Woman claims from accident at Dublin Zoo

hullaballoo

How do you know it's not reasonable?

It isn't as though everyone is capable of being assessed at the same level. Just on the basis of loss of earnings alone, the award could be 5 years as a waitress or 6 months as an investment banker.

Either way, the extent to which an injury of this scale affects a person will be determined by that person's life and thankfully, the courts recognise that. We are talking about a permanent injury to a real human person.

You live with a permanent injury that prevents you from doing the things you love to do and say no, it's ok, I'll survive on disability payments?! Wtaf.

Having seen this sort of thing first hand many many times, I can tell you the vast majority of people would take not having the injury over the money. I'd be the same and rather have no money over 200 clients who've lost their quality of life because someone else wasn't arsed.

Zaph

hullaballoo wrote: »

Having seen this sort of thing first hand many many times, I can tell you the vast majority of people would take not having the injury over the money. I'd be the same and rather have no money over 200 clients who've lost their quality of life because someone else wasn't arsed.

I agree. I know someone who had an accident almost 20 years ago and received compensation afterwards. While the amount of compensation was significantly more than they expected, it was by no means a fortune and was a lot less than this woman received. However almost 20 years after the event this person still receives regular medical treatment and had major surgery not too long ago, with more planned in the not too distant future. That's on top of the almost constant pain they've been in for long periods since the accident. Tell me that there's any amount of compensation that you would accept to endure that for so long. I know my friend would certainly rather have lived a normal life than getting a few quid that is long gone at this stage.

Galwayguy35

hullaballoo wrote: »

How do you know it's not reasonable?

It isn't as though everyone is capable of being assessed at the same level. Just on the basis of loss of earnings alone, the award could be 5 years as a waitress or 6 months as an investment banker.

Either way, the extent to which an injury of this scale affects a person will be determined by that person's life and thankfully, the courts recognise that. We are talking about a permanent injury to a real human person.

You live with a permanent injury that prevents you from doing the things you love to do and say no, it's ok, I'll survive on disability payments?! Wtaf.

Having seen this sort of thing first hand many many times, I can tell you the vast majority of people would take not having the injury over the money. I'd be the same and rather have no money over 200 clients who've lost their quality of life because someone else wasn't arsed.

She busted her ankle, it's not exactly a life changing injury, the same thing happened to my brother when a cow stood on his ankle, yeah he gets a bit of pain in it occasionally but it doesn't stop him doing anything and he's older than her.

There is a culture of ambulance chasing here in Ireland and as long as judges award claims like this it will continue to be the case.

KERSPLAT!

"I hurt my ankle once but it's grand now, this woman's ankle should also be grand now."

How does anyone believe that this thinking is in any way logical!? There are far too many unknowns for us to dispute the amount paid out or the effect it has had on the persons life

Elliott S

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

She busted her ankle, it's not exactly a life changing injury, the same thing happened to my brother when a cow stood on his ankle, yeah he gets a bit of pain in it occasionally but it doesn't stop him doing anything and he's older than her.

Do you have both their medical files to hand to make this comparison?

AudreyHepburn

ScumLord wrote: »

So if you went to an establishment and slipped on a surface that's not suitable for people to be walking on and seriously injured yourself, you'd be ok with it? You wouldn't feel like the establishment let you down by allowing conditions that would possibly lead to a serious injury. You'd be just happy to pay all those bills yourself? If you couldn't work you'd just chalk it up to accidents happen? You'd be happy knowing that the establishment has prepared for this day by paying insurance, that money just sitting there in an account while you suffer at home unable to go about your daily business.

I think once people are faced with a medical bill they have little choice but to take the insurance.

In all honesty unless my medical bills were such that I genuinely could not afford them myself and the establishment involved were genuinely purposefully negligent, no I probably wouldn't.

I'm not a vindictive person nor some-one who believes that every hurt deserves a huge payout.

Sometimes accidents just happen and for me slipping on wet ground is not a good enough reason to take some-one to the cleaners.

