Girl (5) awarded €50k for tripping over Ikea trolley as toddler

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It's not but here you have three parties. The party suing, were doing it on behalf of the toddler. The toddler had no contributory negligence so the award can't be reduced, like it would be if it was you or I.

It's important to note the parents didn't get this money, they got €200 of it on the day. It will be administered for the benefit of the child, as best it can be.

The child fell because a) ikea had a trolley out of place and b) because the parents didn't provide adequate supervision for their child causing her in part to hurt herself. The child is sueing, so her parents could be (and should have been) made co defendants. It's reasonably foreseeable that a child may trip fall and injure thems lives if they're not supervised and allowed run around therefore they are in part contributory negligent

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Deleted User wrote: »

But the shop was perfectly entitled to join the parents and argue contributory negligence But it would be just a waste of money. The issue is negligence, and "not being responsible enough" is not the same as negligence. Parents are entitled to expect that a shop won't leave anything lying around that might trip up a child and by the sounds of it nearly take their eye out, or leave them with what could be life long scarring on their face.

And shops are entitled to expect five year old children be kept under control while on their premises.

Samuel T. Cogley

LexieOnRale wrote: »

The child fell because a) ikea had a trolley out of place and b) because the parents didn't provide adequate supervision for their child causing her in part to hurt herself. The child is sueing, so her parents could be (and should have been) made co defendants. It's reasonably foreseeable that a child may trip fall and injure thems lives if they're not supervised and allowed run around therefore they are in part contributory negligent

As above as pointed out by Conor and yourself, they could have been joined (I think - although a bit odd!). There is no contributory negligence here, a toddler can't be contributoryly (sp?) negligent.

On the oddness - I suppose it's no odder than that woman who essentially sued herself (insurance) for not strapping the kid in.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

As above as pointed out by Conor and yourself, they could have been joined (I think - although a bit odd!). There is no contributory negligence here, a toddler can't be contributoryly (sp?) negligent.

On the oddness - I suppose it's no odder than that woman who essentially sued herself (insurance) for not strapping the kid in.

The client is the plaintiff, contrib negligence on her parents behalf. The only odd thing about it is they weren't brought in on the suit

Samuel T. Cogley

LexieOnRale wrote: »

And shops are entitled to expect five year old children be kept under control while on their premises.

Actually, if you take that analysis to it's logic conclusion they're not. They specifically try and distract you, it's called selling. I agree that it's not an excuse to abandon your child (although to be fair they supply a crèche) but it does mean that the standard of care needs to be looked at.

A standard of care, btw, we've no real info about, other than some eejit left a trolley in the gangway.

Samuel T. Cogley

LexieOnRale wrote: »

The client is the plaintiff, contrib negligence on her parents behalf. The only odd thing about it is they weren't brought in on the suit

You're misunderstanding it.

Toddler = plaintiff
Parents = clients
Crap furniture manufacture's insurance company = defendant

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Actually, if you take that analysis to it's logic conclusion they're not. They specifically try and distract you, it's called selling. I agree that it's not an excuse to abandon your child (although to be fair they supply a crèche) but it does mean that the standard of care needs to be looked at.

A standard of care, btw, we've no real info about, other than some eejit left a trolley in the gangway.

They've a duty of care to all their patrons. Had that child knocked down someone else, an elderly person, and caused them to break their hip, would the child's right to run around trump the safety of the other shoppers?

osarusan

LexieOnRale wrote: »

would the child's right to run around trump the safety of the other shoppers?

You've mentioned it a couple of times - where are you getting the bit about the child running round?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You're misunderstanding it.

Toddler = plaintiff
Parents = clients
Crap furniture manufacture's insurance company = defendant

Toddler: plaintiff
Parents: next friend (possibly co defendants)
Ikea: defendant

Samuel T. Cogley

Not sure, I heard tell of a woman who sued after falling over a child in a shop, it was her own child. Might have been bollocks though.

