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

PCPhoto

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....

I was in the court for the case !!

it is symptomatic of many cases which go through the courts every week.... Parents are to blame.

Won't somebody please think of the children (in my best Maud flanders voice)

kylith

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

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.

Correct. I've just checked a Luas ticket and it just says that the journey must be completed within 90 minutes.

marco_polo

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....

The thread was started with the thinly veiled premise that the girl was essentially making it up and the claim was fraud. Of course I do not know the full facts of the case, but I see nothing wrong with arguing otherwise.

Long Term Louth

Id imagine Veolia work to a code of practice, they must have felt they breeched it in this case, or why the settlement?

PCPhoto

and a sneak preview of tomorrows news ... a girl gets 20K for being hit by a bus mirror.

humanji

Long Term Louth wrote: »

Id imagine Veolia work to a code of practice, they must have felt they breeched it in this case, or why the settlement?

A settlement doesn't mean guilt. It often means that they don't want to continue with a trial that would give them bad publicity.

Long Term Louth

PCPhoto wrote: »

and a sneak preview of tomorrows news ... a girl gets 20K for being hit by a bus mirror.

Quite possible! if the mirror is loose for example.

WindSock

I like how they state she is from council housing. Is it stated that anyone else is from affordable housing, rented housing or from a family with a fully paid mortgage?

seamus wrote: »

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.

That's a bit messy, so anyone can make this claim and the operator would have to somehow prove there was no ticket? Can't see how that would work out well for the operator.

Rabble Rabble

Long Term Louth wrote: »

Id imagine Veolia work to a code of practice, they must have felt they breeched it in this case, or why the settlement?

They know that the court could award more even without any proof - and there was no proof here. Without a ticket there was clearly no proof. And if the girl had the ticket she would probably have brought it along with her on the day she went to the get legal advice.

In a normal country a lawyer would have suggested that without the ticket she has no claim.Ireland is not normal. The entire rotten edifice needs to be removed, we need to start electing judges. In this case the money was taken from a private company but that kind of thing pushes up prices for us all. We all pay.

prinz

marco_polo wrote: »

The thread was started with the thinly veiled premise that the girl was essentially making it up and the claim was fraud. Of course I do not know the full facts of the case, but I see nothing wrong with arguing otherwise.

Personally, if there was no proof either way, IMO the case should have been dismissed.

If I had a ticket and this happened I would have made damn sure to keep it, that alone casts doubts on the accuracy of the girl's story for me.

jackiebaron

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

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!

If I punched you in the stomach and then gave you an almighty boot in the arse when you were doubled over gasping for oxygen, would you classify that as assault? I certainly would. But you wouldn't need to go to hospital for your injuries would you? It's only assault if you need hospital treatment? Get real!

Cuddlesworth

kev_s88 wrote: »

they have no rights to push someone off a LUAS.

Allegedly.

Long Term Louth

humanji wrote: »

A settlement doesn't mean guilt. It often means that they don't want to continue with a trial that would give them bad publicity.

Dont you reckon they have received bad publicity? after all it is now public knowledge! perhaps they should have defended the case to deter others, or did they indeed, have something to hide????

seamus

WindSock wrote: »

That's a bit messy, so anyone can make this claim and the operator would have to somehow prove there was no ticket? Can't see how that would work out well for the operator.

Not exactly - someone couldn't just come along and say that they were shoved off a train. They would need a witness to corroborate their story (which may be the person who shoved them).

But otherwise yes, Veolia must prove that the person does not have a valid ticket (or are otherwise validly being denied) before they deny them boarding.

It makes sense when you think about it. Otherwise we could go around making all sorts of bizarre accusations about anyone and getting away with it because they couldn't disprove what we said. Instead, quite rightly, the person making the statement must be able to back it up.

Ice cubed

Suing for life's experiences when they are not positive. The world wont be perfect till we all move about in little impenetrable bubbles.
I remember saving to by a watch when I was 14 or 15, went into town with my friends one Saturday with the intention of buying the watch but was refused entry to the shop by the security guard. I was gutted but just went back another day to get it.
Fair enough, the girl was distressed, that should be, imo, an apology and €50 for her troubles. The courts/law has to put an end to this massive pay out culture.

humanji

Long Term Louth wrote:

Dont you reckon they have received bad publicity? after all it is now public knowledge! perhaps they should have defended the case to deter others, or did they indeed, have something to hide????

