Paid for your own stupidity..

darkpagandeath · 01-03-2014 07:38PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

No.

I think maybe a little. Attitudes like this are exactly why we have a legal system here and not a Justice one.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 01-03-2014 07:40PM

woodoo wrote: »

You are defending ridiculous claims that cost us all in the long run. I don't really believe you are serious i think you may be trolling a little here.

No, I am defending a claim that was found Courts to be both actionable and with merit.
Call me a troll again and I will hit the report button.

Stavros Murphy · 01-03-2014 07:42PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

No.

Go way and schydte Humps, you cannot be serious. Unless you have fallen on a spike someone left sticking out five meters up a wall in the last few hours and are already counting the dorrar you plan on getting, I reckon you're having a laugh here, or else you did so a few years ago and are trying to defend the indefensible.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 01-03-2014 07:45PM

Its amazing how anyone who doesn't agree with the flock is so quickly subjected to personal abuse on this thread.

darkpagandeath · 01-03-2014 07:52PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Its amazing how anyone who doesn't agree with the flock is so quickly subjected to personal abuse on this thread.

What flock ? Most people are saying Alcohol/stupidity are not a defence or reason to blame someone else for your own misfortune/stupidity. The person was over 18 so clearly an adult and able to calculate risk/effect of actions. And still insisted to put their own body at clear risk of major injury. Using the claim a security guard told me so. Would that person light themselves on fire if told to ?

woodoo · 01-03-2014 07:52PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

No, I am defending a claim that was found Courts to be both actionable and with merit.
Call me a troll again and I will hit the report button.

Your nonsense about it being sad very sad that i made a joke was indeed trolling. You can't have been that upset if she wasn't your daughter. Now cop yourself on.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 01-03-2014 07:57PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What flock ? Most people are saying Alcohol/stupidity are not a defence or reason to blame someone else for your own misfortune/stupidity. The person was over 18 so clearly an adult and able to calculate risk/effect of actions. And still insisted to put their own body at clear risk of major injury. Using the claim fact security guard told me so. Would that person light themselves on fire if told to ?

Fixed your post.
Like I said earlier, the Court ruled, and ruled on matters of law.

darkpagandeath · 01-03-2014 08:01PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Fixed your post.
Like I said earlier, the Court ruled, and ruled on matters of law.

Fine Fact then

But go down the unlit path there till you get to a 13 foot security fence with spikes on. Just climb over that as that is the nearest exit was never said.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 01-03-2014 08:06PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Fine Fact then

But go down the unlit path there till you get to a 13 foot security fence with spikes on. Just climb over that as that is the nearest exit was never said.

The Court found that the organizers had a duty of care, and that they failed in said duty of care, it is difficult to disagree with that finding when reading the reported facts.

woodoo · 01-03-2014 08:11PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

The Court found that the organizers had a duty of care, and that they failed in said duty of care, it is difficult to disagree with that finding when reading the reported facts.

Do you have an issue with the fact that the courts saw fit to pay out such a claim. Should the law be changed in your opinion.

asteroids over berlin · 01-03-2014 08:17PM

at least she has the dosh now to correct that not so nice face she has!

darkpagandeath · 01-03-2014 08:18PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

The Court found that the organizers had a duty of care, and that they failed in said duty of care, it is difficult to disagree with that finding when reading the reported facts.

I find that hard to believe, if it was people trying to illegally climb a security gate to enter the concert and did the same would that be their responsibility too. No I see the whole premise as she felt she was told to go down there like it was some kind of order. And the person felt even though this looked nothing like an exit felt obliged to climb the security fence. Intoxication is no defence it’s clearly extremely poor judgment on that persons part. And any injury sustained is their responsibility. There are no signs on most of the motorway saying no pedestrians. Yet you don't see people jumping in front of cars do you. It’s common sense. Would you stand by someone intoxicated or otherwise jumping in front of cars on the motorway saying “oh that guard over there told me to” as defendable ? And be entitled to compensation on those grounds ?

