Ray Darcy promoting litigious culture

Plazaman

smash wrote: »

He knew it was there!

smash wrote: »

He knew the stub was there.

I applaud your great psychic abilities there, the fact that you know he knew it was there.

Given that fact, we now know with 100% certainty that is was the case that Darcy was out for his morning run worrying about the contents of that mornings program and thinking that they were a little wishy washy. So upon spying the stump on the pavement, his evil inner voice kicks in and tells him to deliberately trip across said stump. "Make sure you fall on your face and break your nose" it said.

BAM, a great morning show and a few bob for charity

Case solved

/thread

Min

So Ray D'arcy decided by his own choice to run, his legs failed him or his eyesight as he must have not been looking where he was going and he fell.

I would sue Ray Darcy as he was responsible for the fall.

smash

Plazaman wrote: »

I applaud your great psychic abilities there, the fact that you know he knew it was there.

Did he not state on the radio that he had previously noticed it?

Turnstyle

Sounds like a silly little cheap ass crusade to me..

If what is being posted here is true i.e. he knew already it was there, he never reported it.. anyone have any proof it was the council that left it there etc it should rightly be thrown out of court with costs awarded against him.

The council cannot be expected to monitor everything all of the time, if you are out for an early morning jog and trip on a path that has been badly damaged by say a flood the previous night then tough sh*t in my view... it doesn't matter what you plan to do with the compensation.

I used to like this guy as a presenter years ago, all he does these days is harp on about negative crap all of the time, broken record or what...

danniemcq

I wonder would there be such a negative outcry if it was some old person out jogging trying to stay fit or a youmg woman

Stark

Old people trip, fall and break things quite frequently. If every one of them was able to sue the council for the fall, the councils would have no money left.

Min

danniemcq wrote: »

I wonder would there be such a negative outcry if it was some old person out jogging trying to stay fit or a youmg woman

Yes there would be.

We are responsible for where we place our own feet, they should be counter sued for their own stupidity.

glynf

Lets face it the fall could not have done much damage, it's not like his nose is that far off the ground anyway..

Karma ray, karma.

kippy

danniemcq wrote: »

I wonder would there be such a negative outcry if it was some old person out jogging trying to stay fit or a youmg woman

If the circumstances were the same (they already know about the issue, the damage looked close to the wall, the council were not informed, the issue may have been caused by an earlier accident or act of vandalism, no proof actually exists of the person getting the injury as a result of this) then yes, my reaction would be the same.
Personal responsibility seems to have gone out the window int he past couple of decades. Fair enough where there was genuine negligence but from the outside it doesn't look like it to me in this case (or it shouldn't look like it)

danniemcq

Min wrote: »

Yes there would be.

We are responsible for where we place our own feet, they should be counter sued for their own stupidity.

do you walk with your head down at all times? constantly looking where you step?

I think on a footpath you should have the peace of mind to be able to pay minimum attention to where your feet are doing. If it was a big f off road sign or something then yeah he shoulda seen it. but this?

nah he is in the right as i said in my earlier post if its not taking the piss claiming PTSD, whiplash, back injuries and all teh usual sh*te that usually goes with cases like this

kippy

danniemcq wrote: »

do you walk with your head down at all times? constantly looking where you step?

I think on a footpath you should have the peace of mind to be able to pay minimum attention to where your feet are doing. If it was a big f off road sign or something then yeah he shoulda seen it. but this?

nah he is in the right as i said in my earlier post if its not taking the piss claiming PTSD, whiplash, back injuries and all teh usual sh*te that usually goes with cases like this

Again, I don't know exactly where the stub is but from that photo it doesn't look like it is right in the middle or even on the main path.

Also, where do you draw the line?
Are the local authority completely negligent from the minute this sign becomes a hazard? Do they not have reasonable time to remove it, or place a bollard on it? Do the public have a responsibility to report such issues to the council?

Either way an individual has responsibility for their own safety ultimately, and in this instance from my understanding the facts as they are currently presented Darcy was as liable as anyone else.
I'd also be careful in backing darcy in this instance. If you extrapolate the logic somewhat, Darcy was running on a public footpath, as thousands of people do, running, in itself, is a more hazardous activity than walking and perhaps footpaths weren't designed with runners in mind.
What happens if the council get sued by numerous runners who use footpaths and have accidents? I tell ya what happens, running gets "banned" on footpaths. Ruing it for everyone.
(This last paragraph is obviously political correctness/legal issues gone to a new level, but that is the line of logic that could take place under this madness)

Regardless as to whether the sign was cut or broken off, the council should ensure that all pavements are clear of any obstructions.

