Schoolgirl gets €5,000 for slander and assault on Luas

Mr. Loverman

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1027/1224282072322.html

In summary:

A 15 year old girl from council flats in Dublin tries to get on a Luas tram but is blocked by Luas security as they do not believe she has a ticket.

The girl says this caused her distress for some amount of time after the incident.

The girl was unable to provide any evidence (apart from her word) that she had a ticket in court.

She gets paid €5,000.

EH WTF?!

mikemac

Can you copy and paste the article?

Irish Times is a subscription site

Mr. Loverman

feelingstressed wrote: »

Can you copy and paste the article?

Irish Times is a subscription site

Welcome to 2010. Irish Times has been free for years now.

Cookie_Monster

what the hell, that's ridiculous :mad:

mikemac

I'm doing something wrong so, it's asking me to pay a subscription fee

Not fair

Mr. Loverman

feelingstressed wrote: »

I'm doing something wrong so, it's asking me to pay a subscription fee

Not fair

Holy **** you're right. For some reason if you click on the link it wants you to pay.

Just go to irishtimes.com and in the Ireland section (in the "courts" part) you'll see the story.

mikemac

That's because you have the incorrect link, silly

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1027/1224282072322.html

A SCHOOLGIRL who was restrained from boarding the Luas in Dublin despite having a ticket has been awarded €5,000 damages for slander and assault.

Barrister Fiona Pekaar told the Circuit Civil Court that Shauna Dowdall in 2008 (then 15) had bought a ticket to the city centre at the Fatima stop near her home in St Theresa’s Gardens, Dublin.

She had travelled on the Luas to the Museum stop where she had got off, midway in her journey, to meet a friend. As they had attempted to board the tram, she had been pushed back on to the platform on the basis she did not have a valid ticket.

Ms Pekaar told Circuit Court president Mr Justice Matthew Deery that Shauna, who is now 17, had felt embarrassment and distress for some time after the incident at what had happened.

She said Shauna had a valid ticket and it had been her intention to continue into town with her friend. She had stepped off the tram at the Museum to meet her friend but had been prevented from boarding again.

Ms Pekaar said that unfortunately Shauna had not retained her ticket and the evidence would be confined to that of herself and her friend.

She said the defendants which operate the Luas, Veolia Transport Ireland Ltd, had offered €5,000 damages to Shauna and she was recommending that the court approve of the offer. Mr Justice Deery approved the settlement and directed the money be paid into court until Shauna’s 18th birthday next July.

gurramok

The link jumps to the archive section which is subscription.

If the article is correct, it just shows the compo culture that exists and how out of touch judges are rewarding in cases like these.

Mr. Loverman

feelingstressed wrote: »

That's because you have the incorrect link, silly

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1027/1224282072322.html

Did you just call me silly?!

I'm taking you to court!

Snakeblood

She got pushed by people who had no right to push her, and from the article, it doesn't say they even asked for her ticket.. I don't really see the problem.

Cookie_Monster

why does the article say she had a ticket and then later say she didn't. A bit contradictory, no.

She clearly did not have a ticket on her and regardless of whether she bought one or not you have to keep it on you until you complete your journey. She should be fined for no ticket and wasting the courts time also

Dravokivich

She had travelled on the Luas to the Museum stop where she had got off, midway in her journey, to meet a friend.

She got off... er... ticket is 1 time use only, not get on / off as much as you like till you reach the last stop avail on the zone listed as a destination...

Snakeblood

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why does the article say she had a ticket and then later say she didn't. A bit contradictory, no.

She clearly did not have a ticket on her and regardless of whether she bought one or not you have to keep it on you until you complete your journey. She should be fined for no ticket and wasting the courts time also

It said she claims she had a ticket at the time, and that two years later, she does not have a ticket.

MrStuffins

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

She clearly did not have a ticket on her and regardless of whether she bought one or not you have to keep it on you until you complete your journey. She should be fined for no ticket and wasting the courts time also

What makes you think this?

Yakult

Snakeblood wrote: »

She got pushed by people who had no right to push her,

am.... Yeah they kinda do. Its their job to stop people from getting free lifts on the luas...


Country is a joke, I mite aswell head up to dublin tomoro for an easy €5000 :rolleyes:


Personally I think nothing should have been made of it, (no ticket no proof etc.) and she probably exaggerated everything. Like girls her age do..

Mr. Loverman

Snakeblood wrote: »

She got pushed by people who had no right to push her, and from the article, it doesn't say they even asked for her ticket.. I don't really see the problem.

Maybe I'm old (32) but when I was 15 that kind of thing wouldn't have bothered me and certainly the thought of contacting a solicitor wouldn't have crossed my mind...!

MrStuffins

Dravokivich wrote: »

She got off... er... ticket is 1 time use only, not get on / off as much as you like till you reach the last stop avail on the zone listed as a destination...

