Walker who fell on WW boardwalk gets 40 grand

walshb

Just an observation. Anyone else feel the OPs description of this woman as 'Burd' a little inappropriate? Plus, has the OP bothered to give an opinion?

Chorcai

All walking and running shouldn't be allowed anymore. That'll put a stop to all this nonsense.

RacoonQueen

walshb wrote: »

Just an observation. Anyone else feel the OPs description of this woman as 'Burd' a little inappropriate? Plus, has the OP bothered to give an opinion?

UM never gives his opinion, quite like how you always seem to offer the opposing opinion to the masses. Interesting really...

Jayop

Chorcai wrote: »

All walking and running shouldn't be allowed anymore. That'll put a stop to all this nonsense.

Ban all playing in school too.

Won't someone think of the children!

walshb

RacoonQueen wrote: »

UM never gives his opinion, quite like how you always seem to offer the opposing opinion to the masses. Interesting really...

Exactly why AR is appealing. It's interesting.

Wild Garlic

RacoonQueen wrote: »

UM never gives his opinion, quite like how you always seem to offer the opposing opinion to the masses. Interesting really...

So you are saying OP is news dumping?

RacoonQueen

Wild Garlic wrote: »

So you are saying OP is news dumping?

Or, starting threads to generate discussion, which this one certainly has. There is no rule to state you have to state your opinion or thoughts yourself when starting a thread. I likely wouldn't have seen this story until much later in the day if the thread hadn't been posted.

Chorcai

She should be banned from all parks/public areas too, she is risk to herself and the state could be sued again.

walshb

Chorcai wrote: »

She should be banned from all parks/public areas too, she is risk to herself and the state could be sued again.

For having an accident? So, surely every human would need to be banned then? Humans have accidents. Your post is outrageous.

PaulieC

Humans have accidents and they sue and potentially cause restrictions on other humans from enjoying the great outdoors. In my mind, if you can't take responsibility for your own actions, then you deserve to be treated differently if you prevent others from doing the same.

Pherekydes

walshb wrote: »

For having an accident? So, surely every human would need to be banned then? Humans have accidents. Your post is outrageous.

Your post is outrageously stupid. Plenty of people have accidents but never claim.

Jayop

walshb wrote: »

For having an accident? So, surely every human would need to be banned then? Humans have accidents. Your post is outrageous.

So one person being banned from enjoying the parks is more outrageous than your suggestion that they list all boardswalks nationwide so other people can't enjoy them without putting themselves in actual danger that doesn't just involve potential carelessness.

uvox

The award has not been made as this will be appealed, so this is best left to discussed in the courts. Besides, it was a walking event, only orthogonality does it have running implications.

ger664

Agree with walshb on this. Its a public structure like a footpath. As a result of it not been maintained correctly she had an accident. She is quite entitled to claim compensation for the consequences of an accident that could have been prevented.

The problem is the size of the award is way over the top. This type of payout is the reason why insurance cost in this country are so high and awards and legal costs only serve to increase insurance cost which will most likely cause many landowners get nervous and restrict ban access. etc.

Ronin247

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/500000-for-waitress-who-cut-hand-when-jug-exploded-34612316.html

Now there are ridiculous payments and there are ridiculous payments

walshb

ger664 wrote: »

Agree with walshb on this. Its a public structure like a footpath. As a result of it not been maintained correctly she had an accident. She is quite entitled to claim compensation for the consequences of an accident that could have been prevented.

The problem is the size of the award is way over the top. This type of payout is the reason why insurance cost in this country are so high and awards and legal costs only serve to increase insurance cost which will most likely cause many landowners get nervous and restrict ban access. etc.

You really think 40 k is OTT? You cannot put a price on your mobility being affected for likely the rest of your life. However, there are determined amounts for specific injuries and claims. Hers qualified for 40 k.

walshb

Pherekydes wrote: »

Your post is outrageously stupid. Plenty of people have accidents but never claim.

And? What has that got to do with those who do sue, and who are entitled to sue and entitled to compensation due to negligence out of their control? Are they all stupid and corrupt and bent for doing so?

Ron Gomall

Surely all activities on public lands/ parks are "at your own risk", also she claims to be an experienced hill walker, walking in various mountain ranges internationally etc etc. So where was she taking care when she was on the boards ?... The boards along the WW are in various states of repair, my understanding is if there were no boards then the parks would have no liability... but those who like to walk/run/ hike would have no facilities. I hope that the Parks are successful in their appeal, as the High Court costs will far outweigh the award. More importantly, with a precedent set, there will be a bunch of "slip,trips and falls" merchants looking to exploit the opportunity.
Worst case - they shut parts of WW until the boards are repaired, they are now "knowingly aware" of the problem and will have to put disclaimers up and fix the various boards/bridges along the way.
I hope all the IMRA racing and general public use stay as is in the interim.