I'd have heard nothing of it if I hadn't clicked on this link. And tomorrow nobody will be thinking about it. But had the trial gone on and a huge payoff being awarded, then lots more people would know about it.

It happens all the time. It just cheaper and less public to get it quickly out of the way. That's why people abuse the system and sue over anything.

Hannibal Smith

PCPhoto wrote: »

and a sneak preview of tomorrows news ... a girl gets 20K for being hit by a bus mirror.

this has happened...and Dublin Bus have been successfully sued over it

happymondays

prinz wrote: »

Personally, if there was no proof either way, IMO the case should have been dismissed.

If I had a ticket and this happened I would have made damn sure to keep it, that alone casts doubts on the accuracy of the girl's story for me.

Agreed, if she had a ticket then theres no reason why the incident should have happened, the fact she cant produce a ticket to validate her story
would suggest she's didnt have a ticket in the first place.

it was settled probally becuase Veolia just didnt want the bad publicity.

Hannibal Smith

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

They know that the court could award more even without any proof - and there was no proof here. Without a ticket there was clearly no proof. And if the girl had the ticket she would probably have brought it along with her on the day she went to the get legal advice.

In a normal country a lawyer would have suggested that without the ticket she has no claim.Ireland is not normal. The entire rotten edifice needs to be removed, we need to start electing judges. In this case the money was taken from a private company but that kind of thing pushes up prices for us all. We all pay.

This wasn't a hearing, it was a judge approving a settlement, which had already been made between the parties. The money wasn't taken from anybody, they offered it. If she had no ticket, and no proof, surely then the company would have gone ahead with the case knowing she'd lose?

Long Term Louth

Ice cubed wrote: »

Suing for life's experiences when they are not positive. The world wont be perfect till we all move about in little impenetrable bubbles.
I remember saving to by a watch when I was 14 or 15, went into town with my friends one Saturday with the intention of buying the watch but was refused entry to the shop by the security guard. I was gutted but just went back another day to get it.
Fair enough, the girl was distressed, that should be, imo, an apology and €50 for her troubles. The courts/law has to put an end to this massive pay out culture.

Well done Ice cubed and there in lies the answer, it is the law makers who can change this claim culture no one else! So to blame a 15 year old or anyone else for that matter for claiming for such sceptical issues as this one, needs to be addressed by the said law makers. I wonder how much each sides representatives received by way of costs? and would the said representatives want a change to the current laws???

Long Term Louth

humanji wrote: »

I'd have heard nothing of it if I hadn't clicked on this link. And tomorrow nobody will be thinking about it. But had the trial gone on and a huge payoff being awarded, then lots more people would know about it.

It happens all the time. It just cheaper and less public to get it quickly out of the way. That's why people abuse the system and sue over anything.

The Irish Times published it for gods sake, a huge payout cannot be awarded unless there is sufficient personal injury etc.

marco_polo

prinz wrote: »

Personally, if there was no proof either way, IMO the case should have been dismissed.

If I had a ticket and this happened I would have made damn sure to keep it, that alone casts doubts on the accuracy of the girl's story for me.

How could the judge possibly dismiss the case when the company are already offering a settlement?

PCPhoto

Long Term Louth wrote: »

Quite possible! if the mirror is loose for example.

no ....seriously - thats one of tomorrows stories (I cant post it up because then the papers can take it from the public domain - but you'll read about it in tomorrows papers)

theres also a high court med neg settlement of €460,000 but thats small for med neg ...so dunno if it will make the papers.

prinz

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

If she had no ticket, and no proof, surely then the company would have gone ahead with the case knowing she'd lose?

They wouldn't know she'd lose. With nothing concrete either way, there'd be every possibility of her being successful resulting in an even bigger settlement/ more publicity etc. Even when it would be her word against there's the tendancy would be to find for her if you follow the deep pockets theory.

