Schoolgirl gets €5,000 for slander and assault on Luas

seamus · 27-10-2010 02:23PM

Actually, this is much simpler now that I think about it.

In a defamation suit, the onus is on the person making the remark to prove that their remark was true.

So it really doesn't matter whether or not she had a ticket. Veolia would have to prove that she didn't have a ticket at the time. They couldn't, they lose.

prinz · 27-10-2010 02:24PM

PCPhoto wrote: »

which is exactly as her barrister said ......

Exactly. Which makes me wonder why there are a few posters here who know for 100% fact she did have a valid ticket and was assaulted....

prinz · 27-10-2010 02:25PM

marco_polo wrote: »

The alternative, that the were in the wrong and had an unwinnable case seems the most likey explaination

You can be in the right and still have an unwinnable case. Neither side could back up anything. Easier for all if Veolia cough up, saves time, money, effort, and court space.

PCPhoto · 27-10-2010 02:25PM

Snakeblood wrote: »

Tax money being wasted is a completely separate issue. I don't want anyone giving up their rights.

I agree tax monies wasted is a seperate issue - but it is linked as there are plenty of cases taken against councils and the MIBI where similar awards are made every week (PIAB approved or not).... on the same day there was a number of other awards made - one person got €35,000 for injuries... most got between €10K-€15K.

Can I ask a question to you snakeblood ? does a person who comes into this country as a refugee/asylum seeker have the right to stay here if they continually break the law.... can they refuse to accept the governments decision to reject their application for asylum ? my opinion is that if they break the law they should be deported on the next available flight.

Snakeblood · 27-10-2010 02:25PM

prinz wrote: »

Nope. Does that mean we should accept one version of it as total truth and make remarks about Veolia Limited and their staff?

I'd be inclined to believe the version that was accepted by Veolia and which they paid 5 grand damages for.

Has anyone insulted their staff at large? It's not like they're the guards or politicians.

Hannibal Smith · 27-10-2010 02:27PM

prinz wrote: »

Nope. Does that mean we should accept one version of it as total truth and make remarks about Veolia Limited and their staff?

No, and in fairness, i have only made postive remarks about Veolia.

However, none of us can be definite about what made credible evidence in the case, particularly when there was never even a trial.

kev_s88 · 27-10-2010 02:28PM

R_H_C_P wrote: »

am.... Yeah they kinda do. Its their job to stop people from getting free lifts on the luas...

actually their job is to fine people who try to get a free lift on the Luas. they have no rights to push someone off a LUAS.

prinz · 27-10-2010 02:28PM

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

No, and in fairness, i have only made postive remarks about Veolia..

True, and I never said you didn't (before the suing starts)

Hannibal Smith · 27-10-2010 02:28PM

prinz wrote: »

Exactly. Which makes me wonder why there are a few posters here who know for 100% fact she did have a valid ticket and was assaulted....

who said that? We're all only going from the article, same as you.

Hannibal Smith · 27-10-2010 02:29PM

prinz wrote: »

True, and I never said you didn't (before the suing starts)

too late, a summons has been sent to your IP addy

PCPhoto · 27-10-2010 02:30PM

prinz wrote: »

Exactly. Which makes me wonder why there are a few posters here who know for 100% fact she did have a valid ticket and was assaulted....

I was in the court for the case !!

it is symptomatic of many cases which go through the courts every week.... Parents are to blame.

Won't somebody please think of the children (in my best Maud flanders voice)

kylith · 27-10-2010 02:31PM

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

The Luas doesn't work like a bus. You buy a ticket for a certain journey. So if she bought a ticket from Fatima to the City Centre, it's valid for that journey, for a certain time (an hour and a half I think) after you purchase it.

It's not like Dublin Bus where once you get off you've completed your journey and have to get another ticket if you want to start it up again.

