Luas Surfing

Harry Palmr · 22-10-2018 11:05am

Silent Running wrote: »

If it was a design fault with the tram, could the operator not sue the manufacturer, or at least recover the cost of settlement?

BTW, I'm not in any way condoning the behaviour of this stupid lowlife. There should be a limit to what is expected to make anything idiot proof. If people are determined to do stupid stuff on otherwise safe equipment, they should be liable for the lost revenue, or other expenses they cause.

We need to stop rewarding stupidity.

You just answered your own question! I suppose barbed wire could be fixed to the flanks of the trams but...nah!

colmufc · 22-10-2018 11:18am

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Just heard on the news that she is afraid to go out due to internet trolls

Ah yes the famous outside where the internet lives ,anyway I've seen kids do this year's ago out by bluebell ,a bunch of them got on one time with there mate who fell off the previous tram and they were taking him home cause he got a concussion

cripplefight · 22-10-2018 11:50am

I don't know if its been posted, but here we go....

...she hasn't received the pay-out as it was awarded on the to her because she supposedly has the cognitive abilities of a 7 year old.

from what I understand there's very little if anything wrong with her.

the judge did not award her they money, this was agreed upon outside the courts.
the judge was only signing off on the matter to close it.

because of this the judge has ordered that the money be put into care of the courts and she has to apply and give reasons to what she needs it for.

she has also had her social welfare stopped and her name taken off the housing list

one hand gives, the other takes away...

CrankyHaus · 22-10-2018 12:05pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

The point being none of us here are the Doctor who would have had to produce a medical report under pain of purjury.

Under pain of perjury?

Expert witnesses are effectively free to say whatever they're paid to say. The only "pain" they are under is the risk that the court does not accept their evidence. There is no legislation specifically imposing a duty upon them to be truthful, independent or impartial and they are even given immunity from being sued.

The LRC has proposed legislation to address this but at present there is no real restriction on expert witnesses advancing any "professional opinion" they like.

More generally perjury is not taken seriously in Ireland. The threshold is high and the punishments are minimal to none. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/willie-o-dea-will-not-face-perjury-case-prosecution-1.622200

jay0109 · 22-10-2018 1:43pm

cripplefight wrote: »

she has also had her social welfare stopped and her name taken off the housing list

one hand gives, the other takes away...

Interesting as I wasn't sure if compo payouts fell into means-testing reviews.
Where have you heard this?

Pyr0 · 22-10-2018 1:51pm

cripplefight wrote: »

I don't know if its been posted, but here we go....

...she hasn't received the pay-out as it was awarded on the to her because she supposedly has the cognitive abilities of a 7 year old.

from what I understand there's very little if anything wrong with her.

the judge did not award her they money, this was agreed upon outside the courts.
the judge was only signing off on the matter to close it.

because of this the judge has ordered that the money be put into care of the courts and she has to apply and give reasons to what she needs it for.

she has also had her social welfare stopped and her name taken off the housing list

one hand gives, the other takes away...

Any links for where you got the info? Not having a go, just genuinely curious.

Through Hell and Back · 22-10-2018 4:02pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Personally I thinks she's a fraud also, but there are plenty of brain injuries that mean she could lead a relatively normal life but not be fit to be in the work place. For all we know she has crippling seizures. The point being none of us here are the Doctor who would have had to produce a medical report under pain of purjury.

Where on earth did her or her mother get the idea to see if they could sue when she caused the injury to herself, and it was her own fault. Says alot about them when they went to a solicitor to see if they had a case.

She admitted it was her own fault, and therefore she should have been entitled to zero.

She has made a mockery of people who have very serious, genuine cases and have and will struggle for the rest of their lives and need continuous care and medical help.

I remember reading about the lady from Cork, who took the Irish government all the way to the European Courts of Justice for the abuse she endured at the Launderies, and she received E150,000, which in my opinion is far more significant that this one, who by her Facebook page seems to lead a normal life.

Why is there not further details published about her "Severe head injury" so the public know how "unwell" she has been left from the entire matter? In many other cases the details of the injuries are published, what not in this case?

Through Hell and Back · 22-10-2018 4:07pm

I would also really like to know how much was taken from her claim when she admitted it was her fault. How much for contributory negligence? :mad::mad:

ohnonotgmail · 22-10-2018 4:08pm

Through Hell and Back wrote: »

Where on earth did her or her mother get the idea to see if they could sue when she caused the injury to herself, and it was her own fault. Says alot about them when they went to a solicitor to see if they had a case.