PCPhoto

jackiebaron wrote: »

If I punched you in the stomach and then gave you an almighty boot in the arse when you were doubled over gasping for oxygen, would you classify that as assault? I certainly would. But you wouldn't need to go to hospital for your injuries would you? It's only assault if you need hospital treatment? Get real!

I think you need to learn more about the laws in this country - physical assault is any physical contact - even pushing someone is assault.

seamus

happymondays wrote: »

the fact she cant produce a ticket to validate her story would suggest she's didnt have a ticket in the first place.

No it doesn't. I assert that you had sexual relations with a member of the same sex when you were 15....and you enjoyed it.

I will take the fact that you can't disprove my claim to suggest that it is in fact true.

If you're gay, just play along

Hannibal Smith

Long Term Louth wrote: »

Well done Ice cubed and there in lies the answer, it is the law makers who can change this claim culture no one else! So to blame a 15 year old or anyone else for that matter for claiming for such sceptical issues as this one, needs to be addressed by the said law makers. I wonder how much each sides representatives received by way of costs? and would the said representatives want a change to the current laws???

what makes it a sceptical issue?

Costs would have been agreed as part of the settlement between the parties. If neither party can agree to amounts they can be taxed.

What current laws should be changed to say a child can be pushed by an adult? If it was my kid I'd be livid!

jackiebaron

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

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.

Actually Cookie Monster is correct with regards to single and return journey tickets. I just checked luas.ie and it states categorically that no breaks in the journey are allowed. So if she got off the tram and then hopped on the next one her ticket was invalid. It's a bullsh!t system as I feel you should be allowed get on and off to you heart's content like you can in Europe within a certain timeframe and going in one specific direction between start and destination. But that's just me. Anyway, her ticket was invalid.

BUT....if they just fücked her off without even allowing her to produce the invalid ticket then that's a different story. They made a big mistake.

What I'd like to know is this:

You have to start your journey within 90 minutes of purchasing your ticket. What happens to the ticket once you get on the Luas? Does someone punch it or do you insert it into some kind of little stamper that prints a date and time on it, thus validating it?
If none of these things are done then I don't see how a conductor/operator would know when you got on and whether or not you got off and got back on.

prinz

marco_polo wrote: »

How could the judge possibly dismiss the case when the company are already offering a settlement?

I meant more in general terms not specific to this case.

Hannibal Smith

prinz wrote: »

They wouldn't know she'd lose. With nothing concrete either way, there'd be every possibility of her being successful resulting in an even bigger settlement/ more publicity etc. Even when it would be her word against there's the tendancy would be to find for her if you follow the deep pockets theory.

You're taking my comment out of context. The person I quoted said there was no proof, which was the reason behind my post

jackiebaron

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

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.

Sorry Hannibal, but you are wrong.

http://www.luas.ie/single-and-return-tickets.html

oppenheimer1

gurramok wrote: »

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.

Wrong. The judge didn't make the award, it was offered by Veolia to make the case go away.

Read the article before you say judges are out of touch.

Hannibal Smith

jackiebaron wrote: »

Actually Cookie Monster is correct with regards to single and return journey tickets. I just checked luas.ie and it states categorically that no breaks in the journey are allowed. So if she got off the tram and then hopped on the next one her ticket was invalid. It's a bullsh!t system as I feel you should be allowed get on and off to you heart's content like you can in Europe within a certain timeframe and going in one specific direction between start and destination. But that's just me. Anyway, her ticket was invalid.

BUT....if they just fücked her off without even allowing her to produce the invalid ticket then that's a different story. They made a big mistake.

What I'd like to know is this:

You have to start your journey within 90 minutes of purchasing your ticket. What happens to the ticket once you get on the Luas? Does someone punch it or do you insert it into some kind of little stamper that prints a date and time on it, thus validating it?
If none of these things are done then I don't see how a conductor/operator would know when you got on and whether or not you got off and got back on.

Well there's me told I don't think most folk are aware of this. i hop on and off all the time

The ticket is only punched by the guys in the High Vis jackets, if they happen to be on your tram. If you've a smart card, they zap it with a little machine.

The ticket says on it where you bought it and what zone you're travelling to. I have a smart card though, so I'm not sure if the little validating machines just check that you've tagged on?

