Ray Darcy promoting litigious culture

kippy

ScumLord wrote: »

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.

Who is to know that this accident was even reported in the first place?
Lots of accidents happen that never get reported, particularily when the person is not insured/taxed/in the wrong and damage is caused.

Again I will say it, these types of things lead to issues for other people, who go about their daily business.

ScumLord

kippy wrote: »

Who is to know that this accident was even reported in the first place?

Who cleaned up the signpost then? Even if the CoCo weren't informed and didn't know that's another example of them and other public bodies not doing their job properly. Their problem is they're reacting to problems instead of preventing them, they've only themselves to blame.

kylith

smash wrote: »

Council are generally not notified of traffic accidents.

If a sign was damaged in a traffic accident then it would have to be removed, and that would be done by the council. Either the sign was removed by the council and not made safe, or the sign was broken in a traffic accident, in which case it the debris would have been removed by the council and the person who did so did not report the hazard to their superiors. Either way the council should have known that a sign had been removed and that the stub needed to be made safe.

Think_then_talk

I wonder did it go something like this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql0Kr_8HbZQ

Jester252

He more or likely saw to many ads with people walking towards you at odd angles

opinion guy

Biggins wrote: »

...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?"

Biggins the idea is that law suits such as this should incentivise them not to do f**king stupid dangerous things like leave snub of metal poll sticking out of the ground. If they do their job properly, as with many other things in this country, the problem wouldn't arise in the first place!

cournioni

Biggins wrote: »

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

That would have been one good thing to come from Fine Gael getting into Government.

Biggins

cournioni wrote: »

That would have been one good thing to come from Fine Gael getting into Government.

True! :pac:

AudreyHepburn

I work in a Loss Adjusting firm setting up claims and nothing at all surprises me anymore in terms of what people will try to claim for. Its as if personal responsability means nothing sometimes.

I had one claim cross my desk where a woman was claiming against a fast food resturaunt because when she sat in a booth she fell asleep and fell out onto the floor.

In another case a cameraman was claiming against a tv station because there was a stampede or riot in the court he was filming in and he was hurt.

Now in all honesty in neither of the cases were the party being claimed against responsible.

People are unbelievably vindictive and will chance their arm at anything in terms of claims.

What happened to taking some responsability for your own actions? Or accepting that sometimes no-one is to blame?

Biggins

opinion guy wrote: »

Biggins the idea is that law suits such as this should incentivise them not to do f**king stupid dangerous things like leave snub of metal poll sticking out of the ground. If they do their job properly, as with many other things in this country, the problem wouldn't arise in the first place!

True also but accidents do happen - and no amount of lawsuits will provoke enough people just to open their eyes a bit more either though!

fro9etb8j5qsl2

kippy wrote: »

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)

So you think that a child getting injured through someone else's negligence is different to an adult getting injured through someone else's negligence?? How exactly???

And whether the council was aware of the problem or not is irrelevant, it's their property and they have a duty of care to the public. If you had a car with a mechanical fault that you were unaware of, even though the fault was blatantly obvious to everyone else, and this fault caused a crash, does it automatically mean that you're not responsible just because you didn't know about the fault?

ScumLord

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

What happened to taking some responsability for your own actions? Or accepting that sometimes no-one is to blame?

But some one clearly is to blame here. The path had a small dangerous obstacle on it that shouldn't have been there. I'm fairly shocked people are letting the CoCo off with these kind of things, this is their job, if they're not doing there job what are they doing?

Lumbo

Kaleb Sparse Comics wrote: »

And whether the council was aware of the problem or not is irrelevant, it's their property and they have a duty of care to the public.

Is that your legal opinion? It is relevant. In fact, it's very relevant.

clappyhappy

Why didn't the council replace the damaged sign. It was there for a reason, speed, turning, parking etc, surely it should have been replaced. Irregardless of peoples opinion of Ray, he is within his right to sue, if I was walking, running fell over a hazard like that, had facial injuries and broke my nose I would sue also. As for those saying that since he knew it was there he should have avoided it, how many of us know of a pothole on a particular road and only remember it when we hit it. If it had been a pregnant woman that fell over that and caused injury to child would ye still have same thoughts, or a child, elderly person, whomever.

AudreyHepburn

ScumLord wrote: »

But some one clearly is to blame here. The path had a small dangerous obstacle on it that shouldn't have been there. I'm fairly shocked people are letting the CoCo off with these kind of things, this is their job, if they're not doing there job what are they doing?

