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

One eyed Jack · 15-12-2015 7:33pm

ScumLord wrote: »

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.

I don't think anyone should have to accept that they might get assaulted because they're a Garda. Isn't the whole point of being a Garda to uphold the law and prevent people from assaulting other people? Why should they accept the likelihood that they'll be assaulted at some stage if they don't have to, if it can be prevented by introducing better procedures to prevent that possibility?

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.

The Gardaí are agents and employees of the State, so the State has a responsibility to them as their employer. If the State fails in that responsibility, then the State is held liable.

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.

It's not just rewarding someone because something bad happened to them. I wouldn't want to suffer a broken nose and subsequent ill mental health for any amount of money, so it's not a reward, it's an award for damages. I'm not sure any Garda goes out in the morning looking to be assaulted so they can sue the State. I wouldn't mind being a Garda myself, but if one of the conditions was that I would have to accept the likelihood of being assaulted, then I'd wonder what sort of fool would accept those terms of employment, and why wouldn't their employer put appropriate safely measures in place?

warpdrive · 15-12-2015 7:34pm

Joins the gards which may obviously involve dealing with violent criminals
Gets treated violently by violent criminals
Sues

Why was she not a desk clerk or something if this is her reaction to something that lots of gards are exposed to at times? Women trying to go for the gards should definitely do so but only after they seriously consider the risks involved.

esforum · 15-12-2015 7:36pm

Wilder Red Vinyl wrote: »

Our Gardaí are already too soft and I would be worried that this sets a precedence for compensation claims left, right and centre.

Explain, in what way are Gardai too soft? Because they dont go around battering people and end up in jail?

We have the system we deserve, Gardai were getting prosecuted and disciplined for using unreasonable force so the message became clear, better to let them hit you and get compensation than fight back and get and risj being prosecuted.

Omackeral · 15-12-2015 7:37pm

wp_rathead wrote: »

good enough for her.donkey

What's good enough for her exactly?

esforum · 15-12-2015 7:38pm

Ally Dick wrote: »

A bit like how the guards develop back problems when they're close to retirement,

evidence of this being a frequent occurance?

LiamoSail · 15-12-2015 7:39pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think anyone should have to accept that they might get assaulted because they're a Garda. Isn't the whole point of being a Garda to uphold the law and prevent people from assaulting other people? Why should they accept the likelihood that they'll be assaulted at some stage if they don't have to, if it can be prevented by introducing better procedures to prevent that possibility?

So how do you prevent it? It's like saying that as a Soldier, you shouldn't have to accept the possibility that you could be shot.

When it's your job to apprehend the dregs of society, having to deal with the resulting conflict is part of the job. It's inevitable that there will be some that resort to physical violence in such circumstances

J Mysterio · 15-12-2015 7:40pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No Garda should have to accept the risk of being assaulted.

FFS. In the job description isnt it?

mynamejeff · 15-12-2015 7:40pm

Gatling wrote: »

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

every one of those incidents are situations that any normal person would never find themselves in . your average joe wouldn't be withing a mile of these situations and most of them were situations where they wee targeted because of being gardai.

then again any one who has been the victim of a crime can put a claim in with the criminal compensation board. should gardai be disqualified from this entitlement ?
espically considering the numbers of gardai being attacked because they are gardai

http://www.kildarenow.com/news/kildare-td-alarmed-that-10-gardai-injured-on-duty-every-week/45207

esforum · 15-12-2015 7:43pm

All the people giving out, may I ask who they expect to join An Garda Siochana if being assaulted and seriously injured or killed did NOT result in compensation?

"Hey thanks for taking that knife mate now **** off onto disability benefit and buy your own wheelchair while your at it"

"Well I realise your husband wa killed on duty but ya know he knew the risks so off ya go now and pay the bills, mortgage and child care costs on your own"

If this was setting a precedent, the state didnt accept liability or the Judge didnt think it was a worthy case then it would have been contested and the claim dismissed

Sonics2k · 15-12-2015 7:44pm

Can we just clarify something if possible, was she just punched in the nose or was there a full blown assault?

I'd call nonsense if she's claiming a single punch in the nose gave her PTSD.

2Mad2BeMad · 15-12-2015 7:46pm

I find it amazing that when you sign up to be a guard that some of them think it should be an easy comfortable job where you will never get an injury or be attacked while arresting someone.