PCPhoto

jackiebaron wrote: »

Sorry Hannibal, but you are wrong.

http://www.luas.ie/single-and-return-tickets.html

that might be the case now - but what were the rules when the event happened ?

also - hannibal .... I'd say at least you are paying so Veolia don't mind you hopping on and off.

Long Term Louth

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

what makes it a sceptical issue?

Costs would have been agreed as part of the settlement between the parties. If neither party can agree to amounts they can be taxed.

What current laws should be changed to say a child can be pushed by an adult? If it was my kid I'd be livid!

Luas rules in relation to the ticket make it sceptical.

The laws which appear to make our country comparatively easy for people to claim. I never indicated any specific law with reference to the event in question. Remember I do agree as you can see in my other posts that the company appear to have something to hide and if it was my 15yo I certainly would want answers.

happymondays

seamus wrote: »

No it doesn't. I assert that you had sexual relations with a member of the same sex when you were 15....and you enjoyed it.

I will take the fact that you can't disprove my claim to suggest that it is in fact true.

If you're gay, just play along

how do you know i cant disprove it!!

seriously, if the girl had a valid ticket at the time why would she not still have it now to back up her cliam if it caused that much stress to her.

I cant walk into the national lottery hq and claim i won the jackpot without a ticket to prove i won it.
I cant walk into a shop and try exchange something without a reciept to prove i bought it there.

Then sue them because they cant disprove

AnonoBoy

What I'd like to know is this:

You have to start your journey within 90 minutes of purchasing your ticket. What happens to the ticket once you get on the Luas?

I thought you had to complete your journey within 90 minutes.

Something I noticed about the LUAS one day if you buy a return ticket within the same zone you can pretty much use it all day to nip back and forward. Technically it might be only valid for two journeys - one out and one back but because it's within the zone it doesn't state on the ticket what stop it was bought at so the ticket inspectors don't know where it was purchased or how many journeys within that zone you've taken before they checked your ticket.

I'm sure Veolia realise this though and the amount of journeys someone would take within one zone are probably pretty small.

Also - if you can't produce your ticket they do offer you the chance to produce it later and appeal your fine.

marco_polo

prinz wrote: »

I meant more in general terms not specific to this case.

Going back to that post, in this instance we do not know if there was no proof either way, all we know for sure is the operators, with far greater knowledge of all the facts surrounding this case chose to settle the matter.

Clearly we are drawing very different 'most likely' reasons for this offer and since what we are doing is the equivalent of having a duel while wearing blindfolds, as neither of us are in possession of the full facts.

I must respectfully offer a stalemate and withdraw from the thread.

Long Term Louth

happymondays wrote: »

how do you know i cant disprove it!!

seriously, if the girl had a valid ticket at the time why would she not still have it now to back up her cliam if it caused that much stress to her.

I cant walk into the national lottery hq and claim i won the jackpot without a ticket to prove i won it.
I cant walk into a shop and try exchange something without a reciept to prove i bought it there.

Then sue them because they cant disprove

If one of the lotterys officals pushed you from the building perhaps you would feel different?

jackiebaron

seamus wrote: »

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.

I thought proving a negative was not allowed in legal wranglings. If that was the case then anyone could get on the Luas without a ticket and the inspector could ask them for a ticket but if they refuse to produced one he can't do anything but allow them to travel since he can't prove the non-existence of the aforementioned ticket.

AnonoBoy

jackiebaron wrote: »

I thought proving a negative was not allowed in legal wranglings. If that was the case then anyone could get on the Luas without a ticket and the inspector could ask them for a ticket but if they refuse to produced one he can't do anything but allow them to travel since he can't prove the non-existence of the aforementioned ticket.

In that case the person has been asked for their ticket.

In this case the girl wasn't asked. She was simply refused admission to the tram and pushed. Allegedly.

jackiebaron

PCPhoto wrote: »

I think you need to learn more about the laws in this country - physical assault is any physical contact - even pushing someone is assault.

I think you need to read my post again AND the post it is addressing. The post I was responding to alluded that the girl wasn't assaulted as she didn't need to go to hospital.

jackiebaron

PCPhoto wrote: »

that might be the case now - but what were the rules when the event happened ?

also - hannibal .... I'd say at least you are paying so Veolia don't mind you hopping on and off.