Not really sure it's very relevant to the thread though. This was a trolley.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

osarusan wrote: »

You've mentioned it a couple of times - where are you getting the bit about the child running round?

How did she fall?? Sitting in a trolley? Holding her parents hand?

Samuel T. Cogley

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Toddler: plaintiff
Parents: next friend (possibly co defendants)
Ikea: defendant

Very good, that's very probably the proper terminology. It makes absolutely no difference to the point being made. They could have been co-defendants, but they weren't.

osarusan

LexieOnRale wrote: »

How did she fall?? Sitting in a trolley? Holding her parents hand?

She could have been walking and tripped, the two articles in the OP don't say.

I am wondering where you got the part about her running about the place.

Kimbot

Original thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=102556211

Samuel T. Cogley

LexieOnRale wrote: »

How did she fall?? Sitting in a trolley? Holding her parents hand?

AFAWK, but the process of telekinesis - your assumptions are as assumptionany as anyone else's.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Very good, that's very probably the proper terminology. It makes absolutely no difference to the point being made. They could have been co-defendants, but they weren't.

They should have been, if this country wasn't so mad on ambulance chasing and deflecting responsibility maybe everyone's insurance would be a lot more reasonable and people would take better care of their children

Samuel T. Cogley

LexieOnRale wrote: »

They should have been, if this country wasn't so mad on ambulance chasing and deflecting responsibility maybe everyone's insurance would be a lot more reasonable and people would take better care of their children

I've linked the thread in legal discussions in this thread that debunks that myth.

Although agreed on the crap parenting point.

Tramore Tilly

LexieOnRale wrote: »

How did she fall?? Sitting in a trolley? Holding her parents hand?

You are familiar with TODDLERS, yes?

The do not have to be moving at any great speed to fall over. It's all well and good to blame the parents, but accidents can happen in a split second. You don't need to be neglecting your child for them to trip over something. One would hope an elderly person would have the capacity to identify and avoid a trip hazard.

The kid tripped over a trolley that shouldn't have been lying around, cut its forehead and is scarred. The parents will doubtless blame themselves, regardless of whether it's appropriate. When they see the scar they'll probably think, 'Feck, could I have got to her quicker before it happened' etc.

Not everything has to be - Parents 0 Self righteousness 1

Tramore Tilly

LexieOnRale wrote: »

They should have been, if this country wasn't so mad on ambulance chasing and deflecting responsibility maybe everyone's insurance would be a lot more reasonable and people would take better care of their children

Everyone's insurance is on the increase because of children? Lol

Damn toddlers speeding down motorways whacked out on the thrill of playing bumper cars with oncomers. Damn kids.:cool:

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Tramore Tilly wrote: »

You are familiar with TODDLERS, yes?

The do not have to be moving at any great speed to fall over. It's all well and good to blame the parents, but accidents can happen in a split second. You don't need to be neglecting your child for them to trip over something. One would hope an elderly person would have the capacity to identify and avoid a trip hazard.

The kid tripped over a trolley that shouldn't have been lying around, cut its forehead and is scarred. The parents will doubtless blame themselves, regardless of whether it's appropriate. When they see the scar they'll probably think, 'Feck, could I have got to her quicker before it happened' etc.

Not everything has to be - Parents 0 Self righteousness 1

Yes I'm familiar with toddlers, and I'm familiar with having to take care of toddlers. It was described in court as "not a significant injury". Feeling guilty does not override responsibility.

Tramore Tilly

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Yes I'm familiar with toddlers, and I'm familiar with having to take care of toddlers. It was described in court as "not a significant injury". Feeling guilty does not override responsibility.

Really? I find your lack of understanding of toddlers surprising if you've taken care of them yourself.

It's not a significant injury. Seemingly it's a scar on her forehead. No broken limbs etc. What has that got to do with it?

A toddler tripping does not equal lack of parental responsibility. If that was the case every parent in the world would be facing negligence charges ffs.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Tramore Tilly wrote: »

Really? I find your lack of understanding of toddlers surprising if you've taken care of them yourself.