Their needs to be something in their contracts that unless they lose a limb, are severely injured or dead they will not recieve compentsation.
Aload of ****e 75k for a punch in the nose?
Hell if thats the case I'll apply for a job as one while their recruiting now, hopefully get the job and then il try to arrest every scum looking chap out their in the hopes of him punching me so I can get some easy money.

She doesn't deserve to be a guard.
Its a job you go into knowing you might well be attacked.
If all she got out of it was a broken nose then she will be fine. Using this therapy thing is aload of ****e and just her way of cashing in for the end of the year...

esforum · 15-12-2015 7:47pm

J Mysterio wrote: »

FFS. In the job description isnt it?

no, no its not. Gardai are there to stop assaults not take them. They aint punching bags.

theres a risk that someone stacking shelves might slip and hurt themselves, they still get compensation.

an electrician may get electrocuted, still get compensation

a lifeguard might drown, still gets compensation

a driver might be involved in a crash, still gets compensation even if its the car you are in that caused the crash

esforum · 15-12-2015 7:48pm

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

Hell if thats the case I'll apply for a job as one while their recruiting now, hopefully get the job and then il try to arrest every scum looking chap out their in the hopes of him punching me so I can get some easy money.

I guarantee without any doubt this does not happen.

Secondly. You need not be a Garda, walk upto a scumbag and insult them, same result

15-12-2015 7:49pm

warpdrive wrote: »

Joins the gards which may obviously involve dealing with violent criminals
Gets treated violently by violent criminals
Sues

Why was she not a desk clerk or something if this is her reaction to something that lots of gards are exposed to at times? Women trying to go for the gards should definitely do so but only after they seriously consider the risks involved.

Ridiculous.
Who would join if the job description stated ' must be willing to get assaulted by criminals'

Do you suggest doctors & nurses should take any asbuse they're given from drunken patients? Because, that's what happens in a&e?
Gardai do not join to get assaulted. Criminals assault people, look at the random assaults on the street.
Are gardai worth less then ordinary citizens?

mikeym · 15-12-2015 7:52pm

The lady looks like your wan from Red Rock.

wardides · 15-12-2015 7:52pm

I originally posted on the first page I think, but not trawling back.

There's clearly a case to say that it is the hazard of the job. Whether you agree with that or not, I'm sorry, but it is. Similarly as a shop assistant receiving abuse by a customer etc. Now before people jump all over me, read what I've said. I'm not saying that they are obliged to turn a blind eye and take this abuse, but it is certainly a hazard you would expect when joining the guards (similar to working as a bouncer or any other sort of security), that you may be attacked (in whatever sense).

The point I original stated is that the 75K may set a precedent for going forward. I'm sure it was a nasty injury, and assuming that the majority of damages were awarded due to loss of future earnings, but just seems a hefty amount, all things considered.

recylingbin · 15-12-2015 7:53pm

esforum wrote: »

a lifeguard might drown, still gets compensation

You're.not comparing like with like.
What if a lifeguard gets sunburn?
His much is he entitled to?

15-12-2015 7:55pm

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

She doesn't deserve to be a guard.
Its a job you go into knowing you might well be attacked...

No it's not!

Talk about victim blaming!!!

Suppose I walk down a ' dodgy' street in a ' dodgy' area and get robbed,/ assaulted, guess that's my fault too for walking that way?
What about very drunk women getting attacked? Their own fault I suppose?

People should not assault people, it doesn't matter what their job is.

wardides · 15-12-2015 7:56pm

recylingbin wrote: »

You're.not comparing like with like.
What if a lifeguard gets sunburn?
His much is he entitled to?

Can all this nonsense stop? You can't compare like for like. For example if a Lifeguard got severe sunburn or sunstroke due to a lack of sufficient cover in fellow workers, and was unable to get protection from the sun for a certain period, he probably would be due something.

Something similar could have happened here. Procedure may not have been followed, and maybe there should have been another Guard alongside the one in question who got assaulted?

wardides · 15-12-2015 7:58pm

bubblypop wrote: »

No it's not!

Talk about victim blaming!!!

Suppose I walk down a ' dodgy' street in a ' dodgy' area and get robbed,/ assaulted, guess that's my fault too for walking that way?
What about very drunk women getting attacked? Their own fault I suppose?