AudreyHepburn

maudgonner wrote: »

Surely it suggests the opposite? That after the accident occurred they looked at the manhole covers and decided they would replace them - to prevent future accidents, and to ward off future compensation claims?

That would be my thinking.

The Bishop Basher

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

In all honesty unless my medical bills were such that I genuinely could not afford them myself and the establishment involved were genuinely purposefully negligent, no I probably wouldn't.

I'm not a vindictive person nor some-one who believes that every hurt deserves a huge payout.

Sometimes accidents just happen and for me slipping on wet ground is not a good enough reason to take some-one to the cleaners.

Was discussing this on another thread...

I couldn't agree more with your sentiments but it seems people who think like us are becoming more and more of a rarity...

Many others it seems are more then happy for them and others to stick a claim in and sure why wouldn't they ??

Lot's of "free" money on offer..

Also interesting to note that many of the most vociferous supporters of our current system on boards all seem to work in the legal trade.

Take from that what you will.

Sam Kade

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

"I hurt my ankle once but it's grand now, this woman's ankle should also be grand now."

How does anyone believe that this thinking is in any way logical!? There are far too many unknowns for us to dispute the amount paid out or the effect it has had on the persons life

Maybe she should also sue wherever she bought her shoes as the made her slip on a metal surface.

Sam Kade

ScumLord wrote: »

So if you went to an establishment and slipped on a surface that's not suitable for people to be walking on and seriously injured yourself, you'd be ok with it? You wouldn't feel like the establishment let you down by allowing conditions that would possibly lead to a serious injury. You'd be just happy to pay all those bills yourself? If you couldn't work you'd just chalk it up to accidents happen? You'd be happy knowing that the establishment has prepared for this day by paying insurance, that money just sitting there in an account while you suffer at home unable to go about your daily business.

I think once people are faced with a medical bill they have little choice but to take the insurance.

I walk on surfaces every day that other people would find unsuitable for walking, I've had a few falls but never managed to do damage a lot of it has to do with watching where you are going as well but of course it's easier to blame someone else when you aren't capable of doing that.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Last year I was in a pub and the toilets were in darkness. No lights on. So I'm sitting on the toilet when I hear this lady call out to help her she couldn't get the door open. The most logical thing I could think of was at the time go climb onto the toilet seat and try look over the cubicle. Now, I'm not the tallest so as I was trying to go up further on my tip toes, and came straight off it, and somehow managed to get wedged between the toilet and sanitary bin. Straight down on it.

I made bits of it. Xrayed, booted up for 6 weeks, was alright.
Though pretty much everyone who asked what happened assumed it was compo time. One person even told me I was an eejit for not sueing him. Imagine the shame of that? I fell off a toilet your honour

Sam Kade

Sam Kade wrote: »

Maybe she should also sue wherever she bought her shoes as the made her slip on a metal surface.

Absolutely, if the shoes were slippy she could have sued the manufacturer. Or, as would be more common, if the defendant felt liability lay elsewhere, they are entitled to join that party to the proceedings. As they didn't, we must assume that this was not an issue at all.

Sam Kade wrote: »

I walk on surfaces every day that other people would find unsuitable for walking, I've had a few falls but never managed to do damage a lot of it has to do with watching where you are going as well but of course it's easier to blame someone else when you aren't capable of doing that.

But in most cases of slip and fall, the defence of contributory negligence is raised. The matter you mention is considered in pretty much every case of this nature.

LexieOnRale

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I made bits of it. Xrayed, booted up for 6 weeks, was alright.
Though pretty much everyone who asked what happened assumed it was compo time. One person even told me I was an eejit for not sueing him. Imagine the shame of that? I fell off a toilet your honour

It would not be an easy claim.

I mean, toilets are not for climbing on, certainly not in the dark. I think it would be fully fought and suspect most Judges would just fling it out.

Very different to the facts of the case in the OP.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Deleted User wrote: »

It would not be an easy claim.

I mean, toilets are not for climbing on, certainly not in the dark. I think it would be fully fought and suspect most Judges would just fling it out.

Very different to the facts of the case in the OP.

