90k for a dislocated thumb!!!

Cee-Jay-Cee · 08-02-2016 12:46PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The thumb is the most important digit, try restricting it and see tge difference it makes to even mundane activities

I don't dispyte that but 90k for an injury partly caused by alcohol and shoe type doesn't justify the amount.

08-02-2016 01:00PM

I read a few lines in the paper.

Mr. Justice Barr heard the case in full in the High Court, so one can assume it was a few hours anyway. He would also have heard the input of the insurance company's well paid legal team on the other side. He has decades of experience in assessing damages, and has probably dealt with more cases than I've had hot dinners.

So not gonna do the "but it's like colossally huge and she had the big shoes" thing. Now if someone said "he got it wrong when he accepted that evidence or said this" I'd listen.

Gatling · 08-02-2016 01:04PM

Broke my thumb in 2 places in an accident a few years ago .
Lost no real function wondering would i get double for a double break vs a dislocation

08-02-2016 01:18PM

Gatling wrote: »

Broke my thumb in 2 places in an accident a few years ago .
Lost no real function wondering would i get double for a double break vs a dislocation

If it was a genuine accident, you won't get a cent.

The first issue is liability, then quantum. The High Court accepted there was negligence in this case.

Gatling · 08-02-2016 01:20PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If it was a genuine accident, you won't get a cent.

The first issue is liability, then quantum. The High Court accepted there was negligence in this case.

But in the case mentioned didn't the judge discount the management's version of what happened with keeping the floor clean

08-02-2016 01:40PM

Gatling wrote: »

But in the case mentioned didn't the judge discount the management's version of what happened with keeping the floor clean

Yes.

And?

Gatling · 08-02-2016 01:45PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes.

And?

That shouldn't be allowed unless there is evidence that proves otherwise especially when a judge hands our an award that size for something relatively minor in the scale of injuries

ohnonotgmail · 08-02-2016 01:54PM

Gatling wrote: »

That shouldn't be allowed unless there is evidence that proves otherwise especially when a judge hands our an award that size for something relatively minor in the scale of injuries

well there was evidence that proved otherwise. the patch of liquid on the floor.

goz83 · 08-02-2016 01:58PM

_Brian wrote: »

I can't understand these payments.

I'm in the process of trying to settle a case where I have permanent life changing injuries following a crash. I lost a well paying Job and have had to change line of work with less pay and give up many hobbies.

Everything I've been told is this sort of settlement isn't on the cards even though the other side have admitted liability.

There was a case in the papers last year where a woman washed her kitchen floor, then slipped on the wet floor and injured her knee. She sued the tile company and got €75k.

This.

As am I. From a motor accident, I was rear ended. Being self employed, it's a lot harder to claim loss of earnings, as I usually put everything back into the business. I had to reduce my work and almost had to stop altogether. I augmented my earnings by starting another business from home. I was in agony for a year and a half and had spinal surgery a couple of months ago. I still have pain and I am undergoing physio (appointment later today infact). There's lots more, but going by what happened this lady and her settlement, then I reckon I will be getting about 2 Million. not really. Me, I have spent circa 20k on medical expenses as a direct result of my injury and the price is still going up. Thankfully, I think I am at the recovery end now and once I'm through with physio, I should have a normal life, albeit with "a bad back" according to the surgeon and will require daily core and strength building exercises. Life changing stuff.

I remember reading about that case with the tiles. They successfully argued that the non-slip surface was inadequate and the tiles were not fit for purpose. I recall they were polished porcelain tiles. I used to sell lots of these tiles and always warned about them being slippy, but easier to clean than a rougher tile. Any gobsh1te knows they're slippery when wet. Surprised she didn't sue the manufacturer of her shoes, for failing to provide adequate grip on all surfaces. :rolleyes:

conorhal wrote: »

But Wibbs, a solicitor needs to get paid, as well as the junior counsel (who will have done all the work) not to metion the senior counsel who will breeze into court, chat to the defendants Seniour counsel (who's junior will have also done all the work) and though neither have a foggy about the case, there is a tee off time at four so they'll toss around a few numbers and head off for cocktails.
None of that comes cheap you know!

I'm thinking there's a hint of sarcasm in there, but to bite...the plaintiffs fees are generally covered by the defense. I think they deal with outstanding medical separately too, but can't be sure. However, I doubt there was a huge bill for medical expenses, so that woman walked away with 90k clear.

goz83 · 08-02-2016 02:00PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well there was evidence that proved otherwise. the patch of liquid on the floor.

It wasn't proven at all. There were reports of water in the restroom beside the area she slipped, but they could not ascertain if there was actually any liquid on the floor where she slipped.

08-02-2016 02:02PM

Gatling wrote: »

That shouldn't be allowed unless there is evidence that proves otherwise especially when a judge hands our an award that size for something relatively minor in the scale of injuries

Say what now?