She admitted it was her own fault, and therefore she should have been entitled to zero.

She has made a mockery of people who have very serious, genuine cases and have and will struggle for the rest of their lives and need continuous care and medical help.

I remember reading about the lady from Cork, who took the Irish government all the way to the European Courts of Justice for the abuse she endured at the Launderies, and she received E150,000, which in my opinion is far more significant that this one, who by her Facebook page seems to lead a normal life.

Why is there not further details published about her "Severe head injury" so the public know how "unwell" she has been left from the entire matter? In many other cases the details of the injuries are published, what not in this case?

Because there was no need to disclose it. the medical evidence presented by the plaintiff was not disputed. the case was also settled out of court. It was only in court to be approved by the judge and that only had to happen because she was a minor when the incident happened.

Through Hell and Back · 22-10-2018 4:09pm

The legal team for the Luas company seemed to have been an absolute joke. They never even looked up her Facebook account, and seemed to have completely forgotten about contributory negligence? :mad::mad:

Through Hell and Back · 22-10-2018 4:11pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Because there was no need to disclose it. the medical evidence presented by the plaintiff was not disputed. the case was also settled out of court. It was only in court to be approved by the judge and that only had to happen because she was a minor when the incident happened.

Yes, but does a judge not have the power to reduce or increase the amount of damages, so that it is a fair settlement?

ohnonotgmail · 22-10-2018 4:16pm

Through Hell and Back wrote: »

Yes, but does a judge not have the power to reduce or increase the amount of damages, so that it is a fair settlement?

The judge can refuse to approve a settlement in which case it goes to trial.

ohnonotgmail · 22-10-2018 4:17pm

Through Hell and Back wrote: »

The legal team for the Luas company seemed to have been an absolute joke. They never even looked up her Facebook account, and seemed to have completely forgotten about contributory negligence? :mad::mad:

what are you basing that on?

Through Hell and Back · 22-10-2018 4:20pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what are you basing that on?

Because the accident was her fault, and she admitted it was her own fault. If they decided for her to be awarded damages, it should have been significantly reduced from E550,000 due to her own contributory negligence. If it was a case that the damages was already reduced, then her case must have been worth up to a million. :mad:

ohnonotgmail · 22-10-2018 4:29pm

Through Hell and Back wrote: »

Because the accident was her fault, and she admitted it was her own fault. If they decided for her to be awarded damages, it should have been significantly reduced from E550,000 due to her own contributory negligence. If it was a case that the damages was already reduced, then her case must have been worth up to a million. :mad:

Cases for brain injuries can run into millions. She was also a minor when the incident happened.

Through Hell and Back · 22-10-2018 7:26pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Cases for brain injuries can run into millions. She was also a minor when the incident happened.

She was 13 years of age, she admitted she knew she was doing a dangerous thing, and admitted it was her fault. So the fact that she was a minor in this case is disregarded, and should not be grounds for her to be given an outrageous amount of money for something that was her own fault.

I have seen settlements for brain injuries go into one or two million, or maybe higher when someone was left in a wheelchair, paralysed, needed round the clock care, and continuous medical treatment, as well as the fact that they would not be able to make a living for themselves, and in cases like that, settlements of that amount are fair and just.

In this case, as can be seen from my previous posts about her, she can lead an independent full life, and is well able to jump off a pier that is at least 15 foot high. A poster earlier said that she had the cognitive abilities of a 7 year old apparently. Again, according to her Facebook page she passed all her exams, so as disgraceful as she is, if she had the cognitive abilities of a 7 year old then how would she pass her Junior or Leaving Cert?

In a case like this, it would be helpful for further information about her "Severe brain injury" to be made available to the public, and although I am aware all of that is confidential, however, in many other personal injury cases it is stated in the media about the extent of the injuries and the impact on the person and their day to day living. I do not understand why the "extent" of her injuries cannot be circulated with regards to this case.

ohnonotgmail · 22-10-2018 7:49pm

Through Hell and Back wrote: »

She was 13 years of age, she admitted she knew she was doing a dangerous thing, and admitted it was her fault. So the fact that she was a minor in this case is disregarded, and should not be grounds for her to be given an outrageous amount of money for something that was her own fault.

I have seen settlements for brain injuries go into one or two million, or maybe higher when someone was left in a wheelchair, paralysed, needed round the clock care, and continuous medical treatment, as well as the fact that they would not be able to make a living for themselves, and in cases like that, settlements of that amount are fair and just.