I know you've more experience than I do, but look at that case in coppers where the drunk woman fell and broke her arm on the dance floor. There doesn't seem to be any personal responsibility anymore

LexieOnRale

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I know you've more experience than I do, but look at that case in coppers where the drunk woman fell and broke her arm on the dance floor. There doesn't seem to be any personal responsibility anymore

The woman who lost her claim?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/woman-loses-claim-after-dirty-dancing-at-copper-face-jacks-1.1446324

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Deleted User wrote: »

The woman who lost her claim?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/woman-loses-claim-after-dirty-dancing-at-copper-face-jacks-1.1446324

Well I'm delighted to see that. I was convinced she'd won that.

Sam Kade

The time the woman tripped over herself on the mountain a woman on the radio said that they should have clear pathways on mountains for walkers, I told her that if she wasn't capable of walking over rough terrain without falling over herself that she should stay at home by the fire.

Sam Kade

Sam Kade wrote: »

The time the woman tripped over herself on the mountain a woman on the radio said that they should have clear pathways on mountains for walkers, I told her that if she wasn't capable of walking over rough terrain without falling over herself that she should stay at home by the fire.

I'm not aware of any suggestion that she "tripped over herself". The claim was that the boardwalk was rotting and unsafe. The defence was based on assumed risk, not that she herself had tripped herself up.

Are legal threads the worst for "people just making up any old stuff at all"? Where did you get this idea from? Was it suggested in the evidence? It certainly was not accepted by the Court which was shown pics of a rotting boardwalk with staples protruding. Do you think they were pics of somewhere else?

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not aware of any suggestion that she "tripped over herself". The claim was that the boardwalk was rotting and unsafe. The defence was based on assumed risk, not that she herself had tripped herself up.

Are legal threads the worst for "people just making up any old stuff at all"? Where did you get this idea from? Was it suggested in the evidence? It certainly was not accepted by the Court which was shown pics of a rotting boardwalk with staples protruding. Do you think they were pics of somewhere else?

there you go again introducing facts into a discussion. there is no place for them here.

The Bishop Basher

Deleted User wrote: »

The claim was that the boardwalk was rotting and unsafe. The defence was based on assumed risk, not that she herself had tripped herself up.....

..the Court which was shown pics of a rotting boardwalk with staples protruding. Do you think they were pics of somewhere else?

If it was clear to the court that the boardwalk was unsafe from a few pictures, why was it not clear to her ? After all was she not standing, in person, at the boardwalk before making the decision, her own decision, of her own free will, to cross the boardwalk

It's just yet another example of zero personal accountability shown. Everything is always someone else's fault. And sure why not, with 6 figure sums up for grabs. Personal accountability just doesn't pay..

blue note

Is it just me or are the majority of these cases women? You do hear about men getting what sound like excessive awards, but considerably more of the time it's a woman.

My personal favourite btw was the woman in Dublin airport who didn't know how to use an escalator and sued after she fell over at the top of it. I don't think she even suffered any broken bones or anything, but the judge ruled that it was 1/3 her fault for not looking for an escalator and 2/3 daa for not having a sign for one. So only awarded her 40k, not 60k!

Swanner

Swanner wrote: »

If it was clear to the court that the boardwalk was unsafe from a few pictures, why was it not clear to her ?...
...
It's just yet another example of zero personal accountability shown. Everything is always someone else's fault. And sure why not, with 6 figure sums up for grabs. Personal accountability just doesn't pay..

I presume the photos were taken after the accident?

I'm not sure that there were pics pre-accident to show that it was obvious. Do you know that it was visible?

And again. In pretty much every trip and fall case, contributory negligence is raised. It's not like the issue of personal responsibility is dismissed, quite the opposite, it is considered in every trip case. Do people think insurance companies don't know the area of law and forget that defence?

