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

Man slips on algae on steps going into the sea - awarded €60k

Cienciano

Story:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/man-awarded-59-050-over-slip-at-rush-pier-1.1729745
Obviously a nasty injury, but does personal responsibility not exist anymore? It says Dublin City Council should have cleared the steps of seaweed, or installed a handrail. But they weren't there, but this guy still went ahead and used the facilities anyway. There's one person responsible for this injuries, and that's the guy himself.
The judge should have said "tough shít, you fell. Next case"

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

SEPT 23 1989

blaze1 wrote: »

Hope thats not for loss of earnings, €59k for 3 months work for a self employed barber! I'm in the wrong job!

that works out at a 100 haircuts a day

it must be like a scene out of Edward Scissorhands in that shop

youtube!

jackofalltrades wrote: »

It's already happened.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/physiotherapist-awarded-1m-after-slip-on-icy-steps-30048928.html

Good lord , 1 Million euro!. At first I wondered why she looked so smug in that photo, a million will do that to ya ye know!

The Diabolical Monocle

Changes in law needed.

Wont happen.

keith16

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Changes in law needed.

Wont happen.

Let's bomb the ocean so this never happens again.

The Diabolical Monocle

Firefox11 wrote: »

Or Something Like: CAUTION:SLIPPERY WHEN WET sign maybe??

May I suggest the Goodyear blimp fly over Ireland with a giant flashing sign saying "everything is dangerous and should never be attempted by anyone ever"

FullblownRose

I dunno, though..it would be different if he injured himself on the natural landscape like on the rocks or the beach itself but if it was man made steps he got hurt on then it seems different. Some beaches are extremely well maintained with walkways and things like that making them really accessible to visitors. I think if the council put the steps there they should've designed them to be safe to use.

Cienciano

Mountjoy Mugger wrote: »

Nothing to do with Dublin City Council. It was Fingal.

Well, that changes the entire point.

FullblownRose

The compensation does seem disproportionately large.

Gatling

FullblownRose wrote: »

The compensation does seem disproportionately large.

Like the €16,000 given to a woman yesterday who sued her husband for a little or no speed rear end RTA on the way to the January sales .
Multiple passanger in both cars ,no body else suffered and injuries

Muise...

FullblownRose wrote: »

I dunno, though..it would be different if he injured himself on the natural landscape like on the rocks or the beach itself but if it was man made steps he got hurt on then it seems different. Some beaches are extremely well maintained with walkways and things like that making them really accessible to visitors. I think if the council put the steps there they should've designed them to be safe to use.

Man-made steps for getting in and out of boats at mid/low tide, and for hauling in the catch or cargo. Not for getting in and out of the water on cold, bare and increasingly numb feet.

spurious

Person: Oh Garda, I have a piece of dog dirt on my shoe.
Garda: Baz off and don't be wasting my time.

Person: Oh Doctor, I have a piece of dog dirt on my shoe.
Doctor: Baz off and don't be wasting my time.

Person: Oh solicitor, I have a piece of dog dirt on my shoe.
Solicitor: Ker-ching!!!!!

RoboRat

Like the €16,000 given to a woman yesterday who sued her husband for a little or no speed rear end RTA on the way to the January sales .
Multiple passanger in both cars ,no body else suffered and injuries

Wtf? You couldn't make this **** up. Hey honey, roll the car into mine and lets get rich!

Seedy Arling

FullblownRose wrote: »

The compensation does seem disproportionately large.

They examined the book of quantum and it corresponds exactly with the ratio of stupidity and having the cheek to bring a claim like this.

The law is an ass.

FullblownRose

Muise... wrote: »

Man-made steps for getting in and out of boats at mid/low tide, and for hauling in the catch or cargo. Not for getting in and out of the water on cold, bare and increasingly numb feet.

Ah right, I see what you mean. I wonder about all of the people I've seen jumping off the concrete piers or promenades into the water..maybe they'll be next to claim

Nidgeweasel

youtube! wrote: »

Good lord , 1 Million euro!. At first I wondered why she looked so smug in that photo, a million will do that to ya ye know!

You'd think she was just given 1 million willy nilly the way you are carrying on.

An incredible display of ignorance and headline jumping in this thread.

On that link above, 675,000 of that is for future loss of earnings. She won't be able to work again in her chosen profession, ever. Add to that interest, the equivalent of PSLA and you're there abouts to the million mark.

Again, she's not been given a million euro to go way off on a yact. That has to do her and her two children now.

The hospital were negligent in failing to clear the steps, she's contributed to her own accident and it will have been reduced accordingly.

A fair award, but it's much easier for people to go "Jaysus look at your one in the Sun* [*or insert suitable alternative gutter tabloid here] after gettin' a million euro for falling over, wouldn't mind it myself whaaa!" when it's not that simple at all.

Adamantium

Cienciano wrote: »

Obviously a nasty injury, but does personal responsibility not exist anymore?
The judge should have said "tough shít, you fell. Next case"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u0wg3t6osM

You've only gone and done it now OP.

Muise...

