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

Hannibal Smith

I don't understand what the issue is. The girl bought a ticket to go into the city centre, got off mid way to meet a friend, got back on. The security guards said the ticket wasn't valid because she didn't buy it at the same stop she was boarding. This is incorrect. Your ticket is valid for the journey you pay for, for a certain period after you purchase the ticket, regardless of how many times you get on or off in between. Hence the defendants were in the wrong and compensation was paid. How is that ridiculous?

Also, a settlement had been reached between the two parties, the judge just had to rubber stamp it, which has to be done in cases involving minors.

amacachi

seamus wrote: »

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

Have you ever been on the Luas? :pac:

Snakeblood

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

But would you sue them?!

Seriously like.

I don't know. It'd depend on whether I got a full apology or not. Considering the general c.untishness of companies, I might.

prinz

Snakeblood wrote: »

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'?

I would have called her/him a tosser and gotten the next bus. All over in a couple of minutes. Forgotten about in hours.

By the by have often been refused entry to a bus, as a kid and as an adult with a valid ticket and all. Full up boss, they say, and close the doors on your face.

prinz

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

The security guards said the ticket wasn't valid because she didn't buy it at the same stop she was boarding..

We don't know if that's what was said at all. Or if that was even a reason.

Snakeblood

prinz wrote: »

I would have called her/him a tosser and gotten the next bus. All over in a couple of minutes. Forgotten about in hours.

By the by have often been refused entry to a bus, as a kid and as an adult with a valid ticket and all. Full up boss, they say, and close the doors on your face.

I don't think kids should just take stuff like that, and I don't think staff should think that that's a valid way to treat people.

A full bus is different. They can't allow more people on, so they're not unjustly singling people out. Everyone who won't fit on doesn't get on, they don't pick you out of the line up and go, 'Not you, Prinz'. That's an amusing story about how full buses can be.

jackiebaron

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 get the impression that she didn't have the ticket with her IN COURT. She claims to have had a valid ticket when getting on the Luas. As for travelling a portion of your journey, getting off and then getting back on...I don't think you're correct in your assumption that once you get off, your ticket is invalid. If what you say is true (which I doubt) then it ought to be changed. If I am on the DART or the Luas with a valid ticket and I'm travelling from, say, Pearse St. to Howth, I should be allowed to get off and get back on using the same ticket. If I need to take a piss I shouldn't have to buy an extra ticket just because Dublin Bus or whoever runs these services don't provide toilets. I should also be allowed to get off if I'm not feeling well and get some fresh air.

Anyway, you're very quick to side with authority and condemn the schoolgirl even though the operators OFFERED to pay 5000k compensation. They didn't fight the case, did they? They just ponied up because it seems they knew they had made a serious mistake.

But of course all that is immaterial to you, right? Here's just a little skanger from Fatima Mansions looking to screw the system and sponge off good taxpayers such as yourself.

senordingdong

The system works!

Hannibal Smith

prinz wrote: »

I would have called her/him a tosser and gotten the next bus. All over in a couple of minutes. Forgotten about in hours.

By the by have often been refused entry to a bus, as a kid and as an adult with a valid ticket and all. Full up boss, they say, and close the doors on your face.

If the person pushed you off the luas, even though you'd paid the correct fare? No way would i let them away with that if it was me.

Refusing entry on a bus when it's full is totally different. Firstly it's a safety issue and secondly you haven't paid yet.

Paparazzo

well, that's €5k smirnoff ice will be getting next year

prinz

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

Refusing entry on a bus when it's full is totally different. Firstly it's a safety issue and secondly you haven't paid yet.

What if I have a prepaid ticket? What if the bus wasn't even that full?

Hannibal Smith

prinz wrote: »

We don't know if that's what was said at all. Or if that was even a reason.

'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'.

Logical Fallacy

They need to ask you for your Ticket while you are on the Luas, they can't approach you on the platform. This situation could be easily avoided if the staff had a ****ing clue how to do their job correctly.

Fine hungry ***** ****ed up, end of.