Correct. I've just checked a Luas ticket and it just says that the journey must be completed within 90 minutes.

marco_polo · 27-10-2010 02:33PM

prinz wrote: »

Exactly. Which makes me wonder why there are a few posters here who know for 100% fact she did have a valid ticket and was assaulted....

The thread was started with the thinly veiled premise that the girl was essentially making it up and the claim was fraud. Of course I do not know the full facts of the case, but I see nothing wrong with arguing otherwise.

Long Term Louth · 27-10-2010 02:35PM

Id imagine Veolia work to a code of practice, they must have felt they breeched it in this case, or why the settlement?

PCPhoto · 27-10-2010 02:36PM

and a sneak preview of tomorrows news ... a girl gets 20K for being hit by a bus mirror.

humanji · 27-10-2010 02:38PM

Long Term Louth wrote: »

Id imagine Veolia work to a code of practice, they must have felt they breeched it in this case, or why the settlement?

A settlement doesn't mean guilt. It often means that they don't want to continue with a trial that would give them bad publicity.

Long Term Louth · 27-10-2010 02:38PM

PCPhoto wrote: »

and a sneak preview of tomorrows news ... a girl gets 20K for being hit by a bus mirror.

Quite possible! if the mirror is loose for example.

WindSock · 27-10-2010 02:39PM

I like how they state she is from council housing. Is it stated that anyone else is from affordable housing, rented housing or from a family with a fully paid mortgage?

seamus wrote: »

Actually, this is much simpler now that I think about it.

In a defamation suit, the onus is on the person making the remark to prove that their remark was true.

So it really doesn't matter whether or not she had a ticket. Veolia would have to prove that she didn't have a ticket at the time. They couldn't, they lose.

That's a bit messy, so anyone can make this claim and the operator would have to somehow prove there was no ticket? Can't see how that would work out well for the operator.

Rabble Rabble · 27-10-2010 02:40PM

Long Term Louth wrote: »

Id imagine Veolia work to a code of practice, they must have felt they breeched it in this case, or why the settlement?

They know that the court could award more even without any proof - and there was no proof here. Without a ticket there was clearly no proof. And if the girl had the ticket she would probably have brought it along with her on the day she went to the get legal advice.

In a normal country a lawyer would have suggested that without the ticket she has no claim.Ireland is not normal. The entire rotten edifice needs to be removed, we need to start electing judges. In this case the money was taken from a private company but that kind of thing pushes up prices for us all. We all pay.

prinz · 27-10-2010 02:40PM

marco_polo wrote: »

The thread was started with the thinly veiled premise that the girl was essentially making it up and the claim was fraud. Of course I do not know the full facts of the case, but I see nothing wrong with arguing otherwise.

Personally, if there was no proof either way, IMO the case should have been dismissed.

If I had a ticket and this happened I would have made damn sure to keep it, that alone casts doubts on the accuracy of the girl's story for me.

jackiebaron · 27-10-2010 02:40PM

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

They blocked her getting on the train. I wouldn't consider that similar to actually hitting someone.

Did she have to go to hospital with injuries or anything like that?

I know I am wrong though. Any sort of physical contact is assault. The world is mad!

If I punched you in the stomach and then gave you an almighty boot in the arse when you were doubled over gasping for oxygen, would you classify that as assault? I certainly would. But you wouldn't need to go to hospital for your injuries would you? It's only assault if you need hospital treatment? Get real!

Cuddlesworth · 27-10-2010 02:40PM

kev_s88 wrote: »

they have no rights to push someone off a LUAS.

Allegedly.

Long Term Louth · 27-10-2010 02:41PM

humanji wrote: »

A settlement doesn't mean guilt. It often means that they don't want to continue with a trial that would give them bad publicity.

Dont you reckon they have received bad publicity? after all it is now public knowledge! perhaps they should have defended the case to deter others, or did they indeed, have something to hide????

seamus · 27-10-2010 02:43PM

WindSock wrote: »

That's a bit messy, so anyone can make this claim and the operator would have to somehow prove there was no ticket? Can't see how that would work out well for the operator.