What shouldn't be allowed? Judges not accepting testimony? Does this not happen in every single case where a version of events is not accepted?

Could you set out this proposed rule in greater detail?

charlietheminxx · 08-02-2016 02:06PM

goz83 wrote: »

Quick...statute of limitations is 2 years. "Judge, I have trouble on boards.ie due to the pain and suffering when tapping away at the keyboard". :pac:

Fair play to you though. I doubt most blokes would have the balls to pop their dislocated thumb back into place. Curiously...were you wearing heels?

Yeah well I think it was a mix of Dutch courage and the fact that my fingers and thumbs are all double jointed anyway... I looked at it and went "that hurts and doesn't look right" and I just popped it back without thinking. I got my mam (who has some medical training) to look over it the next day and she was happy it was all lined up ok. I had a bruise all down my wrist and across the base of my hand for a couple of weeks after, had to mostly type with my other hand and it was a bit twingey for the following 6 months, but overall it was manageable. I can't bend it quite like before though.

I was wearing ankle boots with a chunky heel and went flying where someone had spilled a drink!

ohnonotgmail · 08-02-2016 02:24PM

goz83 wrote: »

It wasn't proven at all. There were reports of water in the restroom beside the area she slipped, but they could not ascertain if there was actually any liquid on the floor where she slipped.

the article you linked to disagrees with you

Mr Justice Anthony Barr said Sharon Kelly’s fall was captured on CCTV and he was satisfied there was liquid on the parquet flooring at the area where she slipped.

mad muffin · 08-02-2016 02:29PM

Jaysus, that's fierce shîte altogether.

goz83 · 08-02-2016 02:34PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the article you linked to disagrees with you

Maybe i'm only guessing here, but perhaps the company who owns the Arc Cafe Bar (luckabeg ltd) also had access to the cctv and they denied that there was liquid on the floor. So, maybe, just maybe it wasn't clear whether there was, or not, even though the judge was "satisfied" that there was.

I'm not saying the judge was wrong about the liquid. I am just saying that it's plausible, because there was CCTV footage and the company denied that there was water, so the footage mustn't have been all that clear. I have decent CCTV in my home and it's far from a busy bar and has better lighting and I couldn't tell if the floor was wet from viewing the CCTV on a 55" screen.

ohnonotgmail · 08-02-2016 02:38PM

goz83 wrote: »

Maybe i'm only guessing here, but perhaps the company who owns the Arc Cafe Bar (luckabeg ltd) also had access to the cctv and they denied that there was liquid on the floor. So, maybe, just maybe it wasn't clear whether there was, or not, even though the judge was "satisfied" that there was.

I'm not saying the judge was wrong about the liquid. I am just saying that it's plausible, because there was CCTV footage and the company denied that there was water, so the footage mustn't have been all that clear. I have decent CCTV in my home and it's far from a busy bar and has better lighting and I couldn't tell if the floor was wet from viewing the CCTV on a 55" screen.

well as neither of us has actually seen the footage we will just have to agree to disagree.

Carlos Orange · 08-02-2016 02:39PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the article you linked to disagrees with you

It also says "It was likely the staff were so busy serving drinks and collecting empty glasses they were not able to take sufficient care to keep the floor dry and clean, he said." so it sounds like his judgement is mostly based on guesses and not evidence (such as the cctv footage).

ohnonotgmail · 08-02-2016 02:44PM

psinno wrote: »

It also says "It was likely the staff were so busy serving drinks and collecting empty glasses they were not able to take sufficient care to keep the floor dry and clean, he said." so it sounds like his judgement is mostly based on guesses and not evidence (such as the cctv footage).

you missed this bit.

He accepted the evidence of two other women the toilets in the public bar had been in poor condition that night and complaints were made to bar staff about the condition of the toilets.

if the staff cant keep the toilets clean what makes you think they had time to keep the floor clean?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 08-02-2016 02:50PM

The floor was wet, which caused the girl to fall. The judge didn't just pluck 90K out of thin air. There are guidelines in the Book of Quantum. There's quite a few factors taken into account, but it seems the experts of AH know better by just looking at a number and deciding it's too large. 4 inch high heels is a pretty normal size, it may or may not have effected the final payment. Don't forget that loss of payment, legal fees etc, are also calculated in the compensation amount.

Here's a link for it; http://www.injuriesboard.ie/eng/Forms-Guidelines/Book-of-Quantum.pdf

"90K? No way, that's too much. She should only get 45K. There's no real logic behind my decision, just that it's less than 90K."

goz83 · 08-02-2016 02:50PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well as neither of us has actually seen the footage we will just have to agree to disagree.

In my earlier post, I said that the compensation (imo) was excessive, even if a staff member had purposely thrown a bucket of liquid at the woman.

