Garda 'who lost her ambition due to PTSD awarded €75,000

Let us know how you feel after you get assaulted OP

Disingenuous thread title OP in fairness. It wasn't simply because she lost her ambition that she was awarded €75k damages and legal costs -

Awarding her €75,000 damages along with her legal costs and wishing her well for her future career, Judge Barton said Garda Sheehan suffered very severe injuries which had a profound effect on her physically and psychologically.

duffman3833 wrote: »

I wouldnt be looking for money tbh, just get the person behind bars that did it

Yeah but how can you expect the Gardaí to put people behind the bars if they've got PTSD?

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Bit of bull**** to be fair.

Joining the Gardai has a certain amount of danger to it. You shouldn't be allowed to sue for doing your job and the down sides that come with it.

The Gardai should be giving her free counseling and nothing more.

Can the employee who started working for Lidl as a cash register sue because they lost ambition for management due to dealing with ****ty customers all day.

Yes they can. There's nothing to stop someone seeking damages for any reason. In this case the judge awarded damages and legal costs accordingly. Hopefully it might have AGS review their procedures to protect Gardaí in carrying out their duties without risk of being assaulted. No Garda should have to accept the risk of being assaulted.

wardides wrote: »

Sets a really dangerous precedent surely?

What?..................that someone who gets assaulted and injured receives compensation?

I think that precedant has been set long ago

No one, doing any job should be in a position whereby being assaulted is a normal part of their job. Inherant risks are one thing but considering it acceptable is another.

That's like saying that we disregard all the rules and regulations brought in to ensure accidents don't happen on building sites because there's an expectation that builders should be injured or killed as a normal part of work in a dangerous environment.

Being a Guard means there is distinct possability that there can be dangers whilst on duty. It doesn't mean that the consequences of these dangers can just be written off as "part of the job" if there are long term affects

Earthhorse wrote: »

I don't see how they could realistically remove that risk given the nature of their work.



For Gards though?

Why? Are Guards lesser citizens of the state than the rest of us?

Over 900 guards are currently suing for injuries.I think it's a bit of a cash cow for them to be honest.
75k for a broken nose- what's wrong with 5k? With the size of the payouts the judge's dole out i can see why so many sue.
I broke my arm playing ball years ago , maybe I should sue the guy that tackled me for 100k!

duffman3833 wrote: »

but she refused therapy and all to help her with this

She didn't refuse therapy -

Hearing that Garda Sheehan had ended the therapy because she did not want to become dependent on it, Judge Barton said that, although she had made very good progress, she may need to attend some kind of lighter therapy.

Paulzx wrote: »

Why? Are Guards lesser citizens of the state than the rest of us?

Yes, that's totally what I was driving at. Glad to meet with reasonable interpretations of posts on AH, as always.

No, not because they are lesser citizens but because the nature of their work means they are likely over the course of a career to be involved in physical confrontations of this nature. I'm surprised they receive compensation for it quite frankly.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are a number of ways they could remove the risk of their members being assaulted, they already implement many risk reduction procedures. It's only unfortunate that it takes cases like this to make them review procedures is all.

I don't think the risk could ever be fully removed is my point though. If the procedures were not implemented, not up to date with international standards or what have you then I could understand having a case alright.

It's gotten rediculous the amount of claims been taken by gardai for PTSD ,
It's the new army deafness story .

The word should be kept out of civil cases except if it's a sever form and backed up by expert diagnosis

She should get a steel nose fitted for the next time it happens,or maybe find a different profession as the one she is in doesnt seem to suit her.

Earthhorse wrote: »

I don't think the risk could ever be fully removed is my point though. If the procedures were not implemented, not up to date with international standards or what have you then I could understand having a case alright.

I'll be honest, I don't know what procedures are in place already for escorting people to and from Garda stations, prisons, etc, but I know that assaults and attempted assaults are all too common unfortunately, and as someone mentioned above, there are 900 cases pending at the moment, so there's definitely an issue there that needs to be addressed. I agree with you that assaults on Gardai will likely never be eliminated, but certainly procedures could be reviewed to reduce the risk of harm to Gardaí in carrying out their duties.

Garda ptsd Awarded €390,000

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/former-garda-sergeant-awarded-390k-compensation-for-severe-post-traumatic-stress-disorder-31088093.html

Garda ptsd awarded €50,000

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/garda-sergeant-who-suffered-ptsd-after-siege-awarded-50-000-1.2124415

Garda ptsd awarded € 170,000

http://m.rte.ie/news/2014/1208/665498-thomas-mansfield-court/

Garda awarded €102,000

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/compensation-of-102000-for-garda-assaulted-while-making-an-arrest-29022814.html

Guards like those posted above are milking the system and doing a serious disservice to the majority of hard working decent guards that wouldn't look for financial gain from relatively minor injuries sustained in the line of duty.

Should you remain in the Gards if you have PTSD?

Not talking about this case, but in general, IF the big carrot of money was not an option I feel we'd see a whole lot less of this.

Paulzx wrote: »

No one, doing any job should be in a position whereby being assaulted is a normal part of their job. Inherant risks are one thing but considering it acceptable is another.

YOu don't have to accept the assault as part of the job, but you do have to accept that you might get assaulted at some stage because of the job. It's not surprising that a guard would get assaulted given who they deal with.


The article doesn't really give much information. Like what did the state do wrong? I can accept that if there were no procedures in place and the guards are just winging it, then the state is responsible for not taking any precautions to protect our guards. If there are procedures in place that were ignored, then it's the state's fault. I think a guard should be compensated for medical bills incurred by the job. But this just seems like rewarding someone because something bad happened to them, and it seems like the woman in question maybe didn't have the constitution for the job. Guards have to deal with horrible people that will do horrible things. The guards put themselves in positions we wouldn't want to be in, that takes a special kind of person. I know I'm not that kind of person so I'm not judging anyone.