Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Can I Sue The Council?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,438 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    ankaragucu wrote: »
    Seeing as they put reflective strips on them in the first place do you not think they should be maintained so that they are fit for purpose?

    Look,
    this again is why the country is fcked with insurance - you admit you did not see the bollard. Who is to know whether you would have seen it with the strip on it?
    Maybe the council should erect floodlights to illuminate the bollard or hire someone to assist people reversing their car....

    Indeed - it would be nice if things were perfect all the time - but you cannot blame the council for you reversing into a stationary object in any way.

    I don't see why you are happy to admit liability if it was a child you reversed into but not in this case.


  • Options
    #33
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,438 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    If you were the 5th person to do this, then perhaps 4 other people had already raised the issue with the council.

    If so, where the council not aware and responsible the for risk, but did not do anything about it time. As per the op, the bollard has since been removed, too late for the the OP unfortunately

    I’d say anyone would feel hard done by in the Ops situation, especially after being told of the previous incidents

    Could you request that they confirm if anyone else had reported the bollard to them Using the freedom of information request

    What is "In Time"?


  • Options
    #34
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    kippy wrote: »
    What is "In Time"?

    If 4 people had previously crashed into the bollard, then it would suggest that there was an issue with it

    Obviously if these other incidents all happened the day before it would be hard to expect the council to have rectified it, but if it happened over a timeframe were the council had been made aware, but just did nothing, then surely they should take some of the blame and cost. The other bollards were all different with reflectors.

    Couldn’t hurt to ask the council if anyone else had an accident with the bollard, based on the witness (security guard)


  • Options
    #35
    wench
    Registered Users Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭wench


    ankaragucu wrote: »
    Seeing as they put reflective strips on them in the first place do you not think they should be maintained so that they are fit for purpose?
    How often do you think they should check for damage/vandalism?
    Every week? Every day? A constant presence immediately carrying out repairs?


    I would have some sympathy if you had reversed into the pole, but to drive forward into it is just carelessness.


  • Options
    #36
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    wench wrote: »
    How often do you think they should check for damage/vandalism?
    Every week? Every day? A constant presence immediately carrying out repairs?


    I would have some sympathy if you had reversed into the pole, but to drive forward into it is just carelessness.

    If there had been 4 previous accidents involving the same bollard, then yes, they should have checked it and at least restored it to the correct condition. (If the other accidents had been reported)

    It appears they have removed it after the ops accident. Finally they did something


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    FluffPiece
    Registered Users Posts: 368 ✭✭FluffPiece


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    If there had been 4 previous accidents involving the same bollard, then yes, they should have checked it and at least restored it to the correct condition. (If they had been reported)

    It appears they have removed it after the ops accident. Finally they did something

    Op may have been the first to report it.

    If a year ago a Google maps image showed a reflective strip and in correct position, it's reasonable to say it's a relatively recent case if vandalism where the reflective strip was removed and once op brought it to their attention the bollard was reviewed and removed appropriately.

    As for op sueing, he can always try. He may or may not get lucky


  • Options
    #38
    Ginger83
    Registered Users Posts: 3,460 ✭✭✭Ginger83


    TheBoyConor wrote: »
    Unanimous opinions here.

    OP, you're bate. Leave it go I'd say.

    Could he not claim for his lost time as well?


  • Options
    #39
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,438 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    If 4 people had previously crashed into the bollard, then it would suggest that there was an issue with it

    Obviously if these other incidents all happened the day before it would be hard to expect the council to have rectified it, but if it happened over a timeframe were the council had been made aware, but just did nothing, then surely they should take some of the blame and cost. The other bollards were all different with reflectors.

    Couldn’t hurt to ask the council if anyone else had an accident with the bollard, based on the witness (security guard)

    How do the council and their workers prioritise work?


  • Options
    #40
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    kippy wrote: »
    How do the council and their workers prioritise work?

    What exactly is your point?

    If they have put something in place which has potentially caused 4 cases of damage, before the Op hit the bollard (that was defective), they have a duty of care

    Now if it was not on their priority list, that does not remove their duty of care surely

    Anyway, this is all hypothetical. If I was the op I would ask the council if other accidents had been reported, and if they were aware that the bollard did not have the reflector prior to the OPs accident

    This would be my response to their dismissal.

    To “People in the know”, can the op request this info using the a freedom of information request


  • Options
    #41
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,187 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What exactly is your point?

    If they have put something in place which has potentially caused 4 cases of damage, before the Op hit the bollard (that was defective), they have a duty of care

    Now if it was not on their priority list, that does not remove their duty of care surely

    Anyway, this is all hypothetical. If I was the op I would ask the council if other accidents had been reported, and if they were aware that the bollard did not have the reflector prior to the OPs accident

    This would be my response to their dismissal.

