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

Woman sues over exploding lemonade bottle

Hococop

"A PENSIONER has initiated a High Court action against Dunnes Stores claiming she sustained multiple injuries after a bottle of red lemonade ‘exploded’ when it fell off a checkout counter."

[MOD SNIP]Please don't quote full articles.

What do people think?, personally it seems like she is looking for an easy payout, if the bottle fell and landed on her foot fair enough. It says she went for an x-ray but never says it showed any damage from the x-ray.

edit Forgot to add original link thanks whomitconcerns

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/local-news/widow-72-sues-over-exploding-lemonade-at-limerick-store-1-6689440

Find more posts tagged with

red dead lemonade

Quick Links

Comments

ohnonotgmail

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I know a 78 year old that still plays 5 a side football where the next oldest person is early fifties. 6 or 6 of the lads are between 20 and 40. He has no bother with contact either, though he spends most of the time in goal nowadays.

People dont become bags of crumbling dust as soon as they hit retirement age.

some do. some dont. each case must be taken on its merits.

ohnonotgmail

anncoates wrote: »

I think a lot of people in these threads have soft tissue damage, that is, the kind of tissue found between the ears.

i feel desperately wounded.

eamonnq

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i feel desperately wounded.

You should put in a claim so.

Guy:Incognito

mikom wrote: »

The lady in this case may not have been so Spritely though........

She also may have been. Being 10 years younger than the 78 year old would also have helped.

ohnonotgmail

eamonnq wrote: »

You should put in a claim so.

it would get turned down due to pre-existing issues.

Guy:Incognito

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

some do. some dont. each case must be taken on its merits.

You've clearly gone straight for the "frail old lady" side though.

bucketybuck

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well she claims she was injured. As there is nothing mentioned about injuries on the x-ray then soft tissue damage is the only other possibility isnt it?

There is also the magical compo injury that has been making her life a living hell since it occurred. Luckily money can make it all better.

Agent Smyth wrote: »

turned back to my girlfriend to ask her what that noise was, to find her soaked in 7Up.

I assume she submitted a compo claim due to "injuries" caused by the corrosive nature of fizzy drinks?

mikom

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I know a 78 year old that still plays 5 a side football where the next oldest person is early fifties. 5 or 6 of the lads are between 20 and 40. He has no bother with contact either, though he spends most of the time in goal nowadays.

People dont become bags of crumbling dust as soon as they hit retirement age.

mikom wrote: »

The lady in this case may not have been so Spritely though........

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

She also may have been. Being 10 years younger than the 78 year old would also have helped.

I agree, a 68 year old would be much more SPRITEly than a 78 year old.
.
.

anncoates

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i feel desperately wounded.

Is there a leaking coke bottle in the vicinity?

bjork

mikom wrote: »

I agree, a 68 year old would be much more SPRITEly than a 78 year old.
.
.

Yes, it must be considered on a CASE by CASE basis

ohnonotgmail

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You've clearly gone straight for the "frail old lady" side though.

absolutely not. I've just said not to dismiss it immediately because of compo culture.

LDN_Irish

If the CCTV doesn't show her shaking the rest of the fizz out and then drinking it then she's lying. Everyone knows pensioners think flat 7UP cures everything.

Pro Hoc Vice

bucketybuck wrote: »

It is very telling what the article does not say.

She got an x-ray, but does not say that any injuries were found.

She "suffered injuries", but does not say what they were.

She experiences pain every day! That wouldn't be the aches and pains of every 72 year old now would it?

Just another unethical cash grab in my opinion.

You don't understand how it works do you. A barrister does not just say she is injured. Medical evidence must be give by both sides only based on that evidence will the judge decide.

bjork

LDN_Irish wrote: »

If the CCTV doesn't show her shaking the rest of the fizz out and then drinking it then she's lying. Everyone knows pensioners think flat 7UP cures everything.

This

suicide_circus

Honestly? I hope the judge tells this compo vulture where to go. It's frivolous scam-a-buck claims like this that force up the price of public liability insurance resulting in higher prices for everyone while also stifling entrepreneurship and job creation.

ohnonotgmail

suicide_circus wrote: »

Honestly? I hope the judge tells this compo vulture where to go. It's frivolous scam-a-buck claims like this that force up the price of public liability insurance resulting in higher prices for everyone while also stifling entrepreneurship and job creation.

or perhaps he will, you know, listen to the evidence first before jumping to conclusions?

Pro Hoc Vice

suicide_circus wrote: »

Honestly? I hope the judge tells this compo vulture where to go. It's frivolous scam-a-buck claims like this that force up the price of public liability insurance resulting in higher prices for everyone while also stifling entrepreneurship and job creation.