People should not assault people, it doesn't matter what their job is.

It's a hazard of the job. If you walk down a dodgy street in a dodgy area it's a hazard you are willing to accept for whatever reason. Whilst it doesn't make the result any fairer, it's still the truth.

enricoh · 15-12-2015 7:58pm

I know a couple of psychiatric nurses and they are not allowed sue if assaulted. I don't know how they aren't n cops are allowed.

ScumLord · 15-12-2015 7:59pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think anyone should have to accept that they might get assaulted because they're a Garda.

Well if you don't believe it's possible or likely that a guard can ever be assaulted then that's ok. But in the real world we know that in all likelihood a guard will be lucky to make it through their career without running into the kind of person that would assault someone for little reason. If the guards didn't accept that there could be assaults they wouldn't have procedures for dealing with criminals. We wouldn't need to train them, because we wouldn't expect them to get into any trouble. The fact there is training is an admission of the fact there's likely to be an assault.

Isn't the whole point of being a Garda to uphold the law and prevent people from assaulting other people? Why should they accept the likelihood that they'll be assaulted at some stage if they don't have to, if it can be prevented by introducing better procedures to prevent that possibility?

It can't be prevented, the risks can be reduced, but it can't be prevented. You can't send a guard into an assault and tell them they'll be ok because we don't expect they'll assault you the guard.

The Gardaí are agents and employees of the State, so the State has a responsibility to them as their employer. If the State fails in that responsibility, then the State is held liable.

Yes, that's why I'm wondering what failure did the state make? It doesn't say where the state messed up so that we can get some idea of how it's going to be addressed in the future.

RDM_83 again · 15-12-2015 8:00pm

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.

Garda will end up being issued with tazers, then when they are issued with Tazers they will end up using them far more than is needed like they do in the states, people will be up in arms on here but they will be technically justified in their overuse because its impossible to know for certain who is going to sucker punch you and according to your (and other posters idea) there should be no expectation that serving as a street garda exposes you to violent situations.

Its a nasty thing to happen to her but perhaps the traditional Garda way of recruiting massive boggers who used to play Gaelic Football has some merit when you hear cases like this.

recylingbin · 15-12-2015 8:01pm

wardides wrote: »

Can all this nonsense stop? You can't compare like for like. For example if a Lifeguard got severe sunburn or sunstroke due to a lack of sufficient cover in fellow workers, and was unable to get protection from the sun for a certain period, he probably would be due something.

This has made me laugh hard. Fair play.

mynamejeff · 15-12-2015 8:02pm

enricoh wrote: »

I know a couple of psychiatric nurses and they are not allowed sue if assaulted. I don't know how they aren't n cops are allowed.

thats a bit strange because i know some psychiatric nurses and they are allowed to claim .....

wardides · 15-12-2015 8:02pm

recylingbin wrote: »

This has made me laugh hard. Fair play.

Employment law will do that to you.

B.A._Baracus · 15-12-2015 8:04pm

When I clicked on the article I expected to read something horrible that caused her ptsd. As being a garda they can see alot. But a broken nose does seem not as... Well what word to use... Shocking? Fitting? Enough reason? I dunno.

But then again I don't know her personally or perhaps there was more to the attack.

I remember watching a documentary about American police officers and I know they are a different kettle of fish to the garda but it was said most officers don't get over traumatic events and end up quitting. Something to do with you having to think you are invincible to go out there and do the job. Then an event just knocks that out of you.

Maybe a percentage of the garda are the same? That when assaulted the wind or desire to continue goes.

15-12-2015 8:05pm

wardides wrote: »

It's a hazard of the job. If you walk down a dodgy street in a dodgy area it's a hazard you are willing to accept for whatever reason. Whilst it doesn't make the result any fairer, it's still the truth.

I think you will find that the offender in ALL cases is at fault.
All cases.
Don't blame victims

jmayo · 15-12-2015 8:06pm

esforum wrote: »

All the people giving out, may I ask who they expect to join An Garda Siochana if being assaulted and seriously injured or killed did NOT result in compensation?