In this case, as can be seen from my previous posts about her, she can lead an independent full life, and is well able to jump off a pier that is at least 15 foot high. A poster earlier said that she had the cognitive abilities of a 7 year old apparently. Again, according to her Facebook page she passed all her exams, so as disgraceful as she is, if she had the cognitive abilities of a 7 year old then how would she pass her Junior or Leaving Cert?

In a case like this, it would be helpful for further information about her "Severe brain injury" to be made available to the public, and although I am aware all of that is confidential, however, in many other personal injury cases it is stated in the media about the extent of the injuries and the impact on the person and their day to day living. I do not understand why the "extent" of her injuries cannot be circulated with regards to this case.

Because it is absolutely none of your business.

Through Hell and Back · 22-10-2018 7:55pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Because it is absolutely none of your business.

Yes, you are right it is none of our business. However, in many other personal injury cases which are reported to the media, why are the injuries and the extent of the injuries circulated and in this case the public were told nothing?

Why did this case go public, and nothing stipulated about her injuries whatsoever?

ohnonotgmail · 22-10-2018 8:04pm

Through Hell and Back wrote: »

Yes, you are right it is none of our business. However, in many other personal injury cases which are reported to the media, why are the injuries and the extent of the injuries circulated and in this case the public were told nothing?

Why did this case go public, and nothing stipulated about her injuries whatsoever?

Because it was only a settlement hearing. This has been explained to you already .

Through Hell and Back · 22-10-2018 8:14pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Because it was only a settlement hearing. This has been explained to you already .

I understand that, and the figure was agreed between both sides, and the judge signed off on it, as outrageous as it was.

There are many personal injury cases that come into the public light, and the vast majority of them state the extent of the injuries, or how it will effect someone for the rest of their lives. Why not in this case?

If she was prepared to go public with the details of what she did, including admitting it was her own fault, then why not state the extent of her injuries?

ohnonotgmail · 22-10-2018 8:18pm

Through Hell and Back wrote: »

I understand that, and the figure was agreed between both sides, and the judge signed off on it, as outrageous as it was.

There are many personal injury cases that come into the public light, and the vast majority of them state the extent of the injuries, or how it will effect someone for the rest of their lives. Why not in this case?

If she was prepared to go public with the details of what she did, including admitting it was her own fault, then why not state the extent of her injuries?

Your obsession with knowing all the details of a childs injuries is a bit creepy.

AlekSmart · 22-10-2018 8:23pm

McCrack wrote: »

She was 13 years of age. Children and teenagers do stupid things

The defendants at the time knew about it and hadn't modified their procedures and also cctv on each door and metal strips

They acknowledged their own shortcomings and settled the case and have since modified the trams

In the years since this wan fell of the Tram,the situation along the James's to Red Cow stretch,has,if anything worsened,with regular demonstrations of "Damienism" to be seen Day & Night.

The 13 year olds are untouchable,and they know it.
Even Gardai are reluctant to be too rapid in responding to incidents involving "Minors" as they know well just what such an event will do to their days work.

Society,in it's wisdom,has elevated the "Minor" to a status which allows them to perpetrate all manner of woe upon everybody else...as Hallow'een will amply demonstrate next week.

This one just struck lucky in her ma's choice of Solicitor

Through Hell and Back · 22-10-2018 8:25pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Your obsession with knowing all the details of a childs injuries is a bit creepy.

It's no obsession, I am just as outraged and disgusted as anyone else is about this case.

I cannot understand why she wouldn't disclose any of these details, when there was so much about the accident that was shared with the public, and as I said, even admitting it was her own fault.

At least if she did disclose to people, and her brain injuries were as severe as stated in the media, and "Severe" was all we were told, then perhaps people might be a bit more understanding as to how she ended up receiving over half a million in damages.

She made it everyone's business when she went public with this case.

AlekSmart · 22-10-2018 8:30pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Your obsession with knowing all the details of a childs injuries is a bit creepy.

I'd also be interested in forming a duo on the details thing.

For sure,this occurrence does not appear to have been as "Life Changing" as many other,far less well remunerated cases through the years ?

If the Judge had sensed any impropriety about publicity in this case,you can be assured a blanket ban would have been thrown over it

KevinCavan · 22-10-2018 8:50pm

The insurance company must be nuts. Hard to see any judge handing her more than €500,000. What were they so afraid, why didn’t they go all the way through the courts?