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 01-03-2014 09:38PM

woodoo wrote: »

Do you have an issue with the fact that the courts saw fit to pay out such a claim. Should the law be changed in your opinion.

No, and No.

newmug · 01-03-2014 10:19PM

Borderfox wrote: »

The article in the indo is a thinly veiled " I was in the vip section "

Who took the case Lionel Hutz?

I don't know, and don't call me Lionel!

Femme_Fatale · 01-03-2014 10:41PM

The most important thing of all though, is how she looks. FFS.

biko · 01-03-2014 11:21PM

I'm not saying let's go kill all the stupid people… I'm just saying let's remove all the warning labels and let the problem sort itself out.

darkpagandeath · 02-03-2014 12:15AM

biko wrote: »

I'm not saying let's go kill all the stupid people… I'm just saying let's remove all the warning labels and let the problem sort itself out.

Maybe take the signs off don't pet the lions ?

languagenerd · 02-03-2014 12:35AM

I think the organisers probably should have had signs up to say that that particular gate was closed and to use the others (because it's a well-known fact that if an emergency arises, people try to go back to the entrance they came in, even if it's not the closest). But this case wasn't an emergency and she wasn't trapped. When she saw the gate was closed - a 13ft high gate with giant spikes on it - it should have been fairly obvious that it wasn't the gate the guard/staff member was talking about. On what planet would your next logical thought be "Oh, he must mean I have to climb over this"?!

This is a crazy amount of money for something that was her own fault. People shouldn't have to be told by the owners that climbing over a gate with visible spikes isn't a good idea - that's common sense. Businesses shouldn't have to treat the general public like infants who can't do anything for themselves and need to be instructed on everything ("Warning: don't close this door on your fingers." "Attention: jumping out our second-floor windows may cause injury." "Caution: don't shimmy up the drainpipe to access our third-floor office - use the lift instead" etc.). Yes, they should minimize risk and not leave anything obviously dangerous in the public's way. But they can't possibly put up signs to anticipate every potential hypothetical situation in which someone may do something unfathomably stupid.

Cases like this mean that it's getting incredibly risky (financially) to open your doors to the public. Do we want to see an end to concerts/bars/shops etc?

darkpagandeath · 02-03-2014 12:55AM

languagenerd wrote: »

I think the organisers probably should have had signs up to say that that particular gate was closed and to use the others (because it's a well-known fact that if an emergency arises, people try to go back to the entrance they came in, even if it's not the closest). But this case wasn't an emergency and she wasn't trapped. When she saw the gate was closed - a 13ft high gate with giant spikes on it - it should have been fairly obvious that it wasn't the gate the guard/staff member was talking about. On what planet would your next logical thought be "Oh, he must mean I have to climb over this"?!

This is a crazy amount of money for something that was her own fault. People shouldn't have to be told by the owners that climbing over a gate with visible spikes isn't a good idea - that's common sense. Businesses shouldn't have to treat the general public like infants who can't do anything for themselves and need to be instructed on everything ("Warning: don't close this door on your fingers." "Attention: jumping out our second-floor windows may cause injury." "Caution: don't shimmy up the drainpipe to access our third-floor office - use the lift instead" etc.). Yes, they should minimize risk and not leave anything obviously dangerous in the public's way. But they can't possibly put up signs to anticipate every potential hypothetical situation in which someone may do something unfathomably stupid.

Cases like this mean that it's getting incredibly risky (financially) to open your doors to the public. Do we want to see an end to concerts/bars/shops etc?

That's been my point... When does the onus fall on the individual in these situations causing themselves harm. How could the organizer really think of someone wanting to climb over a 13 ft fence with spikes. Surely they looked at it and took it as a given no one could possibly be stupid enough to climb over the security fence and injure themselves. Hence no sign. I would be interested to know were there signs all over the ground warning of injury if fallen onto ? And would a judge entertain someone saying they fell on the ground after a guard told them were the exit was....

