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

Lady dies after falling while sliding down a bannister; family wants to sue the hotel

13»

Comments

  • #62
    Helix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    Brutal Deluxe wrote: »
    Fit for purpose does not include "idiots sliding down stairs".
    The stairs shouldn't be made to hold the weight of someone that's sliding down the,.

    why are we all assuming that she broke the banisters?


  • #63
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Brutal Deluxe wrote: »
    I sincerly hope you're not serious.

    How can you think someone being stupid and behaving like a child is the fault of the hotel?

    Her behaviour is not the fault of the hotel, nobody is saying that.
    If her fall was a result of the hotels stairs not being fit for purpose then they are negligent.
    If somebody atempts to set fire to the drapes, the hotel aren't responsible for that person's behaviour either but if the drapes aren't fireproof, then the hotel is liable for the burns, because the drapes should be fireproofed.
    These are regulations that insure that we all are protected in public spaces.

    With that logic how long until hotels have a electrician to plug in anything in case a person sticks their finger into the socket


  • #64
    Helix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-family-of-woman-who-fell-to-her-death-at-palmer-house-halloween-party-file-suit-20120725,0,568124.story

    again, nothing there about the state of the banisters

    that's quoting the suit, and im willing to bet it relates to the fact that they were stairs, and drunk people on stairs can be dangerous. it's the usual "how was i to know that my cup of coffee was hot when i spilled it all over myself" crap


  • #65
    Kirby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    Brutal Deluxe wrote: »
    Fit for purpose does not include "idiots sliding down stairs".
    The stairs shouldn't be made to hold the weight of someone that's sliding down the,.

    Actually they should. The purpose of a bannister is for people to keep their balance for safety. It should easily be able to cope with the weight of a person in the event that they lose their balance and fall on it.

    This woman was acting the eejit and fell to her death. If that's all that happened than it's her own fault and the family have to deal with it. The hotel isn't responsible for making sure their guests don't do stupid things. There are a couple of caveats to this however.

    If the bannister gave way or collapsed in some way the hotel will have to take some of the responsibility and they will likely have to pay up. The story doesn't mention this so it might not be the case. She may have just fallen.

    Similarly, if they plied her with alcohol when she was already clearly drunk, they will likely be stung for a few bob too.


  • #66
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Helix wrote: »
    again, nothing there about the state of the banisters

    that's quoting the suit, and im willing to bet it relates to the fact that they were stairs, and drunk people on stairs can be dangerous. it's the usual "how was i to know that my cup of coffee was hot when i spilled it all over myself" crap

    You are right, all we are going on is the words 'dangerous condition'.
    Same logic applies though, if the stairs where dangerous then the hotel will be liable. We can all make moral and value judgements until the cows come home, but a court won't.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Helix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    You are right, all we are going on is the words 'dangerous condition'.
    Same logic applies though, if the stairs where dangerous then the hotel will be liable. We can all make moral and value judgements until the cows come home, but a court won't.

    don't you think that the lawsuit wouldve mentioned that the banisters weren't fit for purpose though?


  • #68
    3ndahalfof6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,184 ✭✭✭3ndahalfof6


    is it no win no fee.


  • #69
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Helix wrote: »
    don't you think that the lawsuit wouldve mentioned that the banisters weren't fit for purpose though?

    The sidetrack into discussing bannisters specifcally was probably my fault.
    The lawsuit cites 10 points, I can't find it online, I presime it goes into detail about what was actually dangerous about it.


  • #70
    Tombi!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,689 ✭✭✭Tombi!


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The sidetrack into discussing bannisters specifcally was probably my fault.
    The lawsuit cites 10 points, I can't find it online, I presime it goes into detail about what was actually dangerous about it.

    Okay, you can take the blame :pac:

    But yeah, I think the argument is that they're dangerous, rather than them being classed as dangerous by an inspector (if that makes sense).


  • #71
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Brutal Deluxe wrote: »
    Okay, you can take the blame :pac:

    But yeah, I think the argument is that they're dangerous, rather than them being classed as dangerous by an inspector (if that makes sense).

    That is the case, the family have every right to pursue it.
    I primarily came on the thread to stop the usual awfulness of people responding to sensationalist tripe. Alcohol did not contrbute to the accident.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Adyx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,997 ✭✭✭Adyx


    wyndhurst wrote: »
    Your having a laugh right?
    Nobody from Waterford takes responsibility for their own actions...that why its such a **** hole :P
    What a fantastic retort. Obviously you were right then and I tip my hat to you. Except I'm not actually from Waterford. Ah well, looks like you were wrong. Again.


  • #73
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,464 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I agree if the bannisters were faulty in some way and the hotel did continue to serve someone who already looked pissed, they may get somewhere with this.


  • #74
    McCrack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭McCrack


    3ndahalfof6 wrote: »
    is it no win no fee.

    No such thing.

    Costs follow the event.

    In other words an unsuccessful Plaintiff will always be liable for the other side's costs.

    The Plaintiff may agree a no win no fee with their own lawyer but they will always be liable for the other sides legal costs.


