Fall on Wicklow Way, 7 stitches, 60k please!

groovyg

This is just unbelievable ! compo culture alive and well in this country. If she was so badly injured why didn't she call mountain rescue. She was able to walk off the mountain with the help of her husband and make her way to the swiftcare clinic for stitches which probably did more harm than good and now she's getting 40K for it!!!! This is just going to open up the flood gates to all sorts of claims, will it come to a point where you will have to pay to go for a walk/run/ in the national parks?

Pat Mustard

Threads merged

StupidLikeAFox

She did cut her knee on a rusty nail that was put there by someone and was sticking out. €40k was probably excessive though


[/devils advocate]

hmmm

Well that's the entire mountain access strategy screwed - there won't be a stile or a path left in the country as a consequence of this, just in case someone trips over a daffodil and scratches themselves.

ganmo

Who would let walkers in now.

I'd expect coilte's public liability insurance to rocket after this

knucklehead6

enjoy your hikes this weekend folks. Expect PRIVATE PROPERTY. NO ACCESS ALLOWED. TREASPASSERS WILL BE PROSECUTED. signs all over the hills by next weekend

AlanG

Terrible decision or else terrible legislation. This has the potential to ruin many outdoor pursuits and see a lot of land closed off.

Alun

I can't see it affecting normal access on tracks, paths or over open countryside. Doesn't the occupiers liability act or whatever it's called already cover that?

What's different here is that the NPWS erected a "structure", i.e the boardwalk, and didn't maintain it properly if at all. Many of the older sections that were built using genuine reclaimed sleepers are falling to bits now and probably should have been replaced years ago.

Note I'm not in any way condoning what happened here, just pointing out a salient point.

knucklehead6

Alun wrote: »

I can't see it affecting normal access on tracks, paths or over open countryside. Doesn't the occupiers liability act or whatever it's called already cover that?

What's different here is that the NPWS erected a "structure", i.e the boardwalk, and didn't maintain it properly if at all. Many of the older sections that were built using genuine reclaimed sleepers are falling to bits now and probably should have been replaced years ago.

Note I'm not in any way condoning what happened here, just pointing out a salient point.

But what landowner is going to take that risk? What landowner is going to take the risk that he doesn't come up against some crackpot judge just cos someone fell and broke a fingernail??

I'll be honest, if I owned land I'd be seriously considering removing access.

Alun

knucklehead6 wrote: »

But what landowner is going to take that risk? What landowner is going to take the risk that he doesn't come up against some crackpot judge just cos someone fell and broke a fingernail??

I'll be honest, if I owned land I'd be seriously considering removing access.

I thought that had all been covered by the act I mentioned? There's also been a court case that has confirmed that there's no liability in such cases.

The difference here is that a structure, i.e. a boardwalk was provided and not maintained, just like lots of public infrastructure in this country, not just that provided for outdoor recreation.

Down South

What if the farmer puts up a stile to stop his fence being damaged?

What if someone walks into one of his gates!!

knucklehead6

Alun wrote: »

I thought that had all been covered by the act I mentioned? There's also been a court case that has confirmed that there's no liability in such cases.

The difference here is that a structure, i.e. a boardwalk was provided and not maintained, just like lots of public infrastructure in this country, not just that provided for outdoor recreation.

What about a fence? Someone climbs over a fence between fields. A fence is a structure.

Alun

Down South wrote: »

What if the farmer puts up a stile to stop his fence being damaged?

Well, if he puts it up then he should maintain it. Again lots of examples around Wicklow where such stiles have been erected and left to rot.

Alun

knucklehead6 wrote: »

What about a fence? Someone climbs over a fence between fields. A fence is a structure.

I'd imagine the difference would be that the fence wasn't provided for people to climb over, so wasn't provided for that purpose.

ganmo

knucklehead6 wrote: »

What about a fence? Someone climbs over a fence between fields. A fence is a structure.

You should never climb a fence, you'd possibly be liable to damage to the fence

DubOnHoliday

so what next? All sleepers and meitheal shelters to be removed?

Alun

DubOnHoliday wrote: »

so what next? All sleepers and meitheal shelters to be removed?

That'd be a bit of a kneejerk reaction. Maybe just repair the sections that need repairing?

ganmo

Alun wrote: »

That'd be a bit of a kneejerk reaction. Maybe just repair the sections that need repairing?

Using what money?
A sign saying unsafe boardwalk would be much cheaper

sconhome

Remove all signage relating to the boardwalks so the implication is you use them at your own risk. They are 'just there' as an optional route choice.

BreadnBuddha

ganmo wrote: »

Using what money?
A sign saying unsafe boardwalk would be much cheaper

I'll make up a sign free of charge that says:

Watch your step. These are used railway sleepers on top of a mountain, not a red carpet to a payout. Greedy opportunistic compo-whores should take alternative path. Common sense equipped folks are invited to proceed with caution.

