 feet down onto a concrete yard and got up and walked away unscathed. These fools that trip at ground level and somehow manage to get life long injuries from it, they must have very brittle bones.

    Sure sue yourself. And gravity.


  • #43
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,365 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Again no, this is wrong.

    The court considered her liability and assessed it at 20%. That matter was not overlooked, it was addressed, it is far from throwing the law of negligence out the window as you claim, we have not witness the undoing of 100 years of negligence jurisprudence and anyone can claim for a broken wrist when a ball hits it.

    Where I have concerns is why the shop was fixed with primary responsibility when it would seem to me it should rest with the other shopper. Of course, the may be more detail, the shop asked him to move it so knew it was a danger but did nothing themselves, another member of staff moving it to that place after it was left down etc. On the face of what is reported, that is not made clear so prima facie there seems to be a concern about why the shop was collared.

    does the shop not have an obligation to ensure that the floor is clear of trip hazards and to act appropriately if one occurs?


  • #44
    BrokenArrows
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭BrokenArrows


    westcoast66 wrote: »
    She'll probably have to pay over half of it in tax anyway, so at least the state will get half the money back.....

    Personal Injury claim payments are not taxed.


  • #45
    Sam Kade
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,297 ✭✭✭✭Sam Kade


    westcoast66 wrote: »
    She'll probably have to pay over half of it in tax anyway, so at least the state will get half the money back.....

    No tax on compensation claims.


  • #46
    westcoast66
    Closed Accounts Posts: 211 ✭✭westcoast66


    Sam Kade wrote: »
    westcoast66 wrote: »
    She'll probably have to pay over half of it in tax anyway, so at least the state will get half the money back.....

    No tax on compensation claims.

    Incorrect.

    The person can only avoid paying tax if her injury results in her being permanently incapacitated and unable to earn a living.

    See:
    http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/leaflets/it13.html

    And more specifically, the person can avoid paying tax if:
    The person receiving the compensation must, as a result of the injury, be permanently and totally incapacitated either physically or mentally from maintaining himself or herself.


  • #47
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    does the shop not have an obligation to ensure that the floor is clear of trip hazards and to act appropriately if one occurs?

    A very broad obligation. Certainly if a staff member placed the obstacle there, then it would be obvious liability. And then you slide down through different scenarios along the spectrum, someone drops a bottle of oil and the shop knows about it but leaves it, probable liability. But someone drops something and falls over it themselves, then very hard to see how anyone but them could be liable, a Court would probably just conclude that shops have to have items that can be handled but dropping one would be the shoppers own fault.


  • #48
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,365 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Deleted User wrote: »
    A very broad obligation. Certainly if a staff member placed the obstacle there, then it would be obvious liability. And then you slide down through different scenarios along the spectrum, someone drops a bottle of oil and the shop knows about it but leaves it, probable liability.

    I would have thought that in a case where the shop was aware of a trip hazard and ignored it they would definitely be liable.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    But someone drops something and falls over it themselves, then very hard to see how anyone but them could be liable, a Court would probably just conclude that shops have to have items that can be handled but dropping one would be the shoppers own fault.

    no argument there.


  • #49
    HS3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 405 ✭✭HS3


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Again no, this is wrong.

    The court considered her liability and assessed it at 20%. That matter was not overlooked, it was addressed, it is far from throwing the law of negligence out the window as you claim, we have not witness the undoing of 100 years of negligence jurisprudence and anyone can claim for a broken wrist when a ball hits it.

    Where I have concerns is why the shop was fixed with primary responsibility when it would seem to me it should rest with the other shopper. Of course, the may be more detail, the shop asked him to move it so knew it was a danger but did nothing themselves, another member of staff moving it to that place after it was left down etc. On the face of what is reported, that is not made clear so prima facie there seems to be a concern about why the shop was collared.

    Really? You don't know why the shop was collared? With all the legal jargon in your posts, it surprising you wouldn't know how or why the shop were brought onto it.