Of course but if you go out for a run is there not a certain onus on you to watch where you're going?

I just think that in liability cases most of the time it is vindictiveness and unwillingness to accept your own part in whatever happened that is the problem.

As I said In my experience personal responsability seems to no longer exist in this country. It's always some-one else who didn't move the sign or wake the sleeping woman or lived beyond their means or voted Fianna Fail.

opinion guy

Biggins wrote: »

True also but accidents do happen - and no amount of lawsuits will provoke enough people just to open their eyes a bit more either though!

But if it was pure accident and no-one had been lazy/negligent you wouldn't be likely to win a case

Biggins

Lumbo wrote: »

Is that your legal opinion? It is relevant. In fact, it's very relevant.

Just on a point of (law) order:

"Legal duty of care" extends from the Irish laws of Negligence.
The test applied by the courts in deciding whether a legal duty of care exists s the 'neighbour principle'. This rule provides that reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which can be reasonably foreseen as likely to injure a neighbour.
A 'neighbour' is a person so closely and directly effected by the act or omission that the performer ought reasonably to have that person in contemplation as being so effected when the performer directs his or her mind to the act or omission which is called into question.

Stark

danniemcq wrote: »

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

Yes... And I don't need to be looking at my toes all the time, I scan ahead when I'm walking/running for something I might run into/trip over.

Min

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

I am always aware of my surroundings and I do watch where I walk, I don't need to put my head down to see where I am going to walk. I wear proper foot wear and if I was to fall on lets say some ice it would be to me misjudging the situation, not the fact that mother nature laid out some ice.
Thankfully I am not someone who blames others for my own mistake as in Ray D'Arcy's case...

ScumLord

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Of course but if you go out for a run is there not a certain onus on you to watch where you're going?

There is up to a point, most people would expect the footpath to be suitable for foot traffic, there are many obstacles you'd have to be looking out for like people or traffic and this obstacle wasn't very obvious. If you where driving down the motorway and this thing was sticking out on your driving line you wouldn't see it and it could potentially kill you.

I just think that in liability cases most of the time it is vindictiveness and unwillingness to accept your own part in whatever happened that is the problem.

As I said In my experience personal responsability seems to no longer exist in this country. It's always some-one else who didn't move the sign or wake the sleeping woman or lived beyond their means or voted Fianna Fail.

That's true but just because there are people abusing the system doesn't mean every case is invalid. This case seems very straight forward, the CoCo didn't do it's job (as usual) somebody got hurt and now the CoCo is responsible for that accident.

Biggins

opinion guy wrote: »

But if it was pure accident and no-one had been lazy/negligent you wouldn't be likely to win a case

To establish negligence a party must prove that the wrongdoer committed a breach of a legal duty of care. The law does not impose a standard of absolute care, except in respect of a manufacturer of defective goods. Liability as such then is not strict.
The standard demanded is that of reasonable care.

The question posed is whether a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen the danger to the injured party. There is a breach of the legal duty of care where the answer is yes.

The Civil Liability Act of 1961 provides that when a party suffers damage even partly through his or her own fault and partly though the fault of another, that party may still recover compensation.

Canis Lupus

Can't say I agree with suing in this case. Whilst admittedly we can't have streets strewn with random object there is a level of personal responsibility when you're out and about.

Have we become so f*cking pandered to and infantile that we consider it some kind of a right to not have to pay attention to what we're doing when out for a walk/run?

kippy

clappyhappy wrote: »

Why didn't the council replace the damaged sign. It was there for a reason, speed, turning, parking etc, surely it should have been replaced. Irregardless of peoples opinion of Ray, he is within his right to sue, if I was walking, running fell over a hazard like that, had facial injuries and broke my nose I would sue also. As for those saying that since he knew it was there he should have avoided it, how many of us know of a pothole on a particular road and only remember it when we hit it. If it had been a pregnant woman that fell over that and caused injury to child would ye still have same thoughts, or a child, elderly person, whomever.

Again, it is not necessarily about the avoidance of it, but the reporting of it.

ScumLord

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Have we become so f*cking pandered to and infantile that we consider it some kind of a right to not have to pay attention to what we're doing when out for a walk/run?