She was getting back on the same tram no?

I've been on a busy Luas in the morning and sometimes those stood at the door need to step of briefly to let others off....... does this make their ticket invalid?

Saadyst

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why does the article say she had a ticket and then later say she didn't. A bit contradictory, no.

She clearly did not have a ticket on her and regardless of whether she bought one or not you have to keep it on you until you complete your journey. She should be fined for no ticket and wasting the courts time also

I think they meant that she didn't keep her ticket for the trial.. not sure

stovelid

Another sad story from the imbecilic claims culture.

All of which will be clawed back from everybody in fare increases anyway.

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

A 15 year old girl from council flats in Dublin

So what?

seamus

Balance of probabilities most likely. Veolia probably couldn't prove that she didn't have a ticket, so we must err on the most likely scenario that she did indeed have a ticket and was incorrectly stopped.

It's worth noting that Veolia made an offer of €5,000, the court didn't award this amount.

The fact that the girl came from council flats is irrelevant. Does that mean that she probably didn't pay?

She most likely threw the ticket in the bin, but when she got home her parents decided to make a few bob out of it rather than just forget about it.

gurramok

Thanks for posting correct article

So, they(assuming inspectors) pushed the girl who had not a ticket on her off the tram and she gets 5 grand. Must try the no ticket lark next time. Maybe I should pretend i'm a junkie, get free travel and get no free hassle from the inspectors :P

PCPhoto

the strange thing is .... she didn't keep the ticket (if it existed) .... and CCTV from the Luas wasn't available (conveniently)

my guess is that the Luas people reviewed the footage and her version of being refused access would have been shown (or the CCTV cameras don't/didn't work)... but if she actually had a ticket we will never know.

it essentially came down to an offer from the Luas people which was accepted by the girl - through her father.... what wasn't mentioned in the article was the legal fee's were €4,500 .... so she was awarded €5,000+legal fees.

(I was in court for the case)

Snakeblood

R_H_C_P wrote: »

am.... Yeah they kinda do. Its their job to stop people from getting free lifts on the luas...


Country is a joke, I mite aswell head up to dublin tomoro for an easy €5000 :rolleyes:


Personally I think nothing should have been made of it, (no ticket no proof etc.) and she probably exaggerated everything. Like girls her age do..

No, they have the right to fine people who are getting free lifts on the luas. Until they prove she doesn't have a ticket, they keep their hands off her.

Dravokivich

MrStuffins wrote: »

She was getting back on the same tram no?

I've been on a busy Luas in the morning and sometimes those stood at the door need to step of briefly to let others off....... does this make their ticket invalid?

Reading the article, it suggests she had left and caught a different tram... if it was the same tram... why would security have removed her from it if they saw she was on it already?

Which is not the same as the instance you described.

seamus

gurramok wrote: »

So, they(assuming inspectors) pushed the girl who had not a ticket on her off the tram and she gets 5 grand.

Where did you get the idea that she had no ticket on her?

Mr. Loverman

seamus wrote: »

Where did you get the idea that she had no ticket on her?

The article says they could not present any physical evidence a ticket existed.

As someone who gets that train a lot I have noticed that around James' there appears to be a lot of people who get on without a ticket. I'm not saying she didn't have a ticket, but it does appear to be a bit of a free for all on that stretch of the Luas.

Snakeblood

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

The article says they could not present any physical evidence a ticket existed.

That doesn't mean she didn't have it at the time.

Yakult

She had a ticket, but it wasnt VALID*. So thats pretty much like having no ticket. He was restraining her, which imo is what Id do and any other business would do in similar situation.

Christ how many times have I been refused entry with a valid ticket and man handled. Dont go crying to the courts for money. People will at any cost try to suck every penny they can.

*According to article.

MrStuffins

R_H_C_P wrote: »

am.... Yeah they kinda do. Its their job to stop people from getting free lifts on the luas...

But it is not their job to push about people who are NOT getting free rides.... like this girl.

Hence the settlement!

PCPhoto

Saadyst wrote: »

I think they meant that she didn't keep her ticket for the trial.. not sure

trial ???

it was a hearing in the Civil Court - her barrister, solicitor ...the judge, her dad and her ..... the reporter, me, another photographer ....can't remember if there was a barrister for the luas people or not - I don't think so.

Gyalist

She said the defendants which operate the Luas, Veolia Transport Ireland Ltd, had offered €5,000 damages to Shauna and she was recommending that the court approve of the offer. Mr Justice Deery approved the settlement and directed the money be paid into court until Shauna’s 18th birthday next July.

It's puzzling to me that Veolia would let this go to trial and then fold for €5000. Unless, of course, the cost of their legal representation far exceeded the damages that they offered.