    They owed the woman a duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act. She was injured on their premises. They didn't take due care in ensuring her journey through the shop wouldnt cause her harm. Why would they sue the other shopper and get nothing but a judgment registered against them, when they can sue the shop and get cash!?


  • #50
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    HS3 wrote: »
    Really? You don't know why the shop was collared? With all the legal jargon in your posts, it surprising you wouldn't know how or why the shop were brought onto it.

    They owed the woman a duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act. She was injured on their premises. They didn't take due care in ensuring her journey through the shop wouldnt cause her harm. Why would they sue the other shopper and get nothing but a judgment registered against them, when they can sue the shop and get cash!?

    I don't find his posts filled with legal jargon at all - quite the opposite actually, clear and coherent explanation of the legal issues involved - something which is missing in a lot of the other "rabble rabble" posts here.


    The question is why the shop was fixed with liability, not why the customer decided to go after them. We know a shop with public liability has deeper pockets than a customer, but that is perhaps the claimants reason for pursuing the store - it's not a legal justification for finding them liable.


  • #51
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    HS3 wrote: »
    Really? You don't know why the shop was collared? With all the legal jargon in your posts, it surprising you wouldn't know how or why the shop were brought onto it.

    They owed the woman a duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act. She was injured on their premises. They didn't take due care in ensuring her journey through the shop wouldnt cause her harm. Why would they sue the other shopper and get nothing but a judgment registered against them, when they can sue the shop and get cash!?

    Oh no denying they owed a duty of care, but the Occupier's Liability Act does not dispense with the need to show negligence in the first place. The duty of care existed long before the Occupier's Liability Act, and it did not change the law for premises like this and did not introduce strict liability. Negligence must always be demonstrated, and the first issue is liability, who is responsible. The report in the OP does not clearly set out why the shop is responsible, how did they contribute to the act, what could they have reasonably foreseen etc. Thats not to say it wasn't set out by the Judge at all, newspaper reports can often miss the point. I can see why the shop was sued, but the Court is not under some obligation to fix the shop with responsibility, they still have to identify the negligence on the part of the shop.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,365 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Oh no denying they owed a duty of care, but the Occupier's Liability Act does not dispense with the need to show negligence in the first place. The duty of care existed long before the Occupier's Liability Act, and it did not change the law for premises like this and did not introduce strict liability. Negligence must always be demonstrated, and the first issue is liability, who is responsible. The report in the OP does not clearly set out why the shop is responsible, how did they contribute to the act, what could they have reasonably foreseen etc. Thats not to say it wasn't set out by the Judge at all, newspaper reports can often miss the point. I can see why the shop was sued, but the Court is not under some obligation to fix the shop with responsibility, they still have to identify the negligence on the part of the shop.

    LIke all such cases they rest on the facts. Unfortunately the article does not include sufficient facts. The question of the shops liability does seem to have been raised by the shops barrister but the judge rejected their submission.


  • #53
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    4 people now have said this is what Insurance for. Are people not understand that it's this type of culture that's driving insurance up and up until we'll get to the point where we can't afford to drive anymore.


  • #54
    Colser
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,572 ✭✭✭Colser


    When my car was stolen and crashed into someone else I was told that any claims would go against my insurance...different scenario I know but similar in that I was in no way responsible for the incident.


  • #55
    weshtawake
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 144 ✭✭weshtawake


    My daughter recently graduated and is doing some waitressing in a hotel locally. Recently some muppet employee spilt something liquid on the kitchen floor and neither cleaned it up or put a warning sign in place. Anyway, daughter slips on spillage and falls. Didn't hurt herself thankfully and brushed herself down and went about her business.
    If she was sly/opportunist I wonder how much it would have been worth to her given that it was negligence on the part of a hotel employee?
    Proud of her that it never entered her head to take a case!


  • #56
    HS3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 405 ✭✭HS3


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    I don't find his posts filled with legal jargon at all - quite the opposite actually, clear and coherent explanation of the legal issues involved - something which is missing in a lot of the other "rabble rabble" posts here.


