Woman claims from accident at Dublin Zoo

The Bishop Basher

Lux23 wrote: »

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.

She has a responsibility to herself and her own personal safety. N-one forced her to walk across the boardway.

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.

I don't care whether it was or wasn't.

She was hill walking... What did she expect ?

It shouldn't matter whether it was visible or not. When out hill walking you take care and watch your footing. No one else is going to watch it for you..

I regularly walk up the Wicklow hills myself and there are trip hazards and obstacles absolutely everywhere and not one of them are signposted as such. It can be a hazardous pursuit at times and anyone partaking knows this. You're out in nature FFS. There are no smooth tarmac paths. You watch where you're going and take responsibility for yourself and anyone walking with you.

Also interesting to note also that despite countless other injuries to other walkers, far more serious in nature then her grazed knee, many including broken limbs and airlifts off the mountain, this lady is the first and only to actually sue the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

No doubt there be a few more along shortly now that she's got the ball rolling.

It's greed, plain and simple and nothing you say will convince me otherwise.

Samaris

I said as much on the other thread, and I'm going to point it out here too.

It has been said repeatedly that compo claims are on the rise and thus so are premiums. True, but the vast majority of comp that's paid out are whiplash cases, which are notoriously hard to prove. There definitely is a case to be made for reforming compensation claims for whiplash. The rest tend to be treated on a case-by-case basis. For instance, the two families that lost their houses in Belfast last night to those idiotic bonfires. Should they refrain politely from claiming, having lost everything, because well, it'll push up insurance premiums? Eh, no.

Slip and fall claims have justifiably (and unjustifiably) been going since the concept of compensation came in (and compensation for injury or defamation was even prevalent in Viking and early Irish culture, so it's hardly a new problem!)

But once it's gone through the courts and liability has been proven, all you're doing by casting aspersions against the morals or injuries of the claimant is leaving yourself very rightfully open to a defamation case. And you absolutely will look a tool defending it in court. "Er, yeah, I said it based on a Times article. Didn't seem right. S/he's a liar."

Attack the laws if you want, but attacking the people is stupid (and unfair) beyond measure.

Also, someday it might be you.

Swanner

Swanner wrote: »

I don't care whether it was or wasn't...

You don't know and don't care whether the defect was visible or not? Isn't the knowledge of the claimant kinda a very very crucial issue in claiming contributory negligence?

What you are saying completely misconstrues the nature of her claim. She wasn't suing the hills, she wasn't denying that walking in nature has a certain risk. She was saying she was directed to walk on a specific structure, and that structure was rotten, and there was thus a duty of care and a breach of it.

The Bishop Basher

Samaris wrote: »

Also, someday it might be you.

I would need to have a very significant injury and be out of pocket, as in out of work and / or significant medical bills. A broken leg or a scar on my knee for example, wouldn't cut it..

It would also need to be very much the fault of the other party, as in getting hit by a drunk driver or something. Any situation where I have control such as the examples discussed in this thread, would not be occasion for a claim in my view.

And I could never ever blame someone else for tripping on a "hazard" while out on a hill walk regardless of my injury, let alone seek financial compensation for it.

Thankfully the vast vast majority of other hill walkers, as in all but one, have also thought that way up to now..

The Bishop Basher

Deleted User wrote: »

You don't know and don't care whether the defect was visible or not? Isn't the knowledge of the claimant kinda a very very crucial issue in claiming contributory negligence?

What you are saying completely misconstrues the nature of her claim. She wasn't suing the hills, she wasn't denying that walking in nature has a certain risk. She was saying she was directed to walk on a specific structure, and that structure was rotten, and there was thus a duty of care and a breach of it.

We see it from opposite perspectives. I do understand where you're coming from as in you're adopting a purely legal perspective which is fine. The legal perspective not only supports but encourages these kind of "claims" so naturally you are happy to support anything once the court finds in favour.

I'm looking at it from an ethical standpoint and would question whether we should entertain them at all. Falling over a piece of timber while on a hill walk is not the fault of the piece of timber or the person who put it there. Nor is it the fault of the person who owns the land. It's the fault of the person who tripped over it.

I would much prefer to see us push the onus of responsibility for our own personal safety back on the individuals themselves and stop blaming everyone for every fall while making a few quid in the process.

But at the end of the day, you see claims where i'll never see them and we're not going to find any common ground on this..

BattleCorp

Swanner wrote: »

I would need to have a very significant injury and be out of pocket, as in out of work and / or significant medical bills. A broken leg or a scar on my knee for example, wouldn't cut it..

