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

Fire in Douglas - See Mod note in post #506

BurnsCarpenter

Anyone know what's going on? Looks close to m & s maybe.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

marno21

Acosta wrote: »

Local radio reporting a crash on the south ring. Someone called in to tell them there's no crash it's just people banging on their brakes to look at the demolition works. **** me!

There was a crash, it was in the overtaking lane just after the onramp westbound at the Mahon interchange

The delays from the crash were minor compared with the delays from the rubberneckers at the Douglas flyover though.

grogi

who_me wrote: »

True, but then so too is building and selling a car that spontaneously catches fire...

It would be if Opel knew it catches fire and did nothing.

It isn't possible to build a car that is faultless. It is absolutely normal to build one that will need adjustments during its life.

Harika

who_me wrote: »

Has that been established? Do you have a link handy? (Not doubting you in the slightest, I'd just like to read something about this whole affair that's not "I heard that....")

http://www.redfm.ie/news/cork/the-car-that-started-a-huge-blaze-at-douglas-village-shopping-centre-was-not-on-fire-when-it-entered-the-multi-storey-car-park/

The center manager

who_me

the beer revolu wrote: »

We need to bare in mind that the original story of the smoking car entering the car park, now appears to be a crock of shlt.
Without sound evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that every rumour regarding this fire and its aftermath is a crock of shlt.

Has that been established? Do you have a link handy? (Not doubting you in the slightest, I'd just like to read something about this whole affair that's not "I heard that....")

who_me

grogi wrote: »

Ignoring a recall is gross negligence. It changes the dynamics a bit.

True, but then so too is building and selling a car that spontaneously catches fire...

Cork Trucker

Acosta wrote: »

Local radio reporting a crash on the south ring. Someone called in to tell them there's no crash it's just people banging on their brakes to look at the demolition works. **** me!

There will be a crash from it yet.

Acosta

Local radio reporting a crash on the south ring. Someone called in to tell them there's no crash it's just people banging on their brakes to look at the demolition works. **** me!

Quackster

Barr wrote: »

That doesn't seem right , surely if your car or house catches fire and damages next doors car or house , then your policy is liable for the damages . Regardless of being deliberate or not.

Accidental Fires Act 1943
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1943/act/8/enacted/en/html

Cork Trucker

Barr wrote: »

That doesn't seem right , surely if your car or house catches fire and damages next doors car or house , then your policy is liable for the damages . Regardless of being deliberate or not.

I know of one particular case some years ago where a car was torched by arsonists, is took an adjacent car with it. The adjacent car couldn’t claim from the offending vehicle so to speak and had to sort it themselves, the adjacent vehicle was uninsured. The owner of the other vehicle claimed off their own policy

Barr

beer enigma wrote: »

This is a fire claim, differs from third party. If your car or house catches fire and sets fire to the car or house next to it then there's no claim allowable against your policy unless it was deliberate.

That doesn't seem right , surely if your car or house catches fire and damages next doors car or house , then your policy is liable for the damages . Regardless of being deliberate or not.

grogi

beer enigma wrote: »

This is a fire claim, differs from third party. If your car or house catches fire and sets fire to the car or house next to it then there's no claim allowable against your policy unless it was deliberate.

This wasn't deliberate so if its proven to be part of the recall, Opel will likely be liable but they will argue recall was ignored. Failing that its claim against your own with the industry agreement of no prejudice against your policy.

Suing the centre for what? At liberty to try but good luck on that and to be honest the risk of costs against them I'd say all smoke no fire.... Pun intended

Ignoring a recall is gross negligence. It changes the dynamics a bit.

two wheels good

the beer revolu wrote: »

We need to bare in mind that the original story of the smoking car entering the car park, now appears to be a crock of shlt.
Without sound evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that every rumour regarding this fire and its aftermath is a crock of shlt.

Correct. It always was. Yet surprising how many people were keen to repeat it.
This implausible rumour was contradicted by photos and audio interviews that were widely reported.
Unfortunately The Examiner's unattributed and irresponsible reporting promoted the rumour.

beer enigma

This is a fire claim, differs from third party. If your car or house catches fire and sets fire to the car or house next to it then there's no claim allowable against your policy unless it was deliberate.

This wasn't deliberate so if its proven to be part of the recall, Opel will likely be liable but they will argue recall was ignored. Failing that its claim against your own with the industry agreement of no prejudice against your policy.

Suing the centre for what? At liberty to try but good luck on that and to be honest the risk of costs against them I'd say all smoke no fire.... Pun intended

g6fdyotp5nj2l7

the beer revolu wrote:

We need to bare in mind that the original story of the smoking car entering the car park, now appears to be a crock of shlt. Without sound evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that every rumour regarding this fire and its aftermath is a crock of shlt.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story

the beer revolu

We need to bare in mind that the original story of the smoking car entering the car park, now appears to be a crock of shlt.
Without sound evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that every rumour regarding this fire and its aftermath is a crock of shlt.

grogi

airy fairy wrote: »

How do you know the owner is trying to sue?
Seems outrageous that someone thinks the centre is liable.