PCPhoto...you say you were at this hearing but I would hazard a guess that you have absolutely no education or training in the legal field whatsoever judging by your dismissive comments, dragging in every other case under the sun to brush with broad strokes, ranting about immigrants as if that has any bearing on this case, simply assuming that the girl didn't pay, etc., etc., blathering about taxes when Veolia is a private company, ad nauseum.

And as for your comment about "that was then, this is now".....is that the best you can do?

seamus

happymondays wrote: »

I cant walk into the national lottery hq and claim i won the jackpot without a ticket to prove i won it.
I cant walk into a shop and try exchange something without a reciept to prove i bought it there.

Pendantically yes you can exchange something in a shop without a receipt, it's just more difficult.

That aside, these are very different things. To take your second example - if the shop assistant said to you in front of other customers - "You stole this item, you don't have a receipt for it", then you don't have to prove that you have a receipt, it is up to the shop assistant to prove that you don't have a receipt (and that you stole the item).

The national lottery one can't really be compared - telling someone that they haven't won the lottery isn't a defamation because if you do not produce a valid ticket, then you haven't won the lottery. A defamation is a statement which lowers the image of the person in the eyes of right-minded people.

In this case, the girl was accused of trying to board a Luas without a ticket, which would seem to qualify as a defamation. "You haven't won the lottery" isn't a defamation. Neither is, "We cannot exchange items without a receipt".

PCPhoto

jackiebaron wrote: »

PCPhoto...you say you were at this hearing but I would hazard a guess that you have absolutely no education or training in the legal field whatsoever judging by your dismissive comments, dragging in every other case under the sun to brush with broad strokes, ranting about immigrants as if that has any bearing on this case, simply assuming that the girl didn't pay, etc., etc., blathering about taxes when Veolia is a private company, ad nauseum.

And as for your comment about "that was then, this is now".....is that the best you can do?

my comments to which you are talking about were in reference to other ways in which moneys are wasted/paid out in the courts

I take offence to some of your remarks "dragging every other case under the sun" or "blathering on about taxes" as I simply haven't done that - I chose some examples to back-up my comments ....and I made a reference to tax monies wasted within the courts.

Also your final remark ... "is that the best I can do" ....what am I supposed to do .... I'm giving my opinion - which is what a forum is for..... I also note that you are selective in reading my comments - please re-read the entire thread - I have made comments which do not blame anyone other than the parents of these kids .... as they are the ones taking the cases and are contributing to the culture of increasing insurance premiums.

Also just to point out - I have absolutely no formal legal training - I don't think that I need legal training to comment on a newspaper article..... and more to the point - its not your place to judge me ..is it ?

Mr. Loverman

jackiebaron wrote: »

If I punched you in the stomach and then gave you an almighty boot in the arse when you were doubled over gasping for oxygen, would you classify that as assault? I certainly would. But you wouldn't need to go to hospital for your injuries would you? It's only assault if you need hospital treatment? Get real!

Eh what?

Mr. Loverman

Regarding the fact that the newspaper mentioned she is from a block of council flats. I understand some people are getting upset by this, but does anyone know if people from impovrished areas are more likely to commit crimes than people from wealthy areas?

PCPhoto

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Regarding the fact that the newspaper mentioned she is from a block of council flats. I understand some people are getting upset by this, but does anyone know if people from impovrished areas are more likely to commit crimes than people from wealthy areas?

the difference is people from wealthy areas are more likely to be involved in corporate crime and "legal" crimes - similar to the bankers.

whereas people in impoverished areas are "more likely to get caught" involved in lesser crimes - the ones which get reported !!

nlgbbbblth

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Regarding the fact that the newspaper mentioned she is from a block of council flats. I understand some people are getting upset by this, but does anyone know if people from impovrished areas are more likely to commit crimes than people from wealthy areas?

People from wealthy areas are more likely to commit crimes.

You should know by now that people from impoverished areas are the salt of the earth.

Bonito

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..

Ohhhh, so that's the attraction to 15 year olds.