Hannibal Smith

prinz wrote: »

What if I have a prepaid ticket? What if the bus wasn't even that full?

prepaid tickets have to be validated in a machine, therefore you still haven't paid for your journey yet.

Not even that full is subjective, fact is a bus can only take so many standing passengers, once that capacity is reached I guess, in practise, it's up to the bus driver if he fancies taking more.

prinz

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

'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'.

What it doesn't say is that she actually produced any ticket at all when she attempted to get back on the Luas.

Hannibal Smith

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

They need to ask you for your Ticket while you are on the Luas, they can't approach you on the platform. This situation could be easily avoided if the staff had a ****ing clue how to do their job correctly.

Fine hungry ***** ****ed up, end of.

I travel on the Luas everyday and find the staff very competent. Obviously there are the one off's, same in every other job who mess up and end up in situations like in the OP, but otherwise I think they are very good at what they do.

Snakeblood

prinz wrote: »

What it doesn't say is that she actually produced any ticket at all when she attempted to get back on the Luas.

It also doesn't say she pulled a gun.

Who exactly produces a ticket getting on the luas? You wait for the inspector to ask you.

Paparazzo

Paparazzo wrote: »

well, that's €5k smirnoff ice will be getting next year

Some folks are unbelievably narrow minded :rolleyes:

Hannibal Smith

prinz wrote: »

What it doesn't say is that she actually produced any ticket at all when she attempted to get back on the Luas.

then surely it would have said she didn't have a ticket

PCPhoto

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.

Awww c'mon .... thats one of the things which is wrong with this country ..... feckin' nanny state.

no offence to you personally but that sort of attitude allows for so many of our tax monies to be wasted:

- Garda Compensation (for those injured or bruised in the line of duty)
- High Court, Supreme Court even European court cases on why people should stay in the country even though the government has said they are to be deported.
- kids claiming compo for any inuries they receive - even if there is contributory negligence....
there was a high court case recently where a woman was suing Penney's because she sat too close to an open fire while wearing a nightgown purchased at penney's and it caught fire !!!
- I've seen cases where the child is awarded money for an injury and the parent asks for a payout of the money so they can take the child on a holiday or buy the child a computer and printer...or even yesterday a 4yr old was awarded €12,000 for an injury and the mother wanted €3,000 to put the child in a montessory school (the money most likely would have been spent on the parent - fortunately the judge didnt allow the payout and seconds later the judge was asked if he would allow a payout for a family holiday out of another case)

its the parents that are pushing this - the kids are only pawns in it.

Long Term Louth

" SCHOOLGIRL who was "restrained",

It is the force or extent of this accusation that requires scrutiny, and remember the damages were offered, perhaps an admission of guilt on Luas behalf.

I'd imagine any parent of a 15 yo girl would feel extremely vexed should their daughter be restrained for whatever reason, although to claim for it may be extreme.

marco_polo

prinz wrote: »

What it doesn't say is that she actually produced any ticket at all when she attempted to get back on the Luas.

It does not appear she was she was even given any opportunity to produce her ticket before getting shoved off? In fairness.

PCPhoto

prinz wrote: »

What it doesn't say is that she actually produced any ticket at all when she attempted to get back on the Luas.

from her account she wasn't given an opportunity to produce the ticket

ILA

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

Rubbish.

Obviously the settlement was voluntarily offered by Veoila, meaning they pretty much admitted liability in this case and didn't put up an defence.

If they thought they could win and afford to have the case argued, they would have done so. The legal advice they were given must have indicated that there was a strong likelihood that they would lose and that it was better to pay out.

This one is a gimme.

Cookie_Monster

MrStuffins wrote: »

What makes you think this?

she bought a ticket, used it, got off, therefore completing its valid usage and got back on without buying a new one. so didn't have a valid ticket on her.

prinz

Snakeblood wrote: »

Who exactly produces a ticket getting on the luas? You wait for the inspector to ask you.