Alun

ganmo wrote: »

Using what money?
A sign saying unsafe boardwalk would be much cheaper

According to an earlier newspaper article there were already plans to start replacing the old reclaimed railway sleepers with brand new PT timber ones, so the money is apparently already there. That fact also suggests that NPWS already knew some of them were in a bad way, which may have not worked in their favour in the court case.

Tigerandahalf

Alun wrote: »

According to an earlier newspaper article there were already plans to start replacing the old reclaimed railway sleepers with brand new PT timber ones, so the money is apparently already there. That fact also suggests that NPWS already knew some of them were in a bad way, which may have not worked in their favour in the court case.

I'd agree. I think some people are overreacting a bit.
If a tourist family from Europe were walking on the same boardwalk and their child tripped up and got cut it wouldn't reflect well on the npws.
This is not a boreen in the backend of nowhere. It a promoted tourist trail.

Granted I hate seeing people bringing a case and alleging that a few stitches in their knee has stopped them from hiking or running any longer.
It looks like this lady saw the money signs.

Down South

Or save himself the hassle of a damaged fence or a legal obligation to maintain stile and simply stop access

Alun

Down South wrote: »

Or save himself the hassle of a damaged fence or a legal obligation to maintain stile and simply stop access

Why would maintaining a stile be any more hassle than maintaining his fences or any other infrastructure on his land which he'd be doing anyway?

While I'm on the one hand furious at this woman for doing what she did, without apparently pausing and thinking for a minute about the possible legal consequences and fall-out, it highlights that fact that regular inspection and maintenance are part and parcel of the overall costs of anything, be it built infrastructure, machinery, cars etc. You can't just build something and then walk away and ignore it until it breaks or falls apart, although the way some people treat their property you'd have to wonder sometimes.

Down South

Alun wrote: »

Why would maintaining a stile be any more hassle than maintaining his fences or any other infrastructure on his land which he'd be doing anyway?

While I'm on the one hand furious at this woman for doing what she did, without apparently pausing and thinking for a minute about the possible legal consequences and fall-out, it highlights that fact that regular inspection and maintenance are part and parcel of the overall costs of anything, be it built infrastructure, machinery, cars etc. You can't just build something and then walk away and ignore it until it breaks or falls apart, although the way some people treat their property you'd have to wonder sometimes.

He doesn't have to provide access. He's putting up stiles to facilitate walkers and at the same time save his fence. Of course in real life if he does so he will more than likely keep it maintained but I don't feel he should be obligated to or legally exposed if he doesn't. If hill walkers cant take that risk then stay on the couch

ganmo

Alun wrote: »

Why would maintaining a stile be any more hassle than maintaining his fences or any other infrastructure on his land which he'd be doing anyway?

While I'm on the one hand furious at this woman for doing what she did, without apparently pausing and thinking for a minute about the possible legal consequences and fall-out, it highlights that fact that regular inspection and maintenance are part and parcel of the overall costs of anything, be it built infrastructure, machinery, cars etc. You can't just build something and then walk away and ignore it until it breaks or falls apart, although the way some people treat their property you'd have to wonder sometimes.

Cause if a fence needs repairing there's a very definite it's either stock proof or not. Maintaining anything to health and safety standards where the standard is what if the worse happens is a headache that landowners don't need

ganmo

Down South wrote: »

He doesn't have to provide access. He's putting up stiles to facilitate walkers and at the same time save his fence. Of course in real life if he does so he will more than likely keep it maintained but I don't feel he should be obligated to or legally exposed if he doesn't. If hill walkers cant take that risk then stay on the couch

You shouldn't be climbing over fences full stop

hmmm

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

This is not a boreen in the backend of nowhere. It a promoted tourist trail.

A mountain route is not like an escalator in the Dundrum shopping centre. Unfortunately at best this will lead to over-engineered solutions e.g. the handrail on the boardwalk on Cuilcagh.

I'd hate to think what impact this will on people doing good work like Meitheal. Is it really acceptable to use stone in constructing routes in case some eejit slips on it? Can we use wood in case it rots? Should we tarmacadam the whole thing?

falan

Disgraceful judgement. Its hard enough as it is with access laws in this country! Many landowners will now be closing off their land because of this.:mad:

It's a disappointing decision.

But in the other hand, if it's the law and the Occupier's Liability Act allows for it, my ire would be reserved for those who drafted it, not for the Judge or anyone for applying it.

As I said before, I know of landowners who have considered the act and simply shut down access rather than try to defend a case. I can't blame them, but I can blame the legislature for allowing this situation to arise.

The one small silver lining in all of this is that the inevitable and understandable backlash as landowners shut down access may result in more pressure to bring in a right to roam law...with statutory protection for landowners whose lands are affected.