So, fair play to you for suing, Ray. He is taking the money from the council, because they didn't do their job properly and giving it to something that could genuinely do with the money.

kippy

Deleted User wrote: »

Regardless as to whether the sign was cut or broken off, the council should ensure that all pavements are clear of any obstructions.

So, fair play to you for suing, Ray. He is taking the money from the council, because they didn't do their job properly and giving it to something that could genuinely do with the money.

How are the council expected to monitor the literally miles and miles of pavements in this country? Why didnt Darcy report it as an issue?
If the problem had been reported and nothing had been done about it within 24-24 hours then I would say there is a level of negligence attached, otherwise I would find it unnecessarily harsh.
Are the council responsible for obstructions such as privately parked cars? Signage from public business? Animal excrement? A shopping bag that I have left on the pavement beside me as I take a rest?

Scioch

smash wrote: »

He knew the stub was there.

Did he inform the council or anyone else of this dangerous stub protruding from the footpath ?

goodie2shoes

He promised to emigrate if/when Enda Kenny was elected, so please fuuck-off D'Arsey u annoying little runt!:D

ThisRegard

Deleted User wrote: »

He is taking the money from the council,

Or in other words, taking the money from the people of South Dublin County Council who pay their motor tax and household charges, as well as the businesses in the area who pay their various council charges.

You do realise the councils don't print their own currency don't you ?

cournioni

hairyprincess wrote: »

Fair play to him for donating the money to charity, he could easily put it in his own pocket.

The people who were the cause of this need to be held accountable for their shoddy work. It could have been an old person or a child. And the outcome could have been so much worse.

Ah yeah, and take it out of the tax payers pockets while he's at it. Numpty of the highest order.

kippy

ThisRegard wrote: »

Or in other words, taking the money from the people of South Dublin County Council who pay their motor tax and household charges, as well as the businesses in the area who pay their various council charges.

You do realise the councils don't print their own currency don't you ?

A lot of people on this thread don't seem to realise this....

danniemcq

kippy wrote: »

Again, I don't know exactly where the stub is but from that photo it doesn't look like it is right in the middle or even on the main path.

Also, where do you draw the line?
Are the local authority completely negligent from the minute this sign becomes a hazard? Do they not have reasonable time to remove it, or place a bollard on it? Do the public have a responsibility to report such issues to the council?

Either way an individual has responsibility for their own safety ultimately, and in this instance from my understanding the facts as they are currently presented Darcy was as liable as anyone else.
I'd also be careful in backing darcy in this instance. If you extrapolate the logic somewhat, Darcy was running on a public footpath, as thousands of people do, running, in itself, is a more hazardous activity than walking and perhaps footpaths weren't designed with runners in mind.
What happens if the council get sued by numerous runners who use footpaths and have accidents? I tell ya what happens, running gets "banned" on footpaths. Ruing it for everyone.
(This last paragraph is obviously political correctness/legal issues gone to a new level, but that is the line of logic that could take place under this madness)

I don't know where it is either but lookin at the picture above it doesn't look like its in the middle of nowhere either.

Its hard to tell with the photo but it appears to be a footpath yes? doesn't really matter where on the footpath it is middle or side. He could have been running on the inside near a wall or something to get out of peoples way or to allow people to pass him walking/running the other way.

I don't know the circumstances as to why the sign was like that but someone broke it and someone had to clean it up

smash

smash wrote: »

Well why should I have to pay for a new wheel when I hit a pothole?

You shouldn't and there and it is possible to get compensation for it, its just a lot of work and takes ages. I know of people who have managed it.

smash wrote: »

He knew the stub was there.

So what, its not like you are going to wake up in the morning and first thing you think of is a stub of a sign post in the ground. He probably covers a fair bit of ground running to work you aren't going to remember every little thing about the trip all the time. I don't see your problem, your just moaning for the sake of it id say. He deserves to be compensated, its a genuine case and the man is not even keeping the money for himself.

Scioch

ThisRegard wrote: »

Or in other words, taking the money from the people of South Dublin County Council who pay their motor tax and household charges, as well as the businesses in the area who pay their various council charges.

You do realise the councils don't print their own currency don't you ?

Instead of using it to enhance Darcy's public profile which is all this is about.

kippy

Cruz Polite Poultry wrote: »

You shouldn't and there and it is possible to get compensation for it, its just a lot of work and takes ages. I know of people who have managed it.