    The question is why the shop was fixed with liability, not why the customer decided to go after them. We know a shop with public liability has deeper pockets than a customer, but that is perhaps the claimants reason for pursuing the store - it's not a legal justification for finding them liable.

    We'll have to differ on the posts.

    You'd have to get a copy of the Judgment to find the legal justification for finding the shop liable. On the bear bones of it...The shop was fixed with liability because the case was brought against them. In the normal course of events someone shouldn't trip over beer on the floor. The hazard was on their premises.


  • #57
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,365 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    weshtawake wrote: »
    My daughter recently graduated and is doing some waitressing in a hotel locally. Recently some muppet employee spilt something liquid on the kitchen floor and neither cleaned it up or put a warning sign in place. Anyway, daughter slips on spillage and falls. Didn't hurt herself thankfully and brushed herself down and went about her business.
    If she was sly/opportunist I wonder how much it would have been worth to her given that it was negligence on the part of a hotel employee?
    Proud of her that it never entered her head to take a case!


    Compensation for what? they weren't hurt.


  • #58
    HS3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 405 ✭✭HS3


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Oh no denying they owed a duty of care, but the Occupier's Liability Act does not dispense with the need to show negligence in the first place. The duty of care existed long before the Occupier's Liability Act, and it did not change the law for premises like this and did not introduce strict liability. Negligence must always be demonstrated, and the first issue is liability, who is responsible. The report in the OP does not clearly set out why the shop is responsible, how did they contribute to the act, what could they have reasonably foreseen etc. Thats not to say it wasn't set out by the Judge at all, newspaper reports can often miss the point. I can see why the shop was sued, but the Court is not under some obligation to fix the shop with responsibility, they still have to identify the negligence on the part of the shop.

    As per my previous post, it's impossible to say what the facts of the case are. You'd have to get a copy of the Judgment. The negligence is obvious. There was a trip hazard on the floor. In the normal course of events a visitor and even a trespasser on a premises has the expectation that they should be able to walk through a premises without tripping over a hazard. Or as someone else said, without slipping on something another customer spilled or dropped on the floor. That's the basics of it.


  • #59
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    HS3 wrote: »
    We'll have to differ on the posts.

    You'd have to get a copy of the Judgment to find the legal justification for finding the shop liable. On the bear bones of it...The shop was fixed with liability because the case was brought against them. In the normal course of events someone shouldn't trip over beer on the floor. The hazard was on their premises.

    I am not disputing the merit of the case. I was simply pointing out that the reason for the shop being fixed with liability was a legal issue and not, as some posters here were suggesting, simply because the shop had public liability insurance. I know full well that such legal justification is to be found in the judgment.

    In relation to the posts, we can differ alright. Personally I see no issue with the use of legal terminology in the context of a legal discussion. Though I suppose it is easier to sling accusations of "jargon" than it is to educate oneself on the meaning of the terms.


  • #60
    maudgonner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,455 ✭✭✭maudgonner


    HS3 wrote: »
    We'll have to differ on the posts.

    You'd have to get a copy of the Judgment to find the legal justification for finding the shop liable. On the bear bones of it...The shop was fixed with liability because the case was brought against them. In the normal course of events someone shouldn't trip over beer on the floor. The hazard was on their premises.

    I agree. In the normal course of events surely someone should look where they are walking and avoid obstacles in their way? The woman was found 20% liable? That seems ridiculous to me - I'm more than 20% responsible for looking where I'm going and not tripping over perfectly visible hazards.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    weshtawake wrote: »
    My daughter recently graduated and is doing some waitressing in a hotel locally. Recently some muppet employee spilt something liquid on the kitchen floor and neither cleaned it up or put a warning sign in place. Anyway, daughter slips on spillage and falls. Didn't hurt herself thankfully and brushed herself down and went about her business.
    If she was sly/opportunist I wonder how much it would have been worth to her given that it was negligence on the part of a hotel employee?
    Proud of her that it never entered her head to take a case!

    Proud of her for not taking a spurious case you mean. She wasn't hurt.


Advertisement
Advertisement