€257,000 compo ~ but why?.

wmpdd3

O yeah that makes sense, perfect award. Esp when you think of this:

Court reduces pay award for woman who underwent symphysiotomy
Wednesday, July 11, 2012 - 12:08 PM

The Supreme Court has cut the €450,000 awarded to a 60-year-old Co Louth woman who underwent symphysiotomy in 1969.

Olivia Kearney of Rosses Hollow, Milestown, Castlebellingham will now receive €325,000 damages as a result of the controversial procedure carried out at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda in 1969.

andrew241983

He was right to claim lads its not like he said i want 257,000 coz i cant fish or play the bag pipes anymore.. This was awarded to him by a judge whats he gonna say "no your alright judge i just want enough for a taxi home"... Noone here thats on here calling him a scumbag and a knacker... I wonder if u were awarded that amount of money wud turn it dwn considering how many family members you could help out with that money..cop on lads if anyone on her was awarded that you wud snap it up and dnt try and tell me otherwise...

SusieBlue

Sleepy wrote: »

On what grounds were the ESB negligent? And did they counter-sue the kids parents for their negligence which resulted in damage to their property?

juan.kerr wrote: »

I was going to ask the same thing but though it might be considered poor taste.

I can't remember too well but I'm pretty sure they were considered negligent because the tower was in close proximity of the boys primary school, and because of this, the judge thought it was reasonably forseeable that a child's curious nature would entice him to investigate the tower.

They were negligent because they should have had someone guarding the tower during sociable hours to prevent curious children hurting themselves :rolleyes:

The county council which approved the tower to be placed where it was were fined too, I think.

Capt'n Midnight

Can someone please explain the amount awarded ?

It's not loss of income.

How much did the surgery cost and was it successful ?


But most importantly it bears no relation to the sort of payouts that car insurance companies would pay for loss of fingers / limbs.

If an ESB van ran over someone they'd only get a fraction of this :mad:

http://www.injuriesboard.ie/eng/Estimator/

Shoulder/Upper Arm injuries

€111,000 to €145,000 - Loss of one arm (above elbow)
€141,000 to €197,000 – Loss of both arms
Up to €22,600 – Minor soft tissue injury - good recovery
€14,800 to €51,500 – Moderate soft tissue injury – Significant ongoing condition
€41,000 to €71,600 – Severe soft tissue injury (serious & permanent condition)
€14,600 to €25,600 – Minor dislocation - good recovery
€20,200 to €54,600 – Moderate dislocation – significant ongoing condition
€46,400 to €74,500 – Severe dislocation – serious and permanent condition
€15,400 to €29,300 – Minor fracture -good recovery
€21,000 to €72,400 – Moderate fracture – significant ongoing condition
€46,900 to €82,900 – Severe fracture (serious and permanent condition)

Bessiebee

the award will have been made up of general damages & special damages - the bulk of it for specials, i.e. his out of pocket expenses, future loss of earnings etc. If he was 55 he had potentially 10 years loss of earnings, any sick pay, disability benefit etc would be off set against this

westendgirlie

If someone offers me 200 grand I'm gonna take it but I would never even think about making a claim when it was my own stupidity that caused my fall.

If I skip along the road tomorrow and happen to trip over a pushchair and injure myself, can I claim for damages off the parents and child? Should said pushchair owner prepare a risk assessment for each outing, have warning signs in place and a first aid kit?

Fecking madness

Bessiebee

westendgirlie wrote: »

If someone offers me 200 grand I'm gonna take it but I would never even think about making a claim when it was my own stupidity that caused my fall.

If I skip along the road tomorrow and happen to trip over a pushchair and injure myself, can I claim for damages off the parents and child? Should said pushchair owner prepare a risk assessment for each outing, have warning signs in place and a first aid kit?

Fecking madness

You could probably sue the manufacturers of the pushchair, a good solicitor would find a good engineer who would prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it was defective, hence your trip ... it really is that easy

wonderfullife

semi-shocked at the response!

"had to undergo surgery 2 years later".

Surgeons don't operate on people who don't need surgery. He was obviously suffering badly with his neck. I've had a bad neck before for a week and it was torture!! Years of it would be soul destroying.

Easy to laugh it off as compensation culture but truth is he was carrying a ladder tripped on cable that should not have been there and the result is this. Basic negligence they had a duty of care to ensure the big spool of wire wasnt all over the place. If an 8 year old child tripped on it and broke his neck woulda been a tragedy.