Are you saying that you wouldn't want compensation for a broken leg if a pathway or bridge that you were walking across collapsed or caused you to trip? Seriously? Have you ever broken a leg? It's not like getting a split end in your hair. It is a serious injury. And depending on the type of break, it might never heal properly and you could be left permanently disabled because of it.

It would also need to be very much the fault of the other party, as in getting hit by a drunk driver or something. Any situation where I have control such as the examples discussed in this thread, would not be occasion for a claim in my view.

The courts disagree with your assessment of who was at fault in the case in question. They put none of the blame on the woman. The court felt it was very much the fault of the other party as they failed to properly maintain the boardwalk.

And I could never ever blame someone else for tripping on a "hazard" while out on a hill walk regardless of my injury, let alone seek financial compensation for it.

It all depends on the severity of the injury. If the injury was going to seriously impact on your life, I suspect that you would seek financial compensation.

Sam Kade

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Look, forget about court any person with a bit of cop on would have known whether it were safe to walk across or not, that's the point I'm making.

Swanner

Swanner wrote: »

The legal perspective not only supports but encourages these kind of "claims" so naturally you are happy to support anything once the court finds in favour.

I'm looking at it from an ethical standpoint and would question whether we should entertain them at all...

The legal perspective is also the one that understands the concept of negligence and the issues at play.

I don't accept that there is anything ethical at all about driving a coach and fours through the concept of negligence. What is unethical about the proposition that if you are to blame for the injury to another, you should pay?

Swanner wrote: »

I would much prefer to see us push the onus of responsibility for our own personal safety back on the individuals themselves and stop blaming everyone for every fall while making a few quid in the process.

But...erm...the Court decided that on the facts in this case, responsibility rested with the defendant and blame did not attach to the individual. It would be completely wrong for a Court to arrive at that conclusion...but then strike a case out because it wants the onus to change.

What precisely in the law of negligence would you change to effect this onus change?

Sam Kade

Sam Kade wrote: »

Look, forget about court any person with a bit of cop on would have known whether it were safe to walk across or not, that's the point I'm making.

I think the opposite, if people are directed to go on a structure, anyone with a bit of cop on would expect that structure should be safe for the purpose for which it was intended.

The Bishop Basher

BattleCorp wrote: »

Are you saying that you wouldn't want compensation for a broken leg if a pathway or bridge that you were walking across collapsed or caused you to trip? Seriously?

Seriously.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Have you ever broken a leg? It's not like getting a split end in your hair. It is a serious injury. And depending on the type of break, it might never heal properly and you could be left permanently disabled because of it.

Not a leg but i've broken other bones. And as i've already said, if my life was negatively impacted to any significant degree and if I had little control over the situation leading to the injury, which doesn't include tripping on something, then yes I would seek to cover my costs and losses.

BattleCorp wrote: »

The courts disagree with your assessment of who was at fault in the case in question.

I'm not disputing that. I just don't agree with the basic premise that they could or should be liable for someone tripping on it in the first place...

It wasn't a pavement outside a shop. She was hill walking ffs.

BattleCorp wrote: »

It all depends on the severity of the injury. If the injury was going to seriously impact on your life, I suspect that you would seek financial compensation.

Compensation for sleepless nights ? No. I would seek actual costs and losses though, as long as it was done to me and i had no control over it.

The Bishop Basher

Deleted User wrote: »

What is unethical about the proposition that if you are to blame for the injury to another, you should pay?

Nothing at all but that's where we differ...

I'll never hold you responsible for me tripping over something of yours.

You on the other hand would be looking for compensation from me.

As I said, we're not going to find any middle ground here.

The Bishop Basher

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the opposite, if people are directed to go on a structure, anyone with a bit of cop on would expect that structure should be safe for the purpose for which it was intended.

"Two outdoor recreation consultants who walked the mountain path on two occasions each said it was for purpose."

"Paul Romeril, forensic engineer for the defence, said there was a 100mm wide hole on the sleeper but he did not accept it created a hazard."

"Cormac McDonnell, National Trails Office Manager for Sport Ireland said he had recently walked the boardwalks and had found them “extremely robust, durable and fit for purpose”."

But a hill walker with a claim and a judge who's probably never hill walked in his life both decided otherwise... :rolleyes:

OldNotWIse

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 share your sentiment in relation to the size of the payout however when assessing a PI claim, income is not the only factor that comes into it. The PIAB book of Quantum will give a guide as to upper and lower limits for specific injuries, the idea is to compensate for pain and suffering, and income comes in under a different category of losses which are quantifiable.

OldNotWIse

Swanner wrote: »

Compensation for sleepless nights ? No. I would seek actual costs and losses though, as long as it was done to me and i had no control over it.

Compensation for emotional distress is taken into consideration.