Ahh FFS.
It is kinda of expected that being a police officer means you are liable to run into criminals, some of whom could be violent.
It is like saying a fire man isn't expected to be exposed to fire.

esforum wrote: »

"Hey thanks for taking that knife mate now **** off onto disability benefit and buy your own wheelchair while your at it"

Exaggeration much.
If someone was disabled to such and extent they had to be in a wheelchair it is taken as a given that they will receive compensation.

esforum wrote: »

"Well I realise your husband wa killed on duty but ya know he knew the risks so off ya go now and pay the bills, mortgage and child care costs on your own"

This lady was no Garda Golden and please don't try and spin it as such.
:mad:

esforum wrote: »

If this was setting a precedent, the state didnt accept liability or the Judge didnt think it was a worthy case then it would have been contested and the claim dismissed

No this case is much like the army band milking the state because they claimed they got deaf from playing their instruments.

She should have received counseling and medical bills paid with time off sick to recover from her physical injuries.

15-12-2015 8:07pm

enricoh wrote: »

I know a couple of psychiatric nurses and they are not allowed sue if assaulted. I don't know how they aren't n cops are allowed.

They are absolutely entitled to compensation.

ScumLord · 15-12-2015 8:08pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Its a nasty thing to happen to her but perhaps the traditional Garda way of recruiting massive boggers who used to play Gaelic Football has some merit when you hear cases like this.

I don't think it would have made much difference here. The big GAA guard could just as easily been cold clocked if he was on his own with a violent criminal. If the issue here is she was left on her own, then she's fully entitled to the payment. No guard should be left vulnerable like that.

recylingbin · 15-12-2015 8:09pm

wardides wrote: »

Employment law will do that to you.

No the idea of a lifeguard getting sunburn because he didn't have adequate backup did.
I must have missed that episode of baywatch.

wardides · 15-12-2015 8:10pm

bubblypop wrote: »

I think you will find that the offender in ALL cases is at fault.
All cases.
Don't blame victims

Don't be so sensitive. When have I blamed a victim?

15-12-2015 8:12pm

jmayo wrote: »

Exaggeration much.
If someone was disabled to such and extent they had to be in a wheelchair it is taken as a given that they will receive compensation..

So where do you draw the line?
You're dead? OK compo for the family
Permanently paralysed? OK compo for you.
Lost use of an eye/ limb? OK compo for you.
2 broken legs? OK compo for you.
Broken arm? OK
Broken nose? No way!!!!

15-12-2015 8:13pm

wardides wrote: »

Don't be so sensitive. When have I blamed a victim?

When you said its part of the job to be assaulted.
It's not.

Cee-Jay-Cee · 15-12-2015 8:13pm

Regardless of her chosen career/job, no one goes to work expecting to get seriously assaulted. She suffered emotional and physical injuries and claimed against her employer just like EVERY other person would if the same happened to them in their respective employment. Just because she's a guard doesn't make her case any different.

wardides · 15-12-2015 8:14pm

recylingbin wrote: »

No the idea of a lifeguard getting sunburn because he didn't have adequate backup did.
I must have missed that episode of baywatch.

So you're a lifeguard in a busy resort. One of the hottest days of the year. You're boss informs you that you're not able to leave your post for several hours, and you're not allowed carry anything to your post as it could get in the way of any duties you need to carry out. You're told you cant take a break to replace the sun protection. You're told you can't as there isnt adequate cover to replace you.

You get severe sunstroke, leading to a certain amount of time off, on top of any medical bills, and any future distress it may cause you.

Maybe you should try getting out of that bubble because I'm fairly certain I would have a case there.

STB. · 15-12-2015 8:15pm

RayM wrote: »

It implies that any Garda who can't take a serious physical assault in their workplace without it affecting them afterwards shouldn't be in the job.

Ray what people are getting at is the financial claim for loss of confidence that affected their career possibilities for promotion.

One of the conditions of the job is to be of good health, of sound constitution and fitted physically and mentally to perform the duties of a member of the Service.

I wonder would a male member take such a case so easily ?

By the way, I don't envy anyone who does that job dealing with scum of the earth who have no respect for anyone or anything, but like anyone who is assaulted on the street or otherwise, the way for dealing with that is through the criminal courts. Would it be fair to say that in this day and age that anyone who would be considering a career in AGS shouldn't be naive enough to think that it was a job that might not involve serious repeated chances of danger.

wp_rathead · 15-12-2015 8:15pm

Omackeral wrote: »

What's good enough for her exactly?

that was my housemate who wrote that, has since been deleted:)

wardides · 15-12-2015 8:15pm

bubblypop wrote: »

When you said its part of the job to be assaulted.
It's not.