JerCotter7 · 02-03-2014 01:15AM

She should have to pay for cleaning the blood off the spike and the emergency services that were required to get her down. How can someone be so stupid. No way should she get any money for it.

fineso.mom · 02-03-2014 02:40AM

I work in a preschool with twenty 3 to 4yr old kids. We have two gates to the playground, either one gives access to the playground, but only one is open at a time. If the kids go to one and find it locked they simply go to the other one. They have NEVER tried to climb over the gate .....they are 3 and 4 yrs old and understand a locked gate means..... 'you can't go this way , try something else. (And it doesn't even have spikes on the top).

02-03-2014 03:36AM

The fact that iron on T-shirt transfers come with a warning stating "do not iron on while wearing shirt" says a lot about people.

While I find this judgement to be ridiculous it's important to know that we're not in possession of all the facts. For all we know there's far more to the story than is being reported.

It's like how the story of the woman who sued McDonalds over havi g spilt coffee on herself became something of a joke. People repeatedly reference it when they discuss joke or frivolous lawsuits. It's became something to mock and use to call Americans stupid.

Fact of the matter is that McDonalds were in the wrong and were serving coffee far too hot. There were close to 700 complaints made about the coffee in the years before it, and they had settled numerous cases for over half a million dollars. The woman who sued McDonalds suffered serious burns and needed skin grafts. She only asked for $20.000 to cover her hospital bills and loss of earnings and wanted to settle. She only took the case to court when McDonalds refused to raise their offer over $800. Her award was way above the norm but it doesn't mean that her suit was without merit.

Now this recent case may not be similar but writing if off based on the reports in newspapers is a bit unfair given that it's not above reporters to withhold/twist facts to suit the story they want to tell.

darkpagandeath · 02-03-2014 04:00AM

Deleted User wrote: »

The fact that iron on T-shirt transfers come with a warning stating "do not iron on while wearing shirt" says a lot about people.

While I find this judgement to be ridiculous it's important to know that we're not in possession of all the facts. For all we know there's far more to the story than is being reported.

It's like how the story of the woman who sued McDonalds over havi g spilt coffee on herself became something of a joke. People repeatedly reference it when they discuss joke or frivolous lawsuits. It's became something to mock and use to call Americans stupid.

Fact of the matter is that McDonalds were in the wrong and were serving coffee far too hot. There were close to 700 complaints made about the coffee in the years before it, and they had settled numerous cases for over half a million dollars. The woman who sued McDonalds suffered serious burns and needed skin grafts. She only asked for $20.000 to cover her hospital bills and loss of earnings and wanted to settle. She only took the case to court when McDonalds refused to raise their offer over $800. Her award was way above the norm but it doesn't mean that her suit was without merit.

Now this recent case may not be similar but writing if off based on the reports in newspapers is a bit unfair given that it's not above reporters to withhold/twist facts to suit the story they want to tell.

What other facts ? How else does one explain trying to climb over 13 ft spiked security fence and impaling yourself ? other than stupidity.

02-03-2014 04:22AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What other facts ? How else does one explain trying to climb over 13 ft spiked security fence and impaling yourself ? other than stupidity.

I'm not saying that she isn't an idiot, that's a given considering what she did but there may have been reasons that her and her friends went over it. We're they afraid that going back would mean they missed the last bus home, did they believe that they were trapped inside and that the gates were closed as everyone was gone. All I'm saying is that in the past we've had numerous joke law suits that weren't quite such a joke once people looked into them. The McDonalds coffee one is a good example. There's a documentary about it called Hot Coffee and it looks at how the media reported the case to make light of it and how so many people had an opinion of it based on misconceptions.

stefan idiot jones · 02-03-2014 07:48AM

'No Win, No Fee' should be illegal the same as the 'Hitler' salute.

There is now a generation of greedy 'the world owes me something' fcukwits looking for handouts.

When is Vlad the Impaler going to be reincarnated and rid the planet of these horrendous, vile, money grabbing rodents?

Paid for your own stupidity..

Comments