Not exactly - someone couldn't just come along and say that they were shoved off a train. They would need a witness to corroborate their story (which may be the person who shoved them).

But otherwise yes, Veolia must prove that the person does not have a valid ticket (or are otherwise validly being denied) before they deny them boarding.

It makes sense when you think about it. Otherwise we could go around making all sorts of bizarre accusations about anyone and getting away with it because they couldn't disprove what we said. Instead, quite rightly, the person making the statement must be able to back it up.

Ice cubed · 27-10-2010 02:44PM

Suing for life's experiences when they are not positive. The world wont be perfect till we all move about in little impenetrable bubbles.
I remember saving to by a watch when I was 14 or 15, went into town with my friends one Saturday with the intention of buying the watch but was refused entry to the shop by the security guard. I was gutted but just went back another day to get it.
Fair enough, the girl was distressed, that should be, imo, an apology and €50 for her troubles. The courts/law has to put an end to this massive pay out culture.

humanji · 27-10-2010 02:45PM

Long Term Louth wrote:

Dont you reckon they have received bad publicity? after all it is now public knowledge! perhaps they should have defended the case to deter others, or did they indeed, have something to hide????

I'd have heard nothing of it if I hadn't clicked on this link. And tomorrow nobody will be thinking about it. But had the trial gone on and a huge payoff being awarded, then lots more people would know about it.

It happens all the time. It just cheaper and less public to get it quickly out of the way. That's why people abuse the system and sue over anything.

Hannibal Smith · 27-10-2010 02:45PM

PCPhoto wrote: »

and a sneak preview of tomorrows news ... a girl gets 20K for being hit by a bus mirror.

this has happened...and Dublin Bus have been successfully sued over it

happymondays · 27-10-2010 02:47PM

prinz wrote: »

Personally, if there was no proof either way, IMO the case should have been dismissed.

If I had a ticket and this happened I would have made damn sure to keep it, that alone casts doubts on the accuracy of the girl's story for me.

Agreed, if she had a ticket then theres no reason why the incident should have happened, the fact she cant produce a ticket to validate her story
would suggest she's didnt have a ticket in the first place.

it was settled probally becuase Veolia just didnt want the bad publicity.

Hannibal Smith · 27-10-2010 02:47PM

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

They know that the court could award more even without any proof - and there was no proof here. Without a ticket there was clearly no proof. And if the girl had the ticket she would probably have brought it along with her on the day she went to the get legal advice.

In a normal country a lawyer would have suggested that without the ticket she has no claim.Ireland is not normal. The entire rotten edifice needs to be removed, we need to start electing judges. In this case the money was taken from a private company but that kind of thing pushes up prices for us all. We all pay.

This wasn't a hearing, it was a judge approving a settlement, which had already been made between the parties. The money wasn't taken from anybody, they offered it. If she had no ticket, and no proof, surely then the company would have gone ahead with the case knowing she'd lose?

Long Term Louth · 27-10-2010 02:53PM

Ice cubed wrote: »

Suing for life's experiences when they are not positive. The world wont be perfect till we all move about in little impenetrable bubbles.
I remember saving to by a watch when I was 14 or 15, went into town with my friends one Saturday with the intention of buying the watch but was refused entry to the shop by the security guard. I was gutted but just went back another day to get it.
Fair enough, the girl was distressed, that should be, imo, an apology and €50 for her troubles. The courts/law has to put an end to this massive pay out culture.

Well done Ice cubed and there in lies the answer, it is the law makers who can change this claim culture no one else! So to blame a 15 year old or anyone else for that matter for claiming for such sceptical issues as this one, needs to be addressed by the said law makers. I wonder how much each sides representatives received by way of costs? and would the said representatives want a change to the current laws???

Schoolgirl gets €5,000 for slander and assault on Luas

Comments