It's not outrageous - it is a valid legal defence. Do you remember the case in UK where a cyclist was ordered to pay £105,000 for knocking over woman who crossed road looking at phone? It ended that way because the cyclist didn't sue...

What is outrageous is a legal system that we have that requires such moves.

Cork Trucker

mordeith wrote: »

Even if the security didn't do anything it would be irrelevant to the car owner suing (if there is any truth to that at all). He would be under no obligation to put a fire out in someone's car.

I know. From what i remember reading, if there is any truth to it, the lady was blaming the security guard for the fire that resulting in the damage it caused. Again merely speculation.

mordeith

Cork Trucker wrote: »

It was mentioned on Social Media at the outset, i don't know was it on this thread but i'm not going back through all the comments to find out either. allegedly the lady informed a security guard about the vehicle being on fire and he fail/refused to act on it in accordance with her instructions. Again this is an allegation.

Even if the security didn't do anything it would be irrelevant to the car owner suing (if there is any truth to that at all). He would be under no obligation to put a fire out in someone's car.

Cork Trucker

airy fairy wrote: »

How do you know the owner is trying to sue?
Seems outrageous that someone thinks the centre is liable.

It was mentioned on Social Media at the outset, i don't know was it on this thread but i'm not going back through all the comments to find out either. allegedly the lady informed a security guard about the vehicle being on fire and he fail/refused to act on it in accordance with her instructions. Again this is an allegation.

airy fairy

Cork Trucker wrote: »

If Opel can show they have exhausted all avenues by sending letters to the registered owners, be it past and/or present and the paper trail is there to back it up and the car was still not handed over, surely the onus is then on the owner? I've never owned one of those vehicles nor will i ever, but you would need to be living on planet Mars to not know there's been recalls on these. Most people who have them have young children, so you'd think their safety would be paramount. Instead we allegedly have the owner in this case trying to sue both Douglas Village Shopping Centre and Opel, i look forward to seeing how it plays out.

How do you know the owner is trying to sue?
Seems outrageous that someone thinks the centre is liable.

Cork Trucker

airy fairy wrote: »

If the car was bought second or third hand, which is often the case, and a lot of the time it's private sale, how would the owner know about a recall?
I would think it's 100% down to Opel?

If Opel can show they have exhausted all avenues by sending letters to the registered owners, be it past and/or present and the paper trail is there to back it up and the car was still not handed over, surely the onus is then on the owner? I've never owned one of those vehicles nor will i ever, but you would need to be living on planet Mars to not know there's been recalls on these. Most people who have them have young children, so you'd think their safety would be paramount. Instead we allegedly have the owner in this case trying to sue both Douglas Village Shopping Centre and Opel, i look forward to seeing how it plays out.

P.lane78

Yep ...we bought a zaFIREa last year and we got the latest recall a few months later ...got it done within the week ...

Odelay

airy fairy wrote: »

If the car was bought second or third hand, which is often the case, and a lot of the time it's private sale, how would the owner know about a recall?
I would think it's 100% down to Opel?

It’s done via the office in Shannon where the log book goes. They can release information to the manufacture for safety related recall notices.

airy fairy

If the car was bought second or third hand, which is often the case, and a lot of the time it's private sale, how would the owner know about a recall?
I would think it's 100% down to Opel?

run_Forrest_run

Cork Trucker wrote: »

.. Opel Ireland if the car was recalled and the notice went unanswered would it be a split 50/50 bill?

that's what I was wondering, I presume there was a recall on these affected models but I wonder did the owner not react to the recall?

the beer revolu

dulpit wrote: »

Hahaha haha, casual sexism is so funny. Haha hahaha. -_-

Also, it wasn't: http://www.redfm.ie/news/cork/the-car-that-started-a-huge-blaze-at-douglas-village-shopping-centre-was-not-on-fire-when-it-entered-the-multi-storey-car-park/

But, but he said, "only messin", so it wasn't sexism, at all!

That's the first reliable report I've heard on whether the car was on fire entering or not.

Cork Trucker

Still going to be interesting to see who foots the bill, the Zafira driver's insurance (If she had any, if not the M.I.B.I) or Opel Ireland if the car was recalled and the notice went unanswered would it be a split 50/50 bill?

freshpopcorn

mean gene wrote: »

Woman driver causes all this who would of ever foreseen this

Only messin

Heard it was smoking going in

The manager was on Red Fm and they confirmed it wasn't!

g6fdyotp5nj2l7

mean gene wrote:

Heard it was smoking going in

You heard wrong

run_Forrest_run

zilog_jones wrote: »

Of course, they could fit sprinklers...

sprinklers are already fitted in areas where sprinklers would have an effect, they would have done nothing to stop what happened.