KevinCavan · 22-10-2018 8:51pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

In the years since this wan fell of the Tram,the situation along the James's to Red Cow stretch,has,if anything worsened,with regular demonstrations of "Damienism" to be seen Day & Night.

The 13 year olds are untouchable,and they know it.
Even Gardai are reluctant to be too rapid in responding to incidents involving "Minors" as they know well just what such an event will do to their days work.

Society,in it's wisdom,has elevated the "Minor" to a status which allows them to perpetrate all manner of woe upon everybody else...as Hallow'een will amply demonstrate next week.

This one just struck lucky in her ma's choice of Solicitor

Who is the solicitor? They must be good.

Through Hell and Back · 22-10-2018 8:59pm

KevinCavan wrote: »

The insurance company must be nuts. Hard to see any judge handing her more than €500,000. What were they so afraid, why didn’t they go all the way through the courts?

Exactly

As well as the fact that she knew she was doing something dangerous, and admitted it was her own fault!

The legal team for the Luas must have been useless. As I was saying, she had no problem approaching the media about this case and the details of it, why not share the extent of the injuries with us?

This case has even been displayed in the English media it is that outrageous.

cripplefight · 22-10-2018 10:57pm

jay0109 wrote: »

Interesting as I wasn't sure if compo payouts fell into means-testing reviews.
Where have you heard this?

I live close by.

skooterblue2 · 22-10-2018 11:13pm

KevinCavan wrote: »

The insurance company must be nuts. Hard to see any judge handing her more than €500,000. What were they so afraid, why didn’t they go all the way through the courts?

Why are the Insurance company settling?!!?!?? This is going to encourage every youth with an IQ below 80 like Fireflies to the LUAS. They should have stood strong and told her low IQ is not a winning lottery ticket.

ArmaniJeanss · 23-10-2018 10:42am

Irish Times reporting that medical experts estimated her injuries/claim at €10M (in a theoretical situation where she is zero % to blame), that her claim was for €4M (so roughly accepting 60% of the blame) before the settlement of ~€560K which indicates they see her as 90% responsible.

Not sure if that will make people feel better about it.

PlaneSpeeking · 23-10-2018 10:45am

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Why are the Insurance company settling?!!?!?? This is going to encourage every youth with an IQ below 80 like Fireflies to the LUAS. They should have stood strong and told her low IQ is not a winning lottery ticket.

As a regular red line user to Heuston, that IQ is a little on the high side.

tuxy · 23-10-2018 10:50am

I see, so that same medical expert could have been used in court and if the judge found it was only 80% her fault she would have walked away with over 1 million.
Also I think a court precedent in such matters is more worrying to the insurance companies than a settlement.

PlaneSpeeking · 23-10-2018 10:54am

Aren't payouts normally based on loss of potential earnings ? Benefits perhaps, but she was never going to work.

Her severe injuries didn't seem to stop her getting laid and having another scrounger for us to take care of.

tuxy · 23-10-2018 10:56am

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Aren't payouts normally based on loss of potential earnings ? Benefits perhaps, but she was never going to work.

Her severe injuries didn't seem to stop her getting laid and having another scrounger for us to take care of.

Also medical expenses and loss of quality of life. From what we see on social media it would seem that neither of these were much of an issue but what if some "expert" argued the case in court?

PlaneSpeeking · 23-10-2018 10:57am

tuxy wrote: »

Also medical expenses and loss of quality of life. From what we see on social media it would seem that neither of these were much of an issue but what if some "expert" argued the case in court?

How he did that with a straight face is beyond me!

tuxy · 23-10-2018 11:00am

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

How he did that with a straight face is beyond me!

Well he didn't as it was settled out of court, however if it did make it to court I'm sure his compensation for having to make a court appearance would do wonders for his acting ability.

There may be medical scans and reports from the time of the incident that work in her favor.

jay0109 · 23-10-2018 11:11am

As usual, looks like the insurance companies are only too happy to settle and then push up premiums to recover their loss

When the settlement was brought to Mr Justice Kevin Cross for High Court approval on Friday he commented there was a strong possibility the case would have been dismissed if it went to trial and Ms Kelly “would have ended up with nothing”.

And the auld entitlement culture is still alie and well

On Monday Ms Kelly’s sister Jennifer said her sister is afraid to leave the house because of the abuse received via social media.
“She has a child two weeks old, she deserves that money.

Through Hell and Back · 23-10-2018 6:02pm

What is so outrageous about this case is first of all, even at 13 years of age, she knew she was doing a dangerous activity, she admitted this, and also admitted it was her fault. I do believe this is contributory negligence established, and therefore she should have got nothing. How did she even get a legal team to take on this case, when she was admitting this?