  • #75
    MOH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,477 ✭✭✭MOH


    From the original story
    Duskey, 23, and her friends were there half an hour on Saturday night when she playfully attempted to slide down a banister rail and fell four stories to her death, the Cook County medical examiner's office said.

    There's no mention of any fault with the banister.


  • #76
    Yara Attractive Martian
    Posts: 81,308 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Yara Attractive Martian


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Feckin disgraceful. No doubt they will win.

    I fell in a hotel recently, fell onto glass and cut my knee up pretty badly. I had to fill out an incident form and the guys on reception were telling me that the previous year a woman had fallen after swinging from the light fittings, and sued, she got €35,000 :rolleyes:

    afk swinging to get paid


  • #77
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    Did she at least have an orgasm?


  • #78
    --Kaiser--
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,461 ✭✭✭--Kaiser--


    Clearly all hotel bannisters should be electrified to prevent such a tragic (cough) accident from happening again


  • #79
    bbam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,408 ✭✭✭bbam


    Isn't it different in the states regarding lettIng someone get hammered. Wasn't there an issue with barmen being liable for drunks drink driving.
    I know in a bar in Texas I couldn't buy a round of 8 drinks as no one person could buy more than a certain amount of alcohol at any one time, probably a local county thing.

    I agree it's a crazy situation but I do think it's viewed different there.


  • #80
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    McCrack wrote: »
    You see litigation keeps people on their toes, the threat of it keeps occupiers (such as this hotel) vigilant to make sure their premises are safe for their guests and their systems in place (such as policies & security) are also responsible as can be to protect silly humans from accidentally injuring or worse killing themselves.

    without knowing the full facts and circumstances of this accident I can't comment except to say its more likely than not that the hotel failed in its duty of care to this drunk lady hence the civil action by the next of kin.

    :confused:

    Should they be on constant banister-sliding watch or something? How can they provide care for people who are obviously determined to get themselves killed? Short of locking their guests in padded rooms? No doubt some bright spark would consume the padding and choke, and the families would then sue (and win).


  • #81
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Jester252 wrote: »
    With that logic how long until hotels have a electrician to plug in anything in case a person sticks their finger into the socket

    Funny example because it proves the point. If you where able to simply stick your finger in the socket without impediment then the equipment would be defective under the legislation and those responsible for it to be maintained and safe would be liable for any electric shock. There is a reason that sockets are protected, they are designed for eventualities other than proper use.
    If the stairs are proved to be 'dangerous' and the hotel didn't carry out their 'duty of care', then they are liable under the law. As I said, people can moralise until the cows come home, it won't alter that fact.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Rented Mule
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,154 ✭✭✭Rented Mule


    This may sound funny, but $500K is actually a low number to be shooting for in a case like this. As a 23 years old attractive, college educated, white woman, they really should be shooting for a much higher number. All of these characteristics usually play well with a jury.

    I'm going to guess that the attorneys for the four defendants will be eager to settle at such a low number.


  • #83
    Tomk1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Tomk1


    Seriously you really have to see this stairway, it's a winding staircase in a ''remote'' part of the hotel. Not a hope in hell of sliding down that.


    See newstory with pic of stairway
    www.newsblaze.com/story/20101101092220kays.nb/topstory.html
    Just the picture of the stairway
    www.newsblaze.com/pix/2010/1101/pix/Megan-Duskey-staircase.230.jpg


  • #84
    Motley Crue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,382 ✭✭✭Motley Crue


    At 23 she did well to have a good job and so she was obviously some very bright with a good head on her sholders. Nobody forced that alcohol into her and nobody insisted she slide down that bannister, it's a shame she was intoxicated and it's a complete tragedy she lost her life, but that is just the way it is and her familys grief is being represented in this absurd lawsuit.


  • #85
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    ComfyKnickers wrote: »
    ...a teacher so she's was mature and had a brain.
    humbert wrote: »
    I have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion on both counts.

    She must be the female version of Enda Kenny! :D


  • #86
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Motley Crue wrote: »
    At 23 she did well to have a good job and so she was obviously some very bright with a good head on her sholders. Nobody forced that alcohol into her and nobody insisted she slide down that bannister, it's a shame she was intoxicated and it's a complete tragedy she lost her life, but that is just the way it is and her familys grief is being represented in this absurd lawsuit.

    What bit of 'Alcohol was not a contributory factor in the accident, according to the Medical Examiner and the Police', do you not understand? :rolleyes:


  • #87
    Rented Mule
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,154 ✭✭✭Rented Mule


    Tomk1 wrote: »
    Seriously you really have to see this stairway, it's a winding staircase in a ''remote'' part of the hotel. Not a hope in hell of sliding down that.


    See newstory with pic of stairway
    www.newsblaze.com/story/20101101092220kays.nb/topstory.html
    Just the picture of the stairway
    www.newsblaze.com/pix/2010/1101/pix/Megan-Duskey-staircase.230.jpg

    The real tragedy of this story is in the banner at the top pf the screen.

    Breaking News: Sherman Hemsley of 'The Jeffersons' Dies At Age 74


  • #88
    JohnMarston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,881 ✭✭✭JohnMarston


    Should be laughed out of court tbh, it's her own bloody fault.


Advertisement
Advertisement