I'd produce a ticket if I was asked to produce one. If I couldn't produce one I'd be asked to get back off. Have seen the exact same scenario played out on the Luas a few times. Inspector waits by the door, couple of likely lads wander on, asks them if they have tickets, about they turn and wander back off the Luas before it moves off.

Hannibal Smith

PCPhoto wrote: »

Awww c'mon .... thats one of the things which is wrong with this country ..... feckin' nanny state.

no offence to you personally but that sort of attitude allows for so many of our tax monies to be wasted:

- Garda Compensation (for those injured or bruised in the line of duty)
- High Court, Supreme Court even European court cases on why people should stay in the country even though the government has said they are to be deported.
- kids claiming compo for any inuries they receive - even if there is contributory negligence....
there was a high court case recently where a woman was suing Penney's because she sat too close to an open fire while wearing a nightgown purchased at penney's and it caught fire !!!
- I've seen cases where the child is awarded money for an injury and the parent asks for a payout of the money so they can take the child on a holiday or buy the child a computer and printer...or even yesterday a 4yr old was awarded €12,000 for an injury and the mother wanted €3,000 to put the child in a montessory school (the money most likely would have been spent on the parent - fortunately the judge didnt allow the payout and seconds later the judge was asked if he would allow a payout for a family holiday out of another case)

its the parents that are pushing this - the kids are only pawns in it.

You're missing the point...the judge didn't award these damages, he was approving a settlement.

darragh16

RoverJames wrote: »

Some folks are unbelievably narrow minded :rolleyes:

Yeah she'd probably mix it up a bit...

prinz

marco_polo wrote: »

It does not appear she was she was even given any opportunity to produce her ticket before getting shoved off? In fairness.

PCPhoto wrote: »

from her account she wasn't given an opportunity to produce the ticket

Possibly. Then again all we have is her word against the operators. No real evidence at all. Nice to see how quick people are to accept any allegation and accusation.

Snakeblood

PCPhoto wrote: »

Awww c'mon .... thats one of the things which is wrong with this country ..... feckin' nanny state.

no offence to you personally but that sort of attitude allows for so many of our tax monies to be wasted:

Tax money being wasted is a completely separate issue. I don't want anyone giving up their rights.

Hannibal Smith

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

she bought a ticket, used it, got off, therefore completing its valid usage and got back on without buying a new one. so didn't have a valid ticket on her.

The Luas doesn't work like a bus. You buy a ticket for a certain journey. So if she bought a ticket from Fatima to the City Centre, it's valid for that journey, for a certain time (an hour and a half I think) after you purchase it.

It's not like Dublin Bus where once you get off you've completed your journey and have to get another ticket if you want to start it up again.

Girl from council flats...

because girls from the burbs are angels .:)

Snakeblood

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

she bought a ticket, used it, got off, therefore completing its valid usage and got back on without buying a new one. so didn't have a valid ticket on her.

Veolia didn't contest that the theoretical ticket wasn't valid.

PCPhoto

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'?

I was tackled and as a result hit my arm off the boulder - which shouldnt have been on a public play area (only that some bright spark from the council didnt want "travellers" setting up home there....it was only a small grassy area in a housing estate.

anyway thats neither here nor there - back on topic of the girl who got 5K for slander and assault.

if it was me and I was pushed off a bus when I was a kid I probably would have cried - and eventually gotten over it - probably in less than an hour !! ...and completely forgotten about it within a couple of hours....I certainly wouldn't have sued (and I doubt my parents would have ran to a solicitor on my behalf)

Hannibal Smith

prinz wrote: »

Possibly. Then again all we have is her word against the operators. No real evidence at all.

are we trying the case now?

Snakeblood

PCPhoto wrote: »

if it was me and I was pushed off a bus when I was a kid I probably would have cried - and eventually gotten over it - probably in less than an hour !! ...and completely forgotten about it within a couple of hours....I certainly wouldn't have sued (and I doubt my parents would have ran to a solicitor on my behalf)

If you were 15 and embarassed publically and in front of your friend?