PCPhoto

seamus wrote: »

Balance of probabilities most likely. Veolia probably couldn't prove that she didn't have a ticket, so we must err on the most likely scenario that she did indeed have a ticket and was incorrectly stopped.

It's worth noting that Veolia made an offer of €5,000, the court didn't award this amount.

The fact that the girl came from council flats is irrelevant. Does that mean that she probably didn't pay?

She most likely threw the ticket in the bin, but when she got home her parents decided to make a few bob out of it rather than just forget about it.

the court awarded her that amount - the judge approved the settlement offer of €5,000

Yakult

MrStuffins wrote: »

But it is not their job to push about people who are NOT getting free rides.... like this girl.

Hence the settlement!

How do we know she didnt warrent it? We dont, but I dont think someone working on a busy Luas would push a young girl for not having a valid ticket..

Snakeblood

R_H_C_P wrote: »

She had a ticket, but it wasnt VALID*. So thats pretty much like having no ticket. He was restraining her, which imo is what Id do and any other business would do in similar situation.

Christ how many times have I been refused entry with a valid ticket and man handled. Dont go crying to the courts for money. People will at any cost try to suck every penny they can.

*According to article.

Ms Pekaar told Circuit Court president Mr Justice Matthew Deery that Shauna, who is now 17, had felt embarrassment and distress for some time after the incident at what had happened.

She said Shauna had a valid ticket and it had been her intention to continue into town with her friend. She had stepped off the tram at the Museum to meet her friend but had been prevented from boarding again.

Gyalist

PCPhoto wrote: »

trial ???

it was a hearing in the Civil Court - her barrister, solicitor ...the judge, her dad and her ..... the reporter, me, another photographer ....can't remember if there was a barrister for the luas people or not - I don't think so.

Maybe Veolia (or more likely, their insurers) reckoned that the cost of defending the case was not worth it and just preferred to settle.

MrStuffins

R_H_C_P wrote: »

How do we know she didnt warrent it? We dont, but I dont think someone working on a busy Luas would push a young girl for not having a valid ticket..

Well Veolia do, and they paid her €5000 for the inconvenience.

mikemac

Gyalist wrote: »

Maybe Veolia reckoned that the cost of defending the case was not worth it and just preferred to settle.

Probably.
But long term it might have been in their interest to fight it to the end

Will we see an explosion of similar cases against Veolia now? They don't want to become an easy target

Mr. Loverman

Snakeblood wrote: »

Ms Pekaar told Circuit Court president Mr Justice Matthew Deery that Shauna, who is now 17, had felt embarrassment and distress for some time after the incident at what had happened.

She said Shauna had a valid ticket and it had been her intention to continue into town with her friend. She had stepped off the tram at the Museum to meet her friend but had been prevented from boarding again.

Do you understand though that she had no proof she had a ticket?

Anyone can say anything about anything, e.g. "I had a million euros but I lost it." Does that mean I really had a million euros?

Mr. Loverman

feelingstressed wrote: »

Probably.
But long term it might have been in their interest to fight it to the end

Will we see an explosion of similar cases against Veolia now? They don't want to become an easy target

If I "can't find" my ticket and they accuse me of not having a ticket (i.e. breaking the law) can I sue them for slander?

Snakeblood

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Do you understand though that she had no proof she had a ticket?

Anyone can say anything about anything, e.g. "I had a million euros but I lost it." Does that mean I really had a million euros?

Yeah, I'm not going to call you a liar over a ticket. Veolia weren't willing to call her a liar either.

seamus

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Do you understand though that she had no proof she had a ticket?

Anyone can say anything about anything, e.g. "I had a million euros but I lost it." Does that mean I really had a million euros?

Balance of probabilities. She was riding on the Luas, therefore the most probable assertion is that she had a ticket.

You're not a millionaire, therefore the most probable assertion is that you didn't lose one million euro. However, if you said, "I had a tenner, but I lost it", then it's very likely that you did indeed have a tenner. See the difference?

If I "can't find" my ticket and they accuse me of not having a ticket (i.e. breaking the law) can I sue them for slander?

Only if you're on the Luas at the time - because they are correct, you don't have a ticket. However if they approach you after the fact and claim that you didn't have a ticket, but can't prove that you didn't, that's a whole other kettle of fish.

There's nothing in the article to suggest that she didn't have a ticket on her when she was stopped from boarding the tram.

Snakeblood

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Maybe I'm old (32) but when I was 15 that kind of thing wouldn't have bothered me and certainly the thought of contacting a solicitor wouldn't have crossed my mind...!

I'm 36 and if I was 15 and someone had pushed me off a Luas I was entitled to be on you can ****ing bet I'd be onto someone about it.

Snakeblood

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

If I "can't find" my ticket and they accuse me of not having a ticket (i.e. breaking the law) can I sue them for slander?