FAILSAFE 00

duffman3833 wrote: »

i was glancing through indo and seen this

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mum-who-slipped-on-manhole-cover-during-dublin-zoo-family-day-awarded-115000-34863998.html

Once again not all info here but there are millions of manhole covers in the country why does she get to sue is what i keep asking myself.
To me firstly its a big sum for something like this, secondly we cant bubble wrap everything, thirdly i might start suing for every injury i get cause everyone else taking advantage of it

What are they meant to do with the manhole, have people stand round it when it rains?

LOL, why in all these cases are the claimants dancers.

Take a fall, make a claim and suddenly it's noted in court that they are MC Hammer in their everyday lives.

p.s, I know why.

The Bishop Basher

Deleted User wrote: »

I presume the photos were taken after the accident?

I'm not sure that there were pics pre-accident to show that it was obvious. Do you know that it was visible?

There's no mention of the board walk suddenly changing shape or appearance after the fall. So the pics that the court saw must have shown it's condition at the time of the fall, otherwise why show them ? As the "victim" says herself, it was in a shocking state. Why didn't she see that either before or as she walked across it ? And if it was as bad as she says it was, why didn't she turn back or take extra care when crossing it ?

Deleted User wrote: »

And again. In pretty much every trip and fall case, contributory negligence is raised. It's not like the issue of personal responsibility is dismissed, quite the opposite, it is considered in every trip case. Do people think insurance companies don't know the area of law and forget that defence?

Of course they know the law but insurance companies don't give a fiddlers about what's fair or just. They just protect the bottom line. Nothing wrong with that but their actions shouldn't be taken as support of any moral or just position.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/dublin-woman-sues-parks-service-over-fall-on-wicklow-way-1.2519391

The Bishop Basher

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

LOL, why in all these cases are the claimants dancers.

Take a fall, make a claim and suddenly it's noted in court that they are MC Hammer in their everyday lives.

p.s, I know why.

So true...

See our mountaineering friend with poor vision up the Wicklow hills had even made it to Base camp on Everest :rolleyes:

Give me strength...

Lux23

Swanner wrote: »

If it was clear to the court that the boardwalk was unsafe from a few pictures, why was it not clear to her ? After all was she not standing, in person, at the boardwalk before making the decision, her own decision, of her own free will, to cross the boardwalk

It's just yet another example of zero personal accountability shown. Everything is always someone else's fault. And sure why not, with 6 figure sums up for grabs. Personal accountability just doesn't pay..

How is she personally responsible for the boards being rotted? She's not and she was injured because they were rotted. Her personal responsibility doesn't come into this.

Swanner

Swanner wrote: »

There's no mention of the board walk suddenly changing shape or appearance after the fall. So the pics that the court saw must have shown it's condition at the time of the fall, otherwise why show them ? As the "victim" says herself, it was in a shocking state. Why didn't she see that either before or as she walked across it ? And if it was as bad as she says it was, why didn't she turn back or take extra care when crossing it ?

You are just erecting assumption after assumption on the matter.

I asked if you know whether the defect was visible. I take it you don't.

Mr. CooL ICE

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

LOL, why in all these cases are the claimants dancers.

Take a fall, make a claim and suddenly it's noted in court that they are MC Hammer in their everyday lives.

p.s, I know why.

Why?

Could you shed some light on this? Something the rest of us don't know? Please note that in the article, and has been referenced multiple times throughout this thread, Dublin Zoo admitted liability, i.e. they said it was their own fault and not the claimant.

Sam Kade

Deleted User wrote: »

You are just erecting assumption after assumption on the matter.

I asked if you know whether the defect was visible. I take it you don't.

If it were visible in the photo in court surely it must have been visible on the day.

Sam Kade

Sam Kade wrote: »

If it were visible in the photo in court surely it must have been visible on the day.

Again, an assumption..."surely it must have...".

The simple fact is that we don't know whether it was visible from the media reports. We do know that the insurance company and their barristers, solicitors and engineers either did not feel the point was worth arguing, or argued it but it was simply rejected.

Repeating that she "must have seen it", "she had to have seen it" and so on, all assumptions, none borne out by the reports, and certainly at variance with the decision.

This was a fully fought case. They don't tend to overlook the really big stuff.