Ficheall

An 8 year old child wouldn't have been so fecking careless.

Martin_ie2012

This is strange definitely an excessive amount of compensation. The deep sea fishing and bagpipes thing seems highly irrelevaqnt also as neither of these were a career so he hasnt suffered a financial loss as a result of not being able to do these things. Also the judge is critical of him and basically says he has not even tried to look for work then turns around and awards 250,000, the mind boggles.

Bessiebee

The surgeon who examined him on behalf of the Defence/ESB may have concluded that surgery wasn't necessary. Medical experts on opposing sides in litigation generally arrive at different conclusions, particularly in relation to injuries like whiplash, back injuries etc.

westendgirlie

Yer man should of looked where he was going. If it was a BIG spool, he was hardly going to miss it. Unless, the euro signs in his eyes were obscuring his view.

Bessiebee

Martin_ie2012 wrote: »

This is strange definitely an excessive amount of compensation. The deep sea fishing and bagpipes thing seems highly irrelevaqnt also as neither of these were a career so he hasnt suffered a financial loss as a result of not being able to do these things. Also the judge is critical of him and basically says he has not even tried to look for work then turns around and awards 250,000, the mind boggles.

You do realise that those bagpipes won't be able to look after themselves & he may have to pay someone to take them out for a wee tune now and again. You can't expect him to pay for that out of his own pocket.

wonderfullife

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I study Law and we see cases like this all the time.

A similar, very memorable one, is one when a 12 year old boy walked 25 minutes from his home, climbed a 6ft wall, jumped over a wired fence, past lots of "danger signs" and climbed up one of those electrical tower things. Poor boy got electrocuted.

His family managed to sue the ESB for millions due to negligence. I feel bad that he got electrocuted, but he clearly went out of his way to climb the thing and at 12 I think he should have had more sense not to.

Cases like that are won every day. Its ridiculous.

i'm worried if you study law and think that case was ridiculous.

Assuming you're referring to McNamarra v ESB [1975 I.R. 1]. The ESB erected a temporary fence in the process of building a wall, despite KNOWING children were playing near the substation. They knew there was a massive, forseeable risk of a child climbing the temporary fence and were absolutely negligent in not ensuring children were not electrocuted. Architects and engineers basically described the temporary fence as a joke!!

If you're referring to Keane v ESB 1981 (very similar case) the court found the ESB did everything possible to prevent injury or harm and was found to have no liability for his electrocution.

It's very very simple as you should well know; there is a duty of care involved and, in this case, having a large spool of wire all over the footpath is not living up to that duty of care.

wonderfullife

Ficheall wrote: »

An 8 year old child wouldn't have been so fecking careless.

have any of you ever carried a ladder? can be carried either on 1 shoulder or by your side and in either case it can obstruct part of your vision. What do ye all think??!!! that he saw the wire took a chance he'd fall on it and require surgery on his neck as a result of the fall and might get some compo??!! lol. sad and cynical.

SusieBlue

wonderfullife wrote: »

i'm worried if you study law and think that case was ridiculous.

Assuming you're referring to McNamarra v ESB [1975 I.R. 1]. The ESB erected a temporary fence in the process of building a wall, despite KNOWING children were playing near the substation. They knew there was a massive, forseeable risk of a child climbing the temporary fence and were absolutely negligent in not ensuring children were not electrocuted. Architects and engineers basically described the temporary fence as a joke!!

If you're referring to Keane v ESB 1981 (very similar case) the court found the ESB did everything possible to prevent injury or harm and was found to have no liability for his electrocution.

It's very very simple as you should well know; there is a duty of care involved and, in this case, having a large spool of wire all over the footpath is not living up to that duty of care.

I don't have any references on me as to which case it was but I'm pretty sure it was a more recent case than those two, I'll dig my notes out if I get a chance though, just to be sure :pac:

westendgirlie

wonderfullife wrote: »

have any of you ever carried a ladder? can be carried either on 1 shoulder or by your side and in either case it can obstruct part of your vision. What do ye all think??!!! that he saw the wire took a chance he'd fall on it and require surgery on his neck as a result of the fall and might get some compo??!! lol. sad and cynical.

You stated in the post before this that it was a large spool of wire thrown all over the place.

Have you seen a ladder? The depth from front to underside is roughly 3 inches ?? And if you hold it flat, it has 5 inches roughly visibilty between each rung. So how could he not see the large spool of wire thrown all over?