Pherekydes

walshb wrote: »

And? What has that got to do with those who do sue, and who are entitled to sue and entitled to compensation due to negligence out of their control? Are they all stupid and corrupt and bent for doing so?

Whose negligence was it? If it was the state's or the county council's then how come we haven't had thousands more claims?

walshb

Pherekydes wrote: »

Whose negligence was it? If it was the state's or the county council's then how come we haven't had thousands more claims?

Have you bothered to read the article? A court of law made the judgment after the evidence was presented. The court ruled in her favour. Negligence on her part was not a contributory factor according to the ruling. Like I said pages ago, it's clear cut.

yes there

walshb wrote:

So, no chance your mind could be changed if the trip or fall caused an accident that took away your love of something, and that happened due to negligence that was out of your control.....?

Yes I agree. The woman was very negligent considering her experience. She should have sued herself.

If you go Hill walking your expecting dangerous terrain. Part of the fun is it not? Its not like she was wearing normal shoes walking around a country hotels grounds now is it.

walshb

yes there wrote: »

Yes I agree. The woman was very negligent considering her experience. She should have sued herself.

If you go Hill walking your expecting dangerous terrain. Part of the fun is it not? Its not like she was wearing normal shoes walking around a country hotels grounds now is it.

Seems a fair few posters haven't digested and understood the article. It was on a public maintained walkway where the injury occurred. Had she been injured elsewhere, off the public walkway then it's likely she wouldn't have sued. It's odd that so many can't bother to read the article.

ger664

walshb wrote: »

You really think 40 k is OTT?

Yes

tigerboon

walshb wrote: »

Seems a fair few posters haven't digested and understood the article.

I have stitches on both knees and elbows. Most obtained in public places doing things I considered fun at the time. I'm not a cripple and didn't see the need to sue for easy money. I would think that most people, like me, understand the article

walshb

tigerboon wrote: »

I have stitches on both knees and elbows. Most obtained in public places doing things I considered fun at the time. I'm not a cripple and didn't see the need to sue for easy money. I would think that most people, like me, understand the article

Injuries due to your negligence? Read the article again.

Krusty_Clown

ger664 wrote: »

Agree with walshb on this. Its a public structure like a footpath. As a result of it not been maintained correctly she had an accident. She is quite entitled to claim compensation for the consequences of an accident that could have been prevented.

There's a very, very small part of me that agrees (like getting hit by a train, because a level crossing barrier didn't come down), but we're talking about national parks here; specifically the wilderness. There should be some kind of zoning thing, where outside of urban areas, people are at their own risk and idiots suffer the consequences of being idiots.

I remember visiting Norway a couple of years back, and they had public facilities that will never become a reality in this pathetic idiot-compensation-culture of ours. Running tracks open for public use. Astro soccer pitches. Nature trails and hikes, with public paths. Seascapes and cliffs that were not fenced off.

This is what the future looks like, if we let the idiots win.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1BQPV-iCkU

tigerboon

walshb wrote: »

Injuries due to your negligence? Read the article again.

If you call living a life negligence then yeah. Have you ever done anything fun? Are you involved in the legal gravy train by any chance or have you been in the same position as the poor unfortunate in the article?

walshb

tigerboon wrote: »

If you call living a life negligence then yeah. Have you ever done anything fun? Are you involved in the legal gravy train by any chance or have you been in the same position as the poor unfortunate in the article?

Been fairly lucky to date. Plenty of bumps and scrapes and near misses. No need for me to seek compo or to sue. But, God forbid if I ever suffered an injury that impacted my life detrimentally, that was due to negligence, carelessness or poor practice on behalf of the state or some other person or body or company, yes I would seek compensation. It's got nothing to do with greed or gravy trains, and everything to do with justice and accountability, as well as being a right afforded to me as a citizen of this state.

It's all a pity...but on any reading of the Occupier's Liability Act it's hard to escape the thinking that it was inevitable. Section 4(4) specifically refers to structures on land, and know the standard advice to any landowner who enquires with a Solicitor as to whether they are liable is "was your land modified in any way so as to invite recreational users, such as a walkway, pitons on a cliff face etc? If so, you may be liable...".

The blame rests with the legislature.

pwurple

Really don't see how this woman was negligent in any way.

A rotten walkway was signed for usage. It collapsed and she was injured. There is cause, there is negligence and it is not on her part.

Why was it not maintained?
Why was it signed for use?