Except I never said that.

Fair play.

recylingbin · 15-12-2015 8:18pm

wardides wrote: »

So you're a lifeguard in a busy resort. One of the hottest days of the year. You're boss informs you that you're not able to leave your post for several hours, and you're not allowed carry anything to your post as it could get in the way of any duties you need to carry out. You're told you cant take a break to replace the sun protection. You're told you can't as there isnt adequate cover to replace you.

You get severe sunstroke, leading to a certain amount of time off, on top of any medical bills, and any future distress it may cause you.

Maybe you should try getting out of that bubble because I'm fairly certain I would have a case there.

Why would you not be allowed to bring suncream? You're living in a fantasy world.
Not surprising considering 75k can be awarded for a punch. If she was a model, fair enough.

wardides · 15-12-2015 8:21pm

recylingbin wrote: »

Why would you not be allowed to bring suncream? You're living in a fantasy world.
Not surprising considering 75k can be awarded for a punch. If she was a model, fair enough.

I'm really not. You're assuming that common sense is applied to every situation. And you couldn't be anymore wrong.

It's simply pointing out that there could be way more to this story than you know.

recylingbin · 15-12-2015 8:24pm

wardides wrote: »

I'm really not. You're assuming that common sense is applied to every situation. And you couldn't be anymore wrong.

It's simply pointing out that there could be way more to this story than you know.

I'm going on what I read in the link of the op. No more, no less.

She should have got paid leave for a couple of weeks, had counselling and been stuck on a desk for a few weeks or however long it took.
75k is jokeshop.

Edit:/granted there may be more to it. Bit for 75kk, I'd expect.torture.

15-12-2015 8:25pm

wardides wrote: »

Except I never said that.

Fair play.

' its a hazard of the job'
Says you.

Except its not. It's not acceptable to be assaulted in any job.
And why wouldn't you be entitled to compensation if you were.

wardides · 15-12-2015 8:25pm

recylingbin wrote: »

I'm going on what I read in the link of the op. No more, no less.

She should have got paid leave for a couple of weeks, had counselling and been stuck on a desk for a few weeks or however long it took.
75k is jokeshop.

Overall I agree. It does seem a bit of a high damage to be awarded, hence me saying it's a dangerous precedent to set.

errlloyd · 15-12-2015 8:27pm

Boards is usually a pretty supportive place for people who suffer any sort of mental health issues. PTSD is very much a diagnosable mental health issue.

So it makes me sad that people choose to focus on the punch as if she got awarded 75k becuase her nose was broken. She didn't. She got awarded 75k becuase she was involved in an incident that for whatever reason destroyed her confidence and her motivation and therefore tangibly and measurably ruined her career. (something that in the long run will cost her Much more).

I know people involved in minor road accidents who will never drive again. People involved in minor sporting accidents who can't get back on the field. People who had a bad experience with a colleague and can never work with them again. Their fear is hard to understand, but it is real. If their fear was caused by someone else and was costing them their future they do deserve compensation.

She signed up to a life as a guard. I think we can take her in good faith as someone not milking the system.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 15-12-2015 8:31pm

wardides wrote: »

Sets a really dangerous precedent surely?

No.

Cops have always been quick to sue.

bigpink · 15-12-2015 8:37pm

So i take it she has left the guards now?

nxbyveromdwjpg · 15-12-2015 8:42pm

bubblypop wrote: »

' its a hazard of the job'
Says you.

Except its not. It's not acceptable to be assaulted in any job.
And why wouldn't you be entitled to compensation if you were.

It is a hazardous job.

I wouldn't take a job with the Gardai and not expect to be in harms way at some point, any more than I would not take a job with the fire brigade and not expect to have to deal with smoke and fire.

No one wants to be assaulted and in a perfect world no one would ever be assaulted but reality check here, the An Garda Síochána are the ones that are expected to be there in dangerous situations where assaults can and do occur.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 15-12-2015 8:44pm

It's her job to protect the rest of us, to keep the peace. She should be entitled to do so safely, and any scumbag attacking a member of AGS or any member of the emergency services should be punished severely.

Just because she has a uniform does not mean she's fair game and I'd like to see any of the rest of ye being assaulted whilst carrying out your duties at work, and not taking a civil case.

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

Comments