It's not a significant injury. Seemingly it's a scar on her forehead. No broken limbs etc. What has that got to do with it?

A toddler tripping does not equal lack of parental responsibility. If that was the case every parent in the world would be facing negligence charges ffs.

Surely by your own arguement then they shouldn't have sued ikea because toddlers fall?

AudreyHepburn

Whether or not the trolley was in the wrong place, €50,000 for a tiny scar which will cause her no issues whatsoever in her life is madness.

Comp Culture at it's finest - what happened to the parents taking responsibility for their child and not allowing her to run wild in the shop?

I suppose it's easier just blame everyone else for your own mistakes than accept that sometime accidents just happen.

Francie Barrett

Tramore Tilly wrote: »

You are familiar with TODDLERS, yes?

The do not have to be moving at any great speed to fall over. It's all well and good to blame the parents, but accidents can happen in a split second. You don't need to be neglecting your child for them to trip over something. One would hope an elderly person would have the capacity to identify and avoid a trip hazard.

The kid tripped over a trolley that shouldn't have been lying around, cut its forehead and is scarred. The parents will doubtless blame themselves, regardless of whether it's appropriate. When they see the scar they'll probably think, 'Feck, could I have got to her quicker before it happened' etc.

Not everything has to be - Parents 0 Self righteousness 1

I agree, but €50k for a scar 0.7mm?

Tramore Tilly

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Surely by your own arguement then they shouldn't have sued ikea because toddlers fall?

*facepalm*

It has been explained to you by two different posters already. It's not the fact that the child fell. It's what she fell over, ie the trolley that was lying around causing a hazard. If the trolley hadn't been there and she tripped over herself, there would be no issue.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Tramore Tilly wrote: »

*facepalm*

It has been explained to you by two different posters already. It's not the fact that the child fell. It's what she fell over, ie the trolley that was lying around causing a hazard. If the trolley hadn't been there and she tripped over herself, there would be no issue.

No. You're saying ikea were negligent but her parents werent because kids trip. So which is it Tramore Tilly? Was this accident through negligence or something that happens to toddlers??

LaChatteGitane

Tramore Tilly wrote: »

*facepalm*

It has been explained to you by two different posters already. It's not the fact that the child fell. It's what she fell over, ie the trolley that was lying around causing a hazard. If the trolley hadn't been there and she tripped over herself, there would be no issue.

Maybe it was the parents' trolley. Have you ever thought of that ?:cool:

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

http://www.injury-compensation.ie/news/compensation-for-death-of-son-in-car-accident/
Child killed by a drunk driver. Child or family in no way to blame. 35k compensation for loss of a child's life and the mother in a wheelchair. Disgusting.

spurious

I thought IKEA had play areas to keep these creatures in and away from the dangerous trolleys and furniture.

I'd love to know where they bring the kid next - the knife sharpening department maybe?

mdwexford

LexieOnRale wrote: »

And shops are entitled to expect five year old children be kept under control while on their premises.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

They've a duty of care to all their patrons. Had that child knocked down someone else, an elderly person, and caused them to break their hip, would the child's right to run around trump the safety of the other shoppers?

LexieOnRale wrote: »

How did she fall?? Sitting in a trolley? Holding her parents hand?

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Surely by your own arguement then they shouldn't have sued ikea because toddlers fall?

You are talking such nonsense.

Kids have as much right as you to be walking around the shop. Not running, not jumping around on the beds then it would be the parents fault.

IKEA have a responsibility to have their shop floor clear of obstacles. What if an adult tripped over stuff left lying around. Does your opinion change then.

Should we all be eagle eyed wearing a hard hat in IKEA because they can't keep the place clean like every other shop.

mdwexford

spurious wrote: »

I thought IKEA had play areas to keep these creatures in and away from the dangerous trolleys and furniture.