So what, its not like you are going to wake up in the morning and first thing you think of is a stub of a sign post in the ground. He probably covers a fair bit of ground running to work you aren't going to remember every little thing about the trip all the time. I don't see your problem, your just moaning for the sake of it id say. He deserves to be compensated, its a Guinea case and the man is not even keeping the money for himself.

The issue really isnt that he knew about it and didnt remember not to trip over it, the issue was he knew about and didnt think to do something about it (ie calling up the local authority), in my opinion making him as culpable in his own accident as anyone else.

smash

Cruz Polite Poultry wrote: »

I don't see your problem, your just moaning for the sake of it id say.

Problem being, it's tax payers money. And he's deciding to take it and donate to charity. If he doesn't want it, then don't sue ffs.

Lumbo

ThisRegard wrote: »

Or in other words, taking the money from the people of South Dublin County Council who pay their motor tax and household charges, as well as the businesses in the area who pay their various council charges.

You do realise the councils don't print their own currency don't you ?

Clonskeagh is under Dublin City Councils control. It'll be their taxes that pay for this.

ScumLord

smash wrote: »

I'm a little more than just sceptical about that photo. The stub is close to a wall and was clearly not cut but the council. It looks like the result of a traffic accident and looks to have been there a while. I'd say if you zoomed out there'd be some damage to the wall. Probably something the council weren't even aware of, yet he was and he didn't report it sooner.

It's the councils responsibility to maintain public property. They should be sued because if they're not they'll sit back and do nothing as usual. It's the sad case in this country that someone has to be injured before anything happens.

Biggins

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Hmm he sure is taking his time leaving the country.

Shush... We're meant to forget about that!

kippy

ScumLord wrote: »

It's the councils responsibility to maintain public property. They should be sued because if they're not they'll sit back and do nothing as usual. It's the sad case in this country that someone has to be injured before anything happens.

But without knowing the full facts, isn't this exceptionally unfair and unreasonable?
If the council knew about this and didn't do anything about it in a reasonable amount of time, then yes, they have a case to answer.

smash

ScumLord wrote: »

It's the councils responsibility to maintain public property. They should be sued because if they're not they'll sit back and do nothing as usual. It's the sad case in this country that someone has to be injured before anything happens.

In order to maintain or fix a fault, it must first be reported so they know there is a problem. Nobody knows if it was reported, but we know that he knew about it prior to tripping over it.

Medusa22

I worked in a solicitor's office for a couple of years and the compensation culture made me so incredibly angry. One example that I can recall involved a woman tripping over a shelf of groceries in lidl or aldi and she hurt her foot. She received 6,000 euro in compensation. If I fell over a shelf in lidl or aldi I would get up and walk away in embarrassment, it really wouldn't occur to me to sue for my own clumsiness. I really don't believe that Ray D'arcy should sue because he wasn't paying attention.

Scioch

ScumLord wrote: »

It's the councils responsibility to maintain public property. They should be sued because if they're not they'll sit back and do nothing as usual. It's the sad case in this country that someone has to be injured before anything happens.

No its the sad case where someone only does something about these things when they stand to gain. As Darcy does with his little profile booster. He could have reported it the day before but didnt bother his arse.

Fighting Irish

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Perhaps Im wrong but wasnt the pipe for a sign cropped with an angle grinder or such with a few inches of it left sticking up in the middle of a foot path?
This is grossly stupid, dangerous and incompetant. Those responsible deserve to be sued and any individual is well within their rights not to be out of pocket in a circumstance such as this regardless of their level of celebrity.
I dont like compo culture but this is obviously a legit circumstance.

Finally someone with a bit of sense, so many bitter and jealous people in this thread

ScumLord

smash wrote: »

In order to maintain or fix a fault, it must first be reported so they know there is a problem. Nobody knows if it was reported, but we know that he knew about it prior to tripping over it.

Well if it was a crash like you suspected they should have known full well. I'd work under the assumption they knew and just didn't think it would be an issue or hoped it wouldn't be an issue because every council up and down the country does the same thing. Potholes don't get fixed until a couple of people bust a wheel, water and road works are half arsed ways of using up funds so they'll get the money again next year. They have no standard of work and that's why they get sued, it's completely their own fault they're getting sued for shoddy work.

ThisRegard

Lumbo wrote: »

Clonskeagh is under Dublin City Councils control. It'll be their taxes that pay for this.