If people didn't sue over these things they wouldn't get fixed. CoCo won't fix something unless they're made do it.

opinion guy

Biggins wrote: »

To establish negligence a party must prove that the wrongdoer committed a breach of a legal duty of care. The law does not impose a standard of absolute care, except in respect of a manufacturer of defective goods. Liability as such then is not strict.
The standard demanded is that of reasonable care.

The question posed is whether a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen the danger to the injured party. There is a breach of the legal duty of care where the answer is yes.

The Civil Liability Act of 1961 provides that when a party suffers damage even partly through his or her own fault and partly though the fault of another, that party may still recover compensation.

Exactly my point.
If the other party has done their job properly and owns none of the fault - no case.

joseph brand

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.

And, he's giving the money to charity.

Whole new style of fundraising. :P

"Eh, next week I hope to fall down a flight of stairs for St. Vincent De Paul, and hopefully recover in time to slip in McDonalds, 3 weeks after, for Crumlin children's hospital".

Biggins

opinion guy wrote: »

Exactly my point.
If the other party has done their job properly and owns none of the fault - no case.

All true - that said, in normal circumstances compensation paid out, would be limited as partial fault would be applied also back to the victim.
However as we have seen in some cases, just because the claimant might be a 'celeb' or otherwise famous person, where partial fault lies, is quietly forgotten about and/or not mentioned in court summary or eventual financial restitution.

In other words, you or I would get less (for equal accident) - but a high profile case... ?

...And it could have all been avoided if he might have kept his eyes open and/or used his head and brain to recognise an upcoming danger?

Well he did use his head - just not in the way expected!

Scioch

joseph brand wrote: »

And, he's giving the money to charity.

Whole new style of fundraising. :P

"Eh, next week I hope to fall down a flight of stairs for St. Vincent De Paul, and hopefully recover in time to slip in McDonalds, 3 weeks after, for Crumlin children's hospital".

Might I suggest walking into an election poster ? Very lucrative I hear.

fro9etb8j5qsl2

Min wrote: »

I am always aware of my surroundings and I do watch where I walk, I don't need to put my head down to see where I am going to walk. I wear proper foot wear and if I was to fall on lets say some ice it would be to me misjudging the situation, not the fact that mother nature laid out some ice.
Thankfully I am not someone who blames others for my own mistake as in Ray D'Arcy's case...

Are you seriously saying that without putting your head down, you would notice 10 inches of grey metal sticking out of a grey pavement? :rolleyes: And by the way, pole stubs aren't created by mother nature.

Fighting Irish

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Can't say I agree with suing in this case. Whilst admittedly we can't have streets strewn with random object there is a level of personal responsibility when you're out and about.

What if it's a kid or disabled person?

Biggins

Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
Can't say I agree with suing in this case. Whilst admittedly we can't have streets strewn with random object there is a level of personal responsibility when you're out and about.

Fighting Irish wrote: »

What if it's a kid or disabled person?

Just on that, we should not apply biased judgements just because we (at the same time) might have sympathy for a person's condition.
The law (and subsequent judgement) should apply to all persons equally - or not at all.

fionny

This thread is pathetic... the council is responsible to ensure the roads and footpaths our taxes pay for a safe.

Its easy to miss something thats only a few inches out of the ground and even knowing there WAS a sign there its still reasonable to assume there wouldnt be a bit left there.

If the sign was taken out by a crash then the council can in turn chase the responsible person.

The money is going to charity he is not gouging. If he was some ****en chav out looking for things to trip over i would say something but he is not and will not gain for himself.

irelandrover

How did he manage to break his nose? Would you not put out your hands to prevent a fall?

smash

fionny wrote: »

The money is going to charity he is not gouging.

Who's money do you think it is?

fionny

irelandrover wrote: »

How did he manage to break his nose? Would you not put out your hands to prevent a fall?

Never experienced gravity then no? Running at speed + tripping = increase velocity, not always possible to totally stop yourself...

If he didnt use his hands he'd mashed himself bad.

Kurz

smash wrote: »

Who's money do you think it is?

It's the taxpayer's money Joe, regardles of who's being sued, it's the taxpayer Joe. Ray Darcy is a Nigerian Joe.

fionny

smash wrote: »

Who's money do you think it is?

Who gives a ****, the council are paid to do their job and if they arent doing it they need a kick up the ****en arse. They can sack one of their lazy bastard employees to pay for it.