Then the fact that her and her mother decided to see if they had a claim, in spite of them knowing it was her own fault. That is insane behaviour, not to mention completely immoral. Where on earth did they get the idea that she might have a case? It says a lot about them when they tried to see if they could profit from something that as dangerous and ridiculous as this incident.

Why didn't the Luas legal team fight this, and let it go to trial, where according to the papers, the judge said if it would have gone to trial it would have been thrown out. Why did they settle when the Luas legal team could have and should have let it go to trial, and get it thrown out?

How did the expert's reports come to the conclusion that the case was worth E4 million. Absolutely ridiculous. She is not paralysed, she is not in a wheelchair, she does not need round the clock care. She is able to live and function independently, again as per her Facebook page. And as I said according to her Facebook page, she passed all her exams being it Junior or Leaving Cert, I'm not sure - surely that proves her cognitive abilities are not that seriously damaged?

Even getting it reduced to over E500,000 that is still an absolutely ridiculous and outrageous amount of money, taking in all the above factors.

This is the most insane and ridiculous case I believe to have ever been settled on Irish soil, and although it was an agreed settlement, as it sets such a dangerous and ridiculous precedent for young people, I believe the Law Society or the President of the High Court should review and reevaluate this case to a sensible, fair and just manner, taking her actions and admissions into consideration and also for everyone else's sake.

jay0109 · 23-10-2018 9:10pm

The law society are happy out with this result. Their members have pocketed a tidy sum no doubt from the work on this and the payout.
And it'll also create more claims from people who felt their claims had no chance as it was all their own fault- they'll see the light now! So more fees for the leeches in the gowns and wigs

Nermal · 23-10-2018 9:45pm

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Irish Times reporting that medical experts estimated her injuries/claim at €10M (in a theoretical situation where she is zero % to blame), that her claim was for €4M (so roughly accepting 60% of the blame) before the settlement of ~€560K which indicates they see her as 90% responsible.

Not sure if that will make people feel better about it.

She is 100% responsible. If I jump off a cliff I am 100% responsible for doing so. The landowner isn't in any way responsible because he didn't put up a fence, or a sign saying 'cliff here'. Anything else is a mockery of justice.

KevinCavan wrote: »

The insurance company must be nuts. Hard to see any judge handing her more than €500,000. What were they so afraid, why didn’t they go all the way through the courts?

Read the news recently? There was absolutely a decent chance of one of the more bone-headed of the judiciary having a senior moment and deciding to throw a few million at her - they couldn't take the risk.

Insurers cannot stop compo culture within a court system that more or less feeds on it. If they settle, more people will claim. If they fight, they pay fees and lose as often as they win. The government have to put a stop to it, and they'll have to have the strength to face down a few uppity judges if they want to do it.

Liam McPoyle · 23-10-2018 10:18pm

Nermal wrote: »

She is 100% responsible. If I jump off a cliff I am 100% responsible for doing so. The landowner isn't in any way responsible because he didn't put up a fence, or a sign saying 'cliff here'. Anything else is a mockery of justice.

You'd think so but the reality is that with Irish law, the onus is on the landowner / proprietor to prevent people from doing stupid things.

I once saw a claim where a guy was at a wedding and took it upon himself to do a running jump over a wall around the perimeter. He landed on a rock and broke his femur. He tried to sue the hotel and failed. He then tried to sue the farmer that owned the field and he was successful, got 40 odd thousand and that was nearly 10 years ago.

The biggest problem is the parasitic legal system. Without them there wouldn't be nearly as many claims. Personal injuries are a licence to print money. There is a firm near our lady's hospital that has 24 hour neon lights on it advertising a "no win no fee" service for a raft of different claims. Remove them from the chain and you go a long way to reducing the amount of stupid payouts. It will never happen though. There is too much money to be made for them and the croniesism goes to the top of the government.

erica74 · 24-10-2018 8:07am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Cases for brain injuries can run into millions.

For people who have ended up with life limiting conditions and reduced life expectancy, people who are in and out of hospital weekly for numerous medical appointments. These sort of plaintiffs actually often get to keep their medical card even after a large settlement because their medical complaints are so severe. This woman has continued to live life to the full, you can't compare her to people whose lives have been irrevocably changed after a severe brain injury.

branie2 · 24-10-2018 4:54pm

No to both questions

Luas Surfing

Comments