So if a relative of your was struck by a bottle, fell over and received injuries you do not believe they are entitled to be compensated. A number of professionals believe her story solicitor, barrister doctors and engineers, yet you based on a newspaper report have decided a 72 year old is a liar. That women has family imagine how she and they would feel if they saw some of the downright insulting comments from idiots on this forum.

bucketybuck

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

A number of professionals believe her story solicitor, barrister doctors and engineers,

Rubbish. The solicitor and barrister representing her don't need to believe her, they just need to think she can win.

"Fell over and received injuries", again, its in some peoples interest to make statements like that and hope to imply she is in serious distress. Millions of people fall over, millions of people suffer scrapes and bruises, its part of human life. Only a very select few would consider it a chance to cash in.

Pumpkinseeds

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

You don't understand how it works do you. A barrister does not just say she is injured. Medical evidence must be give by both sides only based on that evidence will the judge decide.

Yep, medical evidence my ass.:rolleyes: They'll bandy about terms like 'soft tissue injury' aka 'a bruise', throw in a bit of pain and discomfort and a few other vagaries for good measure, just to up the compensation. These cases are bullsH8t and should be treated as such.

ohnonotgmail

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Yep, medical evidence my ass.:rolleyes: They'll bandy about terms like 'soft tissue injury' aka 'a bruise', throw in a bit of pain and discomfort and a few other vagaries for good measure, just to up the compensation. These cases are bullsH8t and should be treated as such.

yeah those doctors dont know what they are talking about.

suicide_circus

Ok, ten hundred million euros for the old dear, justice is served.

A bottle fell off a moving conveyor belt. An accident. Where was the negligence on the retailers side? Do we need netting in each side of the fcuking belt? The barristers, engineers and doctors you refer to all with the head in the trough all agree, surprise surprise.

Salvation Tambourine

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

So if a relative of your was struck by a bottle, fell over and received injuries you do not believe they are entitled to be compensated. A number of professionals believe her story solicitor, barrister doctors and engineers, yet you based on a newspaper report have decided a 72 year old is a liar. That women has family imagine how she and they would feel if they saw some of the downright insulting comments from idiots on this forum.

I can honestly say that if this happened to my mam when she is in her mid to late 60's and she threatened to sue Dunnes I'd be incredibly annoyed.

Accidents happen and this sounds like it was there was no fault from anyone a part from the person ahead of her who put the bottle upright (it seems), I'd even say it's pushing it to blame someone for doing that because I know I've done it and never thought it would be considered wrong.

I actually can't imagine how a bottle that had already spun for a bit could cause that much injury that would result in a court case.

Pumpkinseeds

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

So if a relative of your was struck by a bottle, fell over and received injuries you do not believe they are entitled to be compensated. A number of professionals believe her story solicitor, barrister doctors and engineers, yet you based on a newspaper report have decided a 72 year old is a liar. That women has family imagine how she and they would feel if they saw some of the downright insulting comments from idiots on this forum.

The solicitor consults the barrister, doctors and engineers, on behalf of the client and PAYS them for their opinions. They'll take on a case no matter how frivolous, so long as they'll at least cover their costs. It has nothing to do with belief in a client.

Guy:Incognito

mikom wrote: »

I agree, a 68 year old would be much more SPRITEly than a 78 year old.
.
.

Your posts are pure fantasy.

Salvation Tambourine

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ok, ten hundred million euros for the old dear, justice is served.

A bottle fell off a moving conveyor belt. An accident. Where was the negligence on the retailers side? Do we need netting in each side of the fcuking belt? The barristers, engineers and doctors you refer to all with the head in the trough all agree, surprise surprise.

I was running across the road once and jumped to avoid someone's ariel on a parked car, fell onto the curb and ruined my ankle....maybe I should have sued the owner of the car because someone that had nothing to do with them occured....

Pumpkinseeds

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

yeah those doctors dont know what they are talking about.

Guy:Incognito

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

So if a relative of your was struck by a bottle, fell over and received injuries you do not believe they are entitled to be compensated. A number of professionals believe her story solicitor, barrister doctors and engineers, yet you based on a newspaper report have decided a 72 year old is a liar. That women has family imagine how she and they would feel if they saw some of the downright insulting comments from idiots on this forum.

A solicitor and a barrister will believe anything they think they cant get a judge and jury to believe (and pay out on) . I wouldn't see that as proof of anything tbh.

As for doctors, the old "lower back pain" is a great one because they find it so hard to prove.

ohnonotgmail

Nokotan wrote: »

I was running across the road once and jumped to avoid someone's ariel on a parked car, fell onto the curb and ruined my ankle....maybe I should have sued the owner of the car because someone that had nothing to do with them occured....

why would you need to jump to avoid an ariel on a parked car? did it make a sudden movement towards you?

Macavity.

Some of the comments on here are disgusting. This is a serious incident that has caused a poor old woman a lot of distress, and people are joking about it? AH disgusts me sometimes.

ohnonotgmail

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

liars the lot of them. not to be trusted.