I hope the man in question is not a bit of a sitting duck now, the road he lived on was published, wouldnt be hard for some skangers to find and thieve off him.

wonderfullife

westendgirlie wrote: »

You stated in the post before this that it was a large spool of wire thrown all over the place.

Have you seen a ladder? The depth from front to underside is roughly 3 inches ?? And if you hold it flat, it has 5 inches roughly visibilty between each rung. So how could he not see the large spool of wire thrown all over?

believe it or not when you carry a ladder, your main concern is not looking at the footpath.....it's looking at other people making sure you don't take their heads off!!! The judge took into account the fact he possibly should have seen it by the 25% contributory negligence. So it'd be similar to say, if you walked across a fading zebra crossing and the driver hit you and said he couldn't see the crossing too well, you'd get like 90% of the award and the 10% contributory negligence you'd lose would be for walking across seeing the car coming at a speed you might have known was too fast to brake in time.

Ficheall

wonderfullife wrote: »

have any of you ever carried a ladder? can be carried either on 1 shoulder or by your side and in either case it can obstruct part of your vision. What do ye all think??!!! that he saw the wire took a chance he'd fall on it and require surgery on his neck as a result of the fall and might get some compo??!! lol. sad and cynical.

Do you not find carrying a ladder so that it obstructs your view of your feet makes it difficult to get past people and cars or to get through doors?

wonderfullife

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I don't have any references on me as to which case it was but I'm pretty sure it was a more recent case than those two, I'll dig my notes out if I get a chance though, just to be sure :pac:

haha cool beans just both cases involved an 11 and 12 year old being electrocuted, must be a ritual in Irish teenage years in some parts of the country!!! But my point is - it's not about the stupidity of the 12 year old, if the ESB knew there are kids playing at the scene it's their liability to ensure they cant just climb a temporary fence willy nilly and fry themselves!! when they did take every reasonable precaution, they held no liability!!

I have a great ladder, it has gaps in it, that I can see through...:p;)

wonderfullife

Ficheall wrote: »

Do you not find carrying a ladder so that it obstructs your view of your feet makes it difficult to get past people and cars or to get through doors?

at the end of the day, he should have seen it and that's reflected in the judgement. That doesn't take away from what happened - they owed all of us a duty of care not to have it all over the footpath like that and they admitted negligence. They didn't contest the fact it was their own fault.

hatrickpatrick

Maxim Witty Bomb wrote: »

STORY HERE.



He's not crippled, or brain damaged in any way. And by all accounts he's happy to sit back on his arse and wait for some compo as he's never made any attempts to get back into gainful employment after the accident.

Me finks someone's a cute ol' whore!.

The ESB (or anyone else, for that matter) have no right to obstruct pathways. This kind of thing needs to happen far more often in my view, then maybe companies and organizations will be more f*cking considerate of the public.

I almost got speared in the eye by an FF election poster last February, walking around Sandycove. Turned a corner and the feckin' thing was at eye level, sticking out from behind a lamp post, behind which you couldn't possibly see before turning the corner.

Whether he was culpable for his injuries or not is beside the point - they should have been fined for causing such an obstruction regardless of whether it injured him. Same applies to roadworks which aren't properly signed, hoses left sticking out of drainpipes etc.

westendgirlie

When carrying a ladder your first priority is to ensure that you are carrying it safely. This includes surveying the area for any obstructions. If he was looking straight ahead (for people) and his ladder was, say 4 foot ahead of him. He would also of seen the wire in front of him too.

LH Pathe

All avenues of what was formerly authority have gone too soft in this country. It's not nearly them, that should pay it's the claimant, ffs n it all contributes to this climate of people demanding something for nothing with no repercussions.

eaglebhoy

'Quote:Originally Posted by Samich Welcome back from 2005 €250k would buy a fairly nice house in Swords or Raheny. Do me fine' Yes my man take a look at DAFT at the mo and you'll find €257,000 will actually buy you a house in many parts of Dublin, good size ones too in nice areas therefore I'd assume you could buy a house in all parts of the country in that case ! It's amazing ! Now if only I had the money Can't say this thread isn't giving me ideas, ho-hum

allthedoyles

Bessiebee wrote: »

the award will have been made up of general damages & special damages - the bulk of it for specials, i.e. his out of pocket expenses, future loss of earnings etc. If he was 55 he had potentially 10 years loss of earnings, any sick pay, disability benefit etc would be off set against this

And 'pain and suffering' of course

Stiffler2

ah the public sector ripping money off the taxpayer, nothing to see here so

bloody councillers