    To “People in the know”, can the op request this info using the a freedom of information request

    Already explained earlier. the council are not responsible for nonfeasance ie doing nothing. they are only responsible for malfeasance ie doing something that caused the accident. they did not cause the reflective strip to be removed so they are not liable.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Already explained earlier. the council are not responsible for nonfeasance ie doing nothing. they are only responsible for malfeasance ie doing something that caused the accident. they did not cause the reflective strip to be removed so they are not liable.

    Thanks for repeating :-)


  • Options
    #43
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    Small Claims court is a good idea.


  • Options
    #44
    Kimbot
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 18,452 Mod ✭✭✭✭Kimbot


    They could always counter claim with "sure how do we know you didn't remove the reflective strip to strengthen a claim"

    The main point here is that as a driver you have to be aware of your surroundings, you hit a bollard so you weren't very aware of your surroundings. Your car has headlights so even on approach you should have seen the bollard so the dark is not an excuse, or we're your lights not working 100%?


  • Options
    #45
    Eggs For Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,944 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    jimmycrackcorm wrote: »
    In a lot of cases though an insurer might be more amenable to pay up when the cost of doing so is less than the cost of defending the claim.

    Therein lies the crux of the problem. Nonsense claims being lodged in the knowledge the ridiculous cost of defending the claim means the claimant will be offered "go away" money.


  • Options
    #46
    Deub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,288 ✭✭✭Deub


    ankaragucu wrote: »
    it was one of three that had only recently been added to the other nine when they narrowed the entrance.

    By recently added, you mean at least since May 2018.


  • Options
    #47
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    Graces7 wrote: »
    Small Claims court is a good idea.

    The Small Claims Procedure (not a court) when used for small damage claims is in relation to an action involving a tort. With regards to liability of a council see this post onwards which explains the legal situation and the principles of misfeasance or nonfeasance:-

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=112010006

    Their liability in such situations has been long settled by the courts.


  • Options
    #48
    Johnny Sausage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 890 ✭✭✭Johnny Sausage


    Graces7 wrote: »
    Small Claims court is a good idea.

    Encouraging frivolous claims is not a good idea

    OP was not driving with due care and attention


  • Options
    #49
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,238 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Graces7 wrote: »
    Small Claims court is a good idea.
    Small claims procedure.

    Which you appear to have confused with Judge Judy.


  • Options
    #50
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,438 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What exactly is your point?

    If they have put something in place which has potentially caused 4 cases of damage, before the Op hit the bollard (that was defective), they have a duty of care

    Now if it was not on their priority list, that does not remove their duty of care surely

    Anyway, this is all hypothetical. If I was the op I would ask the council if other accidents had been reported, and if they were aware that the bollard did not have the reflector prior to the OPs accident

    This would be my response to their dismissal.

    To “People in the know”, can the op request this info using the a freedom of information request
    The OP is very much at fault here - how anyone can say otherwise is ridiculous.


  • Options
    #51
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    Johnny Sausage wrote: »
    Encouraging frivolous claims is not a good idea

    OP was not driving with due care and attention

    Arguable and with that amount of damage? I think she should and that it is far from frivolous in any way. The bollard was not properly finished; no reflective strip That is negligence.


    Over and out from me. Good luck OP


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,187 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Graces7 wrote: »
    Arguable and with that amount of damage? I think she should and that it is far from frivolous in any way. The bollard was not properly finished; no reflective strip That is negligence.


    Over and out from me. Good luck OP

    running away again as usual. you have no idea that the bollard was not properly finished. even the OP admits that the reflective strip was removed after the bollard was installed.


  • Options
    #53
    ratracer
    Registered Users Posts: 3,208 ✭✭✭ratracer


    €1900 damage, including a broken headlight, damage to the bonnet??
    It clearly wasn’t a small bollard, and you must have been travelling at an excessive speed to do such damage.
    This is entirely your own fault for not paying attention to your (non-moving) surroundings! So suck it up and stop trying to blame someone else for your own stupidity.


  • Options
    #54
    Johnny Sausage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 890 ✭✭✭Johnny Sausage


    Graces7 wrote: »
    Arguable and with that amount of damage? I think she should and that it is far from frivolous in any way. The bollard was not properly finished; no reflective strip That is negligence.


    Over and out from me. Good luck OP


    Lol - ok sure lets all claim when we are at fault for things because someone on the internet thinks its okay


  • Options
    #55
    Eggs For Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,944 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    Johnny Sausage wrote: »
    Lol - ok sure lets all claim when we are at fault for things because someone on the internet thinks its okay

    Poster was just trying to egg on the OP to take a course of action they wouldn't dream of doing themselves


  • Options
    #56
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,712 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    Moderator: not legal discussion.

    Please remember that unless you are a qualified lawyer advising a client, you have literally no business whatsoever advising people on liability. Such advice is prohibited by the forum charter and is rule number one in this forum.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement