Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Woman claims from accident at Dublin Zoo

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    westcoast66
    Closed Accounts Posts: 211 ✭✭westcoast66


    I hope she pays all her tax on this payout.


  • Options
    #33
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,411 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    westcoast66 wrote: »
    I hope she pays all her tax on this payout.

    what tax? compensation awards are not taxable.


  • Options
    #34
    valoren
    Registered Users Posts: 5,474 ✭✭✭valoren


    Utdfan20titles wrote: »
    Where did the €115,000 come from? Just pulled out of the air? Even if it was 100% the zoos fault, how is it decided that €115k is the right amount to pay out? Seems like a lot for the injury involved.

    Usually a settlement is offered, in the region of €20,000, however the plaintiff is entitled to refuse this offer and invoke their right to "Spin....that...Wheel!!!"

    The courts have a dedicated room with a Winning Streak style "Spin the Wheel" which includes a myriad of figures, ranging from 10k through to 500k. It is witnessed by the legal team on both sides. In this case the plaintiff chose the correct option.





    :D


  • Options
    #35
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,411 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    valoren wrote: »
    Usually a settlement is offered, in the region of €20,000, however the plaintiff is entitled to refuse this offer and invoke their right to "Spin....that...Wheel!!!"

    The courts have a dedicated room with a Winning Streak style "Spin the Wheel" which includes a myriad of figures, ranging from 10k through to 500k. It is witnessed by the legal team on both sides. In this case the plaintiff chose the correct option.





    :D

    Do they get Marty Whelan involved?


  • Options
    #36
    valoren
    Registered Users Posts: 5,474 ✭✭✭valoren


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Do they get Marty Whelan involved?

    If he is available. Where not, the judge will issue the order to "Spin...that...wheel". ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    While the Zoo did admit some liabilty meaning she is by law entitled to something I really feel that €115,000 is far too much for a simple dislocation...

    No no, they accepted full liability. Not some liability.

    All of it. 100%./ There was no suggestion of contributory negligence.

    I think you may be unsure of the word liability, your issue is with quantum.


  • Options
    #38
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    duffman3833 wrote: »
    you could now say that every manhole cover or metal surface which you would walk on is now gonna be a potential claim
    accidents happen. Cant blame companies or council.

    Yes, every metal surface is a potential danger, and that's why you're obliged to make sure they're not slippery! A textured surface on the manhole cover would go a long way towards making it less slippery. Making sure it is positioned to allow extra water to drain off is important too. I'm sure there are lots of things that one can do to reduce the risk.

    I absolutely blame companies and councils if they slap down a slick metal surface that allows water to pool on it.


  • Options
    #39
    gramar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,045 ✭✭✭✭gramar


    Armchair Andy wrote: »
    Is he not entitled to an opinion either way?

    I'd look on your rash decision to label him as not a nice person as more a negative than his coarse outlook.

    As it's AH, you may be just thankswhoring, in that case, bate away.

    Say something a little un-pc...get told off by another poster for your comment/opinion = 100 thanks for that poster. Never fails.


  • Options
    #40
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    wp_rathead wrote: »
    I agree that they liable and entitled to claim - but I don't understand where the €100k came from
    She was on crutches for 13 week's - give her maybe €23k, two grand for each week
    The amount is at the discretion of the judge am I right?

    Yes, but they are not able to make up completely nonsense grounds for determining the amount, unlike you.

    How much of her claim relates to general damages? How much is based on special damages? Loss of earnings? Future losses? Why is 2k a week for every week on crutches the yardstick? You just plucked that out of thin air.


  • Options
    #41
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,411 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    valoren wrote: »
    If he is available. Where not, the judge will issue the order to "Spin...that...wheel". ;)


    once it isnt that ghoul from westlife


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    westcoast66
    Closed Accounts Posts: 211 ✭✭westcoast66


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    what tax? compensation awards are not taxable.

    From Revenue : http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/leaflets/it13.html
    The person receiving the compensation must, as a result of the injury, be permanently and totally incapacitated either physically or mentally from maintaining himself or herself.

    I doubt if she satisfies this condition.


  • Options
    #43
    RayM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭RayM


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    What was nasty about the opinion?

    What's nasty about referring to a total stranger as "a fat <Snip>

    Uh, dunno lol


  • Options
    #44
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,411 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    westcoast66 wrote: »
    From Revenue : http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/leaflets/it13.html



    I doubt if she satisfies this condition.

    every day is a learning day.


  • Options
    #45
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    purplecow1977 wrote: »
    He made a horrible and disgusting personal remark about a person he doesn't even know.

    I mean, where does that anger for a stranger even come from?!

    The mind boggles.

    Someone you don't know used two words when talking about someone you don't know. One of the words is an accurate description, so I wouldn't equate name-calling with a horrible and disgusting personal remark.


  • Options
    #46
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,411 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    Someone you don't know used two words when talking about someone you don't know. One of the words is an accurate description, so I wouldn't equate name-calling with a horrible and disgusting personal remark.

    and the other word?


  • Options
    #47
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    RayM wrote: »
    What's nasty about referring to a total stranger as "a fat c*nt"?

    Uh, dunno lol

    Precisely. She is overweight. Maybe she is a <snip>


  • Options
    #48
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    purplecow1977 wrote: »
    As an overweight woman, am I deemed to be a second class citizens or something?

    Am I not allowed to claim for an accident that wasn't my fault because I am fat?!