You can disagree with me, that's your choice. But, what is clear, from the statements made, is that there was no actual evidence of liquid spillage where the lady fell. Conclusions were drawn from it being a busy night, reports of staff tending to a wet floor in the toilets and someone possibly spilling a drink. In my eyes, that's guessing and not it is not clear that there was liquid on the ground. If it was clear, the judge would have said so, rather than piecing it together from possible scenarios, where there might have been a spillage.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 08-02-2016 02:55PM

goz83 wrote: »

In my earlier post, I said that the compensation (imo) was excessive, even if a staff member had purposely thrown a bucket of liquid at the woman.

You can disagree with me, that's your choice. But, what is clear, from the statements made, is that there was no actual evidence of liquid spillage where the lady fell. Conclusions were drawn from it being a busy night, reports of staff tending to a wet floor in the toilets and someone possibly spilling a drink. In my eyes, that's guessing and not it is not clear that there was liquid on the ground. If it was clear, the judge would have said so, rather than piecing it together from possible scenarios, where there might have been a spillage.

It's not a criminal case, it's a civil case, so evidence doesn't need to be 100%. "Probably" is good enough to pass judgement.

It's not difficult to believe that the floor was wet. It's a bar that sells liquids.

ohnonotgmail · 08-02-2016 02:57PM

goz83 wrote: »

In my earlier post, I said that the compensation (imo) was excessive, even if a staff member had purposely thrown a bucket of liquid at the woman.

I have not mentioned the compensation so why bring it up?

goz83 wrote: »

You can disagree with me, that's your choice. But, what is clear, from the statements made, is that there was no actual evidence of liquid spillage where the lady fell. Conclusions were drawn from it being a busy night, reports of staff tending to a wet floor in the toilets and someone possibly spilling a drink. In my eyes, that's guessing and not it is not clear that there was liquid on the ground. If it was clear, the judge would have said so, rather than piecing it together from possible scenarios, where there might have been a spillage.

Is anything ever 100% clear in these cases? The judge looked at the evidence presented by both sides and said

Mr Justice Anthony Barr said Sharon Kelly’s fall was captured on CCTV and he was satisfied there was liquid on the parquet flooring at the area where she slipped.

and frankly he is in a much better place to make that decision than anybody here.

Carlos Orange · 08-02-2016 02:58PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you missed this bit.

if the staff cant keep the toilets clean what makes you think they had time to keep the floor clean?

I saw that but it is very vague , at least the report is. Still assumption. X happened so Y happened.

ohnonotgmail · 08-02-2016 03:00PM

psinno wrote: »

I saw that but it is very vague , at least the report is. Still assumption. X happened so Y happened.

replace "still assumption" with "on the balance of probabilities" and you are spot on.

08-02-2016 03:01PM

goz83 wrote: »

You can disagree with me, that's your choice. But, what is clear, from the statements made, is that there was no actual evidence of liquid spillage where the lady fell. Conclusions were drawn from it being a busy night, reports of staff tending to a wet floor in the toilets and someone possibly spilling a drink. In my eyes, that's guessing and not it is not clear that there was liquid on the ground. If it was clear, the judge would have said so, rather than piecing it together from possible scenarios, where there might have been a spillage.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that the Plaintiff herself gave evidence of it...

Carlos Orange · 08-02-2016 03:10PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

replace "still assumption" with "on the balance of probabilities" and you are spot on.

I suppose we will have to disagree how much can be read into a incredibly vague statement like toilets being in poor condition.

ohnonotgmail · 08-02-2016 03:15PM

psinno wrote: »

I suppose we will have to disagree how much can be read into a incredibly vague statement like toilets being in poor condition.

well i think it is foolish to second guess the judge based on a newspaper report.

goz83 · 08-02-2016 04:39PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I have not mentioned the compensation so why bring it up?

Is anything ever 100% clear in these cases? The judge looked at the evidence presented by both sides and said

and frankly he is in a much better place to make that decision than anybody here.

The compensation was brought up because it's the reason the thread was made. And the compensation was handed out partly from what would seem to be less than clear cctv footage.

The judge made his decision, that's true. We know that nothing is ever 100% in these things. True also. No argument there.

Hard to justify 90k based on what is known to us though.

ohnonotgmail · 08-02-2016 04:48PM

goz83 wrote: »

The compensation was brought up because it's the reason the thread was made. And the compensation was handed out partly from what would seem to be less than clear cctv footage.

The judge made his decision, that's true. We know that nothing is ever 100% in these things. True also. No argument there.

Hard to justify 90k based on what is known to us though.

i wouldnt even attempt to justify the 90K award. We dont have access to the same information as the judge. Nobody here does.

Capt'n Midnight · 08-02-2016 07:11PM

where did the amount come from?

Did the judge refer it to http://www.injuriesboard.ie/eng/How-to-make-a-claim/Estimate-your-claim/

90k for a dislocated thumb!!!

Comments