If its not their fault then they can chance the responsible people in turn.

smash

Kurz wrote: »

It's the taxpayer's money Joe, regardles of who's being sued, it's the taxpayer Joe. Ray Darcy is a Nigerian Joe.

I heard he eats swans too!

fionny wrote: »

Who gives a ****

Well I kind of do, it means they'll have less money to upgrade other things.

bbam

In fairness I can't see the problem.
He was injured by no fault of his own. He has bills to be paid.
Surely he is also entitled to be compensated for his pain and suffering which wouldn't have happened but for someone else being careless. It sounds like a reasonable case.

I would object if he were exaggerating his injuries to get more compensation.

I've had life changing injuries from an accident for which i had no responsibility, and have no hesitation in claiming compensation including for pain and suffering. I think he's right provided its not exaggerated.

kippy

fionny wrote: »

Who gives a ****, the council are paid to do their job and if they arent doing it they need a kick up the ****en arse. They can sack one of their lazy bastard employees to pay for it.

If its not their fault then they can chance the responsible people in turn.

And you dont think the individual involved (Darcy) is at fault or partial fault in this instance at all?

fionny

smash wrote: »

Well I kind of do, it means they'll have less money to upgrade other things.

They can pay themselves one less bonus or maybe lose some of their 40days holidays.

the_syco

I'm trying to figure out how he broke his nose. Were both his hands tied behind his back?

fionny

the_syco wrote: »

I'm trying to figure out how he broke his nose. Were both his hands tied behind his back?

Another person who's arms are locked perfectly straight and doesnt understand how speed and gravity work....

smash

fionny wrote: »

They can pay themselves one less bonus or maybe lose some of their 40days holidays.

Yea, that's not how it works. You see they have a spending budget and this eats into it. He's getting covered by his health insurance and wont have any costs so he doesn't need the money, he's doing it to blow his own trumpet.

fionny

smash wrote: »

Yea, that's not how it works. You see they have a spending budget and this eats into it. He's getting covered by his health insurance and wont have any costs so he doesn't need the money, he's doing it to blow his own trumpet.

And he's not taking any money for himself, he is doing it as a matter principle, he is making use of the law. If he is wrong he will lose the case and end up paying costs... if this is a real problem for the government spending they could legislate.

kippy

fionny wrote: »

And he's not taking any money for himself, he is doing it as a matter principle, he is making use of the law. If he is wrong he will lose the case and end up paying costs... if this is a real problem for the government spending they could legislate.

Indeed, and this is the biggest issue I have with these type of claims (as I mentioned in a post earlier)
What if legislation were enacted to outlaw running on footpaths? (Seeing as running is a more hazardous activity than walking, where the runner cannot take in as much about their surroundings and their chance of injury is higher?)

Wasn't there an incident in the UK a few years ago where fans were allowed into training sessions of the big clubs, one fan got hit on the face by the ball, broke her nose, sued, cost the club a few grand and after that all training sessions were closed to the public?
Edit, found a reference to it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/apr/07/sunderland-fan-sues-club
I have no idea what the end result was however it's something that people need to bear in mind when supporting those that feel the need to blame others.

jayteecork

what a C*NT.

smash

fionny wrote: »

And he's not taking any money for himself, he is doing it as a matter principle, he is making use of the law. If he is wrong he will lose the case and end up paying costs... if this is a real problem for the government spending they could legislate.

I'd have a bit of respect for him if he said:
"I'm going to take suggestions here on my show for things that need to be fixed in the area and hand it to the council, if they're not fixed within 2 weeks I'll sue and give the proceeds to charity. And then they will have been notified of the issues so they'll have to be resolved anyway.."

But he didn't, it's just publicity for him.

irelandrover

fionny wrote: »

Another person who's arms are locked perfectly straight and doesnt understand how speed and gravity work....

How fast do you need to be going in order to not have time to put out your hands? If you were travelling that fast and tripped over a hard metal object it would damage your toes. Since D'arcy moans about absolutely everything if his toes were damaged he would have mentioned it.
Ive tripped before when running and have managed to not break my nose.

dirtyden

Why does the thought of Ray Darcy smashing face first into the pavement make me smile a little inside.

Now we need to just get Tubridy on this jogging route.

If it was big enough to trip on he should have seen it, we pay for his incompetence. Typical Darcy even when he falls flat on his face he blames someone else.