If you can't find your ticket, you pay the fine. The girl wasn't apparently asked to produce her ticket, as it didn't mention it. She just was pushed out and not allowed on.

Mr. Loverman

seamus wrote: »

Balance of probabilities. She was riding on the Luas, therefore the most probable assertion is that she had a ticket.

You're not a millionaire, therefore the most probable assertion is that you didn't lose one million euro. However, if you said, "I had a tenner, but I lost it", then it's very likely that you did indeed have a tenner. See the difference?

Yep, I know what you mean. Still though... it is easy to say you had a ticket.

Snakeblood wrote: »

I'm 36 and if I was 15 and someone had pushed me off a Luas I was entitled to be on you can ****ing bet I'd be onto someone about it.

Suing the Luas would cross your mind? We're very different people so.

PS She was NOT entitled to be on the Luas. Her ticket was for her previous journey!

Gyalist

feelingstressed wrote: »

Probably.
But long term it might have been in their interest to fight it to the end

Will we see an explosion of similar cases against Veolia now? They don't want to become an easy target

I went through a vaguely similar experience a few years ago. A young lady claimed to have fallen in my store and I received a letter from her solicitors demanding the name of our insurance company. I was prepared to fight it to the end as we had evidence on the CCTV that she did not fall but our insurance company quietly paid up.

PCPhoto

Snakeblood wrote: »

Ms Pekaar told Circuit Court president Mr Justice Matthew Deery that Shauna, who is now 17, had felt embarrassment and distress for some time after the incident at what had happened.

She said Shauna had a valid ticket and it had been her intention to continue into town with her friend. She had stepped off the tram at the Museum to meet her friend but had been prevented from boarding again.

according to the girl (Shauna) she had a valid ticket - but we do not know if this is true - we can only assume she is telling the truth because she did not keep the ticket.

we do not know if the "security" person pushed her or not - because we do not have CCTV of the event...we do not even know if the matter even happened.

she made an accusation that she was not allowed on the luas - luas people accepted her version and offered €5,000 - she accepted and as is the case with ALL cases involving a minor - the offer must be approved by the court.... this happened yesterday - whoop de doo - cases similar to this happen every week.

kids turn up to the Civil Court every week claiming to have fallen and injured themselves which is never their fault.....its not the kids that are to blame - its the parents.

I broke my arm playing football in fields near my home - was tackled and smashed my arm off a fairly big boulder - which the council put into the field to stop "travellers" from parking there .... as far as I was concerned ....it was an accident, as far as my parents are concerned it was my fault....nowadays - the parents look to sue because "its always someone elses fault"

falling down and getting injured as a kid is part of growing up - kids should not be allowed to sue unless the child is severely damaged. (my personal opinion)

Snakeblood

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Suing the Luas would cross your mind? We're very different people so.

I guess so. Someone pushing me when they had no right to do so, I'd call assault. Seriously, like. Just because someone is a minor doesn't mean adults can give them a cuff on the ear and send them on their way. They have rights.

Mr. Loverman

Snakeblood wrote: »

I guess so. Someone pushing me when they had no right to do so, I'd call assault. Seriously, like. Just because someone is a minor doesn't mean adults can give them a cuff on the ear and send them on their way. They have rights.

They blocked her getting on the train. I wouldn't consider that similar to actually hitting someone.

Did she have to go to hospital with injuries or anything like that?

I know I am wrong though. Any sort of physical contact is assault. The world is mad!

Snakeblood

PCPhoto wrote: »

I broke my arm playing football in fields near my home - was tackled and smashed my arm off a fairly big boulder - which the council put into the field to stop "travellers" from parking there .... as far as I was concerned ....it was an accident, as far as my parents are concerned it was my fault....nowadays - the parents look to sue because "its always someone elses fault"

falling down and getting injured as a kid is part of growing up - kids should not be allowed to sue unless the child is severely damaged. (my personal opinion)

That was your fault though. You ran into a boulder, or fell on one. This girl was pushed out of the Luas by someone.

If an adult shoved you off a bus when you were a kid when you had done absolutely nothing to deserve it, would you have thought 'Well, that was an accident'?

PCPhoto

Gyalist wrote: »

Maybe Veolia (or more likely, their insurers) reckoned that the cost of defending the case was not worth it and just preferred to settle.

well her legal fee's were €4,500 - so in total they would be paying

€5,000 + costs(€4,500) and their own legal fee's (so it was a fairly expensive court date for them)

Mr. Loverman

Snakeblood wrote: »

That was your fault though. You ran into a boulder, or fell on one. This girl was pushed out of the Luas by someone.

If an adult shoved you off a bus when you were a kid when you had done absolutely nothing to deserve it, would you have thought 'Well, that was an accident'?

But would you sue them?!

Seriously like.