    It's entirely a question of physics that an overweight person is much more likely to suffer serious injuries to joints in a fall that a lighter person could just shrug off. I've had tumbles and spills on my bike that left me with little more than a graze; the same impact on an overweight person would probably have shattered bone and joints.

    It doesn't mean it's their fault, nor that they don't deserve compensation, but there's potentially an argument to be made that a self-induced condition which makes injury far more likely is a relevant factor to consider.


  • Options
    #49
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    and the other word?

    What of it? Are you the users/society's mommy and we mustn't use those words?


  • Options
    #50
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,411 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Zillah wrote: »
    It's entirely a question of physics that an overweight person is much more likely to suffer serious injuries to joints in a fall that a lighter person could just shrug off. I've had tumbles and spills on my bike that left me with little more than a graze; the same impact on an overweight person would probably have shattered bone and joints.

    It doesn't mean it's their fault, nor that they don't deserve compensation, but there's potentially an argument to be made that a self-induced condition which makes injury far more likely is a relevant factor to consider.

    but you dont know she was overweight at the time of the accident?


  • Options
    #51
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Zillah wrote: »
    It doesn't mean it's their fault, nor that they don't deserve compensation, but there's potentially an argument to be made that a self-induced condition which makes injury far more likely is a relevant factor to consider.
    I guess we could have a sliding scale for compensations. Smaller people can get more compensation because their genes make them less culpable, Tall people should probably get much less because they're heavier and more likely to get a head injury walking into things.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,411 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    What of it? Are you the users/society's mommy and we mustn't use those words?

    what does it add to the discussion? are people not capable of having a discussion without them?


  • Options
    #53
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Icaras wrote: »
    For me its the payout. 115k for a dislocated ankle seems a lot. If you said 40k is a avg yearly wage its 3 years wages for a dislocated ankle which to me is disproportionate. I do agree Dublin Zoo have a duty of care and failed in their duty of care. The payout will come from Dublin Zoo's insurance company but it will have a bounce back on higher premiums etc. As we all know insurance companies dont like losing money.

    I'm not too sure. From reading the article, it seems like the woman's lifestyle was greatly affected by someone else's negligence. I don't know more than what's in the article, but it sounds like something that could last her whole life. So, given that, 115K seems an OK figure. It sucks that there's going to be a bounceback, but it's not the woman's fault that the judge saw that a suitable figure. And I'm sure there were many other factors behind it, that we're just not seeing.


  • Options
    #54
    maudgonner
    Registered Users Posts: 5,455 ✭✭✭maudgonner


    ScumLord wrote: »
    I guess we could have a sliding scale for compensations. Smaller people can get more compensation because their genes make them less culpable, Tall people should probably get much less because they're heavier and more likely to get a head injury walking into things.

    Ooooh, minefield. Tall people can then sue their parents for passing on genes that deprive them of compensation, surely?


  • Options
    #55
    Mr. CooL ICE
    Registered Users Posts: 17,550 ✭✭✭✭Mr. CooL ICE


    Mod:

    Thread reopened. Please be aware that throwing insults at a woman who has been named in the paper can easily get boards in trouble. A little cop on goes a long way.

    And elastics, don't post in this thread again


  • Options
    #56
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    but you dont know she was overweight at the time of the accident?

    I'm not saying anything about this specific case, I'm talking in generalities.
    ScumLord wrote: »
    I guess we could have a sliding scale for compensations. Smaller people can get more compensation because their genes make them less culpable, Tall people should probably get much less because they're heavier and more likely to get a head injury walking into things.

    You seem to have missed the "self-induced" part of this. Being overweight is not genetic, as much as some people would like to convince themselves otherwise.

    If I give a cold to a person whose immune system is compromised due to drug abuse, and they die of pneumonia, am I guilty of killing them or were they unusually prone to suffering serious harm from something that would be trivial to other people? Horrible for them that it happened but no one is going to say it's reasonable to hold me responsible.


  • Options
    #57
    The King of Moo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭The King of Moo


    Armchair Andy wrote: »
    That he didn't do though. He's as guilty of labelling as the the poster who threw "fat ****" around.

    I think they came to an understandable conclusion about the poster's personality, based on the post.


  • Options
    #58
    gramar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,045 ✭✭✭✭gramar


    valoren wrote: »
    Usually a settlement is offered, in the region of €20,000, however the plaintiff is entitled to refuse this offer and invoke their right to "Spin....that...Wheel!!!"

    The courts have a dedicated room with a Winning Streak style "Spin the Wheel" which includes a myriad of figures, ranging from 10k through to 500k. It is witnessed by the legal team on both sides. In this case the plaintiff chose the correct option.


    :D

    There used to be a few 'get the gunge' segments on that wheel too. They took them off after people started to use them as a basis for further claims.


  • Options
    #59
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,411 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    maudgonner wrote: »
    Ooooh, minefield. Tall people can then sue their parents for passing on genes that deprive them of compensation, surely?


    can i get compensation for every time somebody asked me "Whats the weather like up there?" because that never gets old.


  • Options
    #60
    RayM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭RayM


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    Precisely. She is overweight. Maybe she is a cvnt?

    Lovely Christian attitude you've got there...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Zillah wrote: »
    You seem to have missed the "self-induced" part of this. Being overweight is not genetic, as much as some people would like to convince themselves otherwise.
    But there is the problem that someone may have similar injuries because they're tall. There's no way to fairly punish a person for being fat without some collateral damage.

    I find it funny how people flip flop between giving out about the nanny state yet constantly asking for more nanny state. Punish the other people that suffer inadequacies but don't look at mine.


Advertisement