Wherever, either way it's the publics money from within that council.

smash

Fighting Irish wrote: »

Finally someone with a bit of sense, so many bitter and jealous people in this thread

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word jealous. I don't see anyone here being jealous about suing the council.

Fighting Irish

kippy wrote: »

I can see this from both points of view however in this instance, when he admits he knew it was there(Not sure if this info is correct, just basing it on previous posts here), I believe him to be as culpable as those that are responsible for it.
One key issue when it comes to health and safety is that every person has a responsibility towards it. If he knew it was there, and could have caused and issue, why didn't he report it to the authority responsible for it?
I have no idea exactly where this stub is, where on the footpath it is located or how it got there, but it is rather unfair to expect local authorities to be held liable for removed said obstruction when they may not have known about it in the first place - are they expected to monitor every single of paving in the city on their own?

:rolleyes:

Rabidlamb

Can the council counter sue Darcy for damaging the footpaths with his face.
Sound fair.

smash

ScumLord wrote: »

Well if it was a crash like you suspected they should have known full well.

Council are generally not notified of traffic accidents.

Fighting Irish

So much bull**** by people in this thread lol

Fighting Irish

smash wrote: »

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word jealous. I don't see anyone here being jealous about suing the council.

A lot of people here don't seem to like anyone who earns good money for doing feck all, jealous of Ray in general

Fighting Irish

If a disabled person fell over this, people would be falling over themselves trying to ring Joe

ScumLord

smash wrote: »

Council are generally not notified of traffic accidents.

That's silly then, if there's property damage as there would have been here who cleaned it up?

fro9etb8j5qsl2

Pure bitter back biting that's indicative of the begrudging Irish culture :rolleyes:

If it were a child that had tripped over the stub and fractured his/her skull on the pavement, would ye all be on here sniping about it? Injury is injury and negligence is negligence simple as.

Lumbo

Fighting Irish wrote: »

So much bull**** by people in this thread lol

Fighting Irish wrote: »

A lot of people here don't seem to like anyone who earns good money for doing feck all, jealous of Ray in general

:rolleyes:

Lumbo

ScumLord wrote: »

That's silly then, if there's property damage as there would have been here who cleaned it up?

Might have been the Fire Brigade.

Scioch

Fighting Irish wrote: »

If a disabled person fell over this, people would be falling over themselves trying to ring Joe

And if it was Joe Normal who didnt have a radio show to promote we'd likely have never heard about it.

Fighting Irish

Lumbo wrote: »

:rolleyes:

You'd be surprised, some people hate people with money

Biggins

LordSmeg wrote: »

And if it was Joe Normal who didnt have a radio show to promote we'd likely have never heard about it.

...And we'd be cursing those insurance claimers just jumping on a business or council, just to get money out of it - no matter where the money was later going!

Businesses/councils are struggling in this country and the more claims that are put up against them, is doing no boss or employee any good!
Its just putting in danger their jobs and effecting the insurance rates in the long run.

Are we supposed to say "O' what a good chap he is for donating the money later" ?
Maybe we should be saying "If he opened his god damn eyes a bit more, he wouldn't be helping in increasing insurance premiums and putting further financial pressure on employers or councils that need the money elsewhere for vital services?"

kippy

Fighting Irish wrote: »

:rolleyes:

If you knew something to be a danger to someone else, or a potential danger and didn't do something at the very minimum to get it rectified you have a level of blame to accept. This is even moreso the case when you end up "tripping" over said hazard and end up sueing.
Do you not agree with this logic?

ScumLord

Lumbo wrote: »

Might have been the Fire Brigade.

It would still highlight a lack of necessary communication between public institutions. They had a responsibility, they shirked it and now they're paying the price. The worst thing is they'll learn nothing from it and we'll probably see another case like this sooner rather than later. If this was any private business they'd fix these problems just to cover they're own arses, the CoCo will ignore these problems because there's no accountability and they're spending our money, but sure there's plenty of that to go around.

kippy

Kaleb Sparse Comics wrote: »

Pure bitter back biting that's indicative of the begrudging Irish culture :rolleyes:

If it were a child that had tripped over the stub and fractured his/her skull on the pavement, would ye all be on here sniping about it? Injury is injury and negligence is negligence simple as.

There is a difference between a child and a grown adult. That being said, if the childs parents were aware of the issue the day before but did nothing about it, then I would question who was at fault.
Again, I will say, if the council were made aware of the issue and did nothing about it in a reasonable timeframe, some level of blame should be apportioned to them.
(Kids fall all the time by the way, I wouldn't like every kids parents that ever fell on pavement to sue the state)