PCPhoto

prinz wrote: »

Possibly. Then again all we have is her word against the operators. No real evidence at all. Nice to see how quick people are to accept any allegation and accusation.

which is exactly as her barrister said ..... but Veolia made a compensatory offer of €5,000 which was accepted and approved by the courts.

Veolia must have asked the "security" if any such incident occurred ...and if he denied they would have made a choice to battle it in court or accept her version and offer cash to go away...and not make it come before the courts.... unfortunately for them because she's a minor the offer must be approved by the courts.

prinz

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

are we trying the case now?

Nope. Does that mean we should accept one version of it as total truth and make remarks about Veolia Limited and their staff?

Motley Crue

I have to congratulate the barrister on this particular occasion. It seems free legal aid might actually work.

Thankfully someone was sensible enough to wait until the girl turned 18

I'm sorry if that seems harsh, but this is disgusting, how can anyone be caused a massive amount of stress and embarrassment after an incident like this to warrant £5k of compensation. I was tormented in school by some little brat when I was younger. Really got to me until I stood up for myself. Should I sue him for embarrassment and emotional distress? Come on!

marco_polo

prinz wrote: »

Possibly. Then again all we have is her word against the operators. No real evidence at all. Nice to see how quick people are to accept any allegation and accusation.

All we are left to go on is that the offered a settlement of 5000 without contesting the case.

Now perhaps the operators of a tram service with a turnover of I believe 25 million or so didn't have the cash to fund a court battle, but I doubt that somehow. The alternative, that the were in the wrong and had an unwinnable case seems the most likey explaination

seamus

Actually, this is much simpler now that I think about it.

In a defamation suit, the onus is on the person making the remark to prove that their remark was true.

So it really doesn't matter whether or not she had a ticket. Veolia would have to prove that she didn't have a ticket at the time. They couldn't, they lose.

prinz

PCPhoto wrote: »

which is exactly as her barrister said ......

Exactly. Which makes me wonder why there are a few posters here who know for 100% fact she did have a valid ticket and was assaulted....

prinz

marco_polo wrote: »

The alternative, that the were in the wrong and had an unwinnable case seems the most likey explaination

You can be in the right and still have an unwinnable case. Neither side could back up anything. Easier for all if Veolia cough up, saves time, money, effort, and court space.

PCPhoto

Snakeblood wrote: »

Tax money being wasted is a completely separate issue. I don't want anyone giving up their rights.

I agree tax monies wasted is a seperate issue - but it is linked as there are plenty of cases taken against councils and the MIBI where similar awards are made every week (PIAB approved or not).... on the same day there was a number of other awards made - one person got €35,000 for injuries... most got between €10K-€15K.

Can I ask a question to you snakeblood ? does a person who comes into this country as a refugee/asylum seeker have the right to stay here if they continually break the law.... can they refuse to accept the governments decision to reject their application for asylum ? my opinion is that if they break the law they should be deported on the next available flight.

Snakeblood

prinz wrote: »

Nope. Does that mean we should accept one version of it as total truth and make remarks about Veolia Limited and their staff?

I'd be inclined to believe the version that was accepted by Veolia and which they paid 5 grand damages for.

Has anyone insulted their staff at large? It's not like they're the guards or politicians.

Hannibal Smith

prinz wrote: »

Nope. Does that mean we should accept one version of it as total truth and make remarks about Veolia Limited and their staff?

No, and in fairness, i have only made postive remarks about Veolia.

However, none of us can be definite about what made credible evidence in the case, particularly when there was never even a trial.

kev_s88

R_H_C_P wrote: »

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

actually their job is to fine people who try to get a free lift on the Luas. they have no rights to push someone off a LUAS.

prinz

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

No, and in fairness, i have only made postive remarks about Veolia..

True, and I never said you didn't (before the suing starts)

Hannibal Smith

prinz wrote: »

Exactly. Which makes me wonder why there are a few posters here who know for 100% fact she did have a valid ticket and was assaulted....

who said that? We're all only going from the article, same as you.

Hannibal Smith

prinz wrote: »

True, and I never said you didn't (before the suing starts)

too late, a summons has been sent to your IP addy