FullblownRose wrote: »

Ah right, I see what you mean. I wonder about all of the people I've seen jumping off the concrete piers or promenades into the water..maybe they'll be next to claim

I hope not, or these places will be fenced off and half the joy of summer gone.

dub_skav

Muise... wrote: »

Man-made steps for getting in and out of boats at mid/low tide, and for hauling in the catch or cargo. Not for getting in and out of the water on cold, bare and increasingly numb feet.

I would have thought a handrail would still be required for safe use even for the intended purpose, never mind if it is well known to now have another common use.

RoboRat

Ah right, I see what you mean. I wonder about all of the people I've seen jumping off the concrete piers or promenades into the water..maybe they'll be next to claim

Im actually gobsmacked that it hasn't happened already, but I am sure that this has set a precedence, so be prepared for the near future.

RoboRat

I would have thought a handrail would still be required for safe use even for the intended purpose, never mind if it is well known to now have another common use.

Sure if it had a handrail it would rust and then somebody would claim because they cut their hand on said rail and got septicaemia.

Nidgeweasel

RoboRat wrote: »

Sure if it had a handrail it would rust and then somebody would claim because they cut their hand on said rail and got septicaemia.

They should have put in a non-rust metal or treated so that it didn't rust for a while. Once it gets into disrepair than someone could be harmed, change it.

Gatling

RoboRat wrote: »

Wtf? You couldn't make this **** up. Hey honey, roll the car into mine and lets get rich!

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/westmeath-woman-who-sued-husband-following-car-crash-awarded-over-16k-in-damages-30120605.html

mikemac1

Uriel. wrote: »

The Council's big mistake here making any previous attempt to make safe the steps.

Essentially, it was their recognition of a problem and acceptance of same by trying to implement a solution, that ultimately gave them responsibility (and in the end liability).

Once again tort law in Ireland shows, don't try to fix a problem, you're better off doing nothing rather than trying to help.

Well done courts, well done.

We had the same talk during the snow a few years back. People would not clear the footpath outside their house as if someone slips you may get sued. If you leave it alone you cannot be blamed

Noel Dempsey the minister for snow came back from sunny Spain and cleared this confusion up but who would want to take a chance here

suicide_circus

I just cannot fathom the logic or morality which dictates that this kind of payout is justified, simply cannot get my head around it.

FullblownRose

Nidgeweasel wrote: »

They should have put in a non-rust metal or treated so that it didn't rust for a while. Once it gets into disrepair than someone could be harmed, change it.

Yes. A certain amount of maintenance is reasonable. Same as keeping the footpaths in good order.

If the person's out of work indefinitely and can't cover their bills then the compensation is probably fair.

mikemac1

FullblownRose wrote: »

If the person's out of work indefinitely and can't cover their bills then the compensation is probably fair.

59k for three months for a self employed barber?

Well I'm never tipping my barber again if they're pulling in that money :pac:

COYW

Gatling wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/westmeath-woman-who-sued-husband-following-car-crash-awarded-over-16k-in-damages-30120605.html

A nice eye opener for those who give out about insurance companies fleecing policy holders. This is the kind of nonsense they have to pay out compensation for. They should have paid for the car repairs, which was a few hundred quid max, and nothing more.

B.A._Baracus

suicide_circus wrote: »

I just cannot fathom the logic or morality which dictates that this kind of payout is justified, simply cannot get my head around it.

I think it's a sign of the type of society we now live in.
Like there has always been a compo culture. But I say its 10 fold these days. Personal responsibility doesn't exist when you 'can earn a few quid' is the mentality.

Sleepy

Nidgeweasel wrote: »

On that link above, 675,000 of that is for future loss of earnings. She won't be able to work again in her chosen profession, ever. Add to that interest, the equivalent of PSLA and you're there abouts to the million mark.

PTSD? From slipping on a few steps? While loss of earnings is a legitimate claim, one would have to ask whether the plaintiff is capable of working in another capacity than that of her chosen profession and limit the award accordingly...

Gatling wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/westmeath-woman-who-sued-husband-following-car-crash-awarded-over-16k-in-damages-30120605.html

This one is just ludicrous, judging by her surname, the woman comes from a subset of society well-known for their part in insurance scams and has a history of making a similar claim in the past. Nevermind the fact that the engineers evidence cast her testimony into disrepute. Ludicrous stuff but one has to commend her insurers for at least trying to take it to court instead of the usual "settle on the steps" stuff.

COYW

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I think it's a sign of the type of society we now live in.
Like there has always been a compo culture. But I say its 10 fold these days. Personal responsibility doesn't exist when you 'can earn a few quid' is the mentality.

These claimants are "entitled" to this money, in their minds. They view the insurance company as super-rich businesses who can afford to pay out a few thousands to them.

Sleepy wrote: »

This one is just ludicrous, judging by her surname, the woman comes from a subset of society well-known for their part in insurance scams and has a history of making a similar claim in the past. Nevermind the fact that the engineers evidence cast her testimony into disrepute. Ludicrous stuff but one has to commend her insurers for at least trying to take it to court instead of the usual "settle on the steps" stuff.

Cases like this must be incredibly frustrating for insurance companies. The evidence clearly shows that the claim is not valid or questionable at the very least. Adding the cost of legal fees, time spent by staff on that case, to the final amount awarded by the judge, leaves the insurer with a distasteful loss, I'd imagine.