[Deleted User] wrote: » I'm going to play devil's advocate. Is it reasonably foreseeable that if you place a swing in an area where people are consuming alcohol, there is a reasonable prospect that someone will fall backwards off it? If that is reasonably foreseeable then the premesis has some liability. I would never have the shame to take a case like this, it probably does have some legal merit.
Squidgy Black wrote: » But the above is exactly what's driving liability insurance up when people are able to put in claims like that, trying to absolve themselves of any personal liability and blaming it on others around them. At what point do we draw the line of people taking responsibility for their own actions? Look at the case of the girl who jumped on the side of the Luas and put in a claim because there wasn't adequate grip for her to jump onto the side of a moving tram. It's absolutely mental.
Deleted User wrote: » If that is reasonably foreseeable then the premesis has some liability.
Interested Observer wrote: » Deleted User wrote: » If that is reasonably foreseeable then the premesis has some liability. Are you a solicitor or in some other way experience with the law or is this just you musing?
errlloyd wrote: » I fully agree with Venjur's Devils Advocate position and I'd go a step further and say much of the language about it being "unsupervised" etc probably came from her legal team, not her. I think for the Hotel a simple sign that says "swings are decorative only" and then a policy of them ignoring anyone who ignored the sign would have worked. I still can't believe she's taken this case though. She probably does have a legal position, but like also cop on. Every single girl on Instagram in Dublin has been on those swings without injuring themselves.
Interested Observer wrote: » Are you a solicitor or in some other way experience with the law or is this just you musing?
Neil3030 wrote: » distinguishes a swing from, say, a staircase.
Deleted User wrote: » It's not musing, I don't practice law but it's a major part of how negligence is decided. A court will look at an environment specifically catering for people who consume alcohol. It will look at a swing in the middle of that environment and ask "is it likely a drunk person will sit here" "is it likely a drunk person will sit here and have a fall" I think both of those will be answered with yes and voila, the TD has a case.
Deleted User wrote: » Neil3030 wrote: » distinguishes a swing from, say, a staircase. If the staircase was wobbly or could move then it might be held to a similar standard. Look, it's most likely a very frivolous action. If someone say, sat on the swing and it flipped underneath them and they landed on their neck causing serious trauma then most people would say fair enough. But the fact that both *could* happen suggests why these things need to be heard regardless. She is fishing for a settlement, it's cost her her career and any claims to integrity and I'd say the chances of her making a penny now are slim. She probably won't withdraw the claim as if she is successful (in any even remote way) it will give her some cover politically.
Interested Observer wrote: » How many people have sat on that swing, without supervision might I add, and managed to not fall off. Thousands? Tens of thousands? If this is the first case that has been taken against them then to me it's decidedly unlikely that you'd fall off and injure yourself. You'd have to be doing something really daft like holding a drink in one hand and your bag in the other. The fact she ran a 10k soon after the incident despite the court papers saying she couldn't run for 3 months shows she is also a liar. I don't believe a word she says about her injuries and hopefully the judge won't either.
irishbucsfan wrote: » Any solicitor I’ve heard give thoughts on it seem to think she has little chance. The fact they’ve seemingly probably lied about the extent of her injuries in court documents has surely seen the end of any chance she has of winning. But interested observer could well be right, she might have no real way out at this stage.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Running a 10k two weeks later looks absolutely terrible, but doesn't mean there wasn't an injury. I really don't want to play devils advocate on this, I think it's a stupid action to take but it's worthwhile looking at it critically because that's what a court will do and occasionally these things are justified. As Troyzer has posted, she is looking to distance herself now and get this out of the media. I'd say she is goosed in the next GE, I think the hotel is limited in what it can action on foot of reputational damage but wouldn't mind seeing them try!
irishbucsfan wrote: » She said she couldn’t run for 3 months
Deleted User wrote: » Oh lol, really? That's quite likely insurance fraud in that case, if she wasn't going to be deselected by FG she definitely will be now. Quite likely staring down the barrel of a visit from the Gardai also. Greed and dishonesty are powerful drugs to the wrong person.
troyzer wrote: » I don't know if anyone read my comment but she's dropped the case. I'd say it's over.
thomond2006 wrote: » Is this not fraud? Saying you can't run for three months in a civil case which turns out to be a malicious lie? FG surely have to consider kicking her out of the party. (I know! No politics!)
Zzippy wrote: » Perhaps I'm just a cynic but the timing of this story about a fraudulent/frivolous claim in the week when the insurance industry are being investigated for running a cartel is a tad suspicious.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6081e4655739e0887aaf16222f88b015.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dd23f423fe14831a2a84d9f17c825ecc.svg)