I'd love to know where they bring the kid next - the knife sharpening department maybe?

What a ridiculously stupid thing to say.

God forbid I bring my kid around a shop to pick out his bed or a toy. I'll wrap him in cotton wool the next day.

Tramore Tilly

LexieOnRale wrote: »

No. You're saying ikea were negligent but her parents werent because kids trip. So which is it Tramore Tilly? Was this accident through negligence or something that happens to toddlers??

Lol. No. You continue to misunderstand -

Ikea negligent = yes. As found by the court because the kid tripped over their trolley

Parents negligent = No. They did not cause the child to trip. The trolley did.

Kid running around = not necessarily. Toddlers do not need to move at great speed to trip.

Toddler tripping = parental negligence. No. I'm sure there are a million and one hypothetical situations you can throw up to debunk this. I'm talking in the general course of things.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

mdwexford wrote: »

You are talking such nonsense.

Kids have as much right as you to be walking around the shop. Not running, not jumping around on the beds then it would be the parents fault.

IKEA have a responsibility to have their shop floor clear of obstacles. What if an adult tripped over stuff left lying around. Does your opinion change then.

Should we all be eagle eyed wearing a hard hat in IKEA because they can't keep the place clean like every other shop.

Is it reasonably foreseeable that there may be an abandoned trolley in an aisle in ikea/dunnes/Tesco? Is the obstacle invisble/leaps out in front of you? If you are looking where you are going is it ok to assume that you may see and acknowledge a potential hazard??

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Tramore Tilly wrote: »

Lol. No. You continue to misunderstand -

Ikea negligent = yes. As found by the court because the kid tripped over their trolley

Parents negligent = No. They did not cause the child to trip. The trolley did.

Kid running around = not necessarily. Toddlers do not need to move at great speed to trip.

Toddler tripping = parental negligence. No. I'm sure there are a million and one hypothetical situations you can throw up to debunk this. I'm talking in the general course of things.

If the child was adequately supervised would the outcome have been the same?
Parents are responsible for child. Ikea responsible for trolley.

spurious

mdwexford wrote: »

What a ridiculously stupid thing to say.

God forbid I bring my kid around a shop to pick out his bed or a toy. I'll wrap him in cotton wool the next day.

Indeed. Then put him back in the play area away from danger. Better still, show him photos on the website to choose from and keep him out of the treacherous shop.

Tramore Tilly

LexieOnRale wrote: »

If the child was adequately supervised would the outcome have been the same?
Parents are responsible for child. Ikea responsible for trolley.

I can't explain it any more for you lol.

Enjoy your time on your merry-go -round

mdwexford

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Is it reasonably foreseeable that there may be an abandoned trolley in an aisle in ikea/dunnes/Tesco? Is the obstacle invisble/leaps out in front of you? If you are looking where you are going is it ok to assume that you may see and acknowledge a potential hazard??

I don't know if you have ever been in IKEA.

Anytime I have in the downstairs part where you pay there is literally stuff all over the place. I'm not surprised an incident has happened, more will happen if they continue to have the place untidy with not enough staff cleaning the place.

Very rare I have seen an abandoned trolley in any local supermarket.

Accidents can happen, even when people are being careful. Is it reasonable to assume there shouldn't be tripping hazards all over the place when people are shopping?

mdwexford

spurious wrote: »

Indeed. Then put him back in the play area away from danger. Better still, show him photos on the website to choose from and keep him out of the treacherous shop.

Are you trolling or just haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Tramore Tilly

LaChatteGitane wrote: »

Maybe it was the parents' trolley. Have you ever thought of that ?:cool:

Yeah! Or maybe it was a trap. Maybe the parents let the trolley their, ushered the kid towards it and wrung their greedy hands together with glee when they saw blood!

biko

IKEA is a dangerous place.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Tramore Tilly wrote: »

I can't explain it any more for you lol.

Enjoy your time on your merry-go -round

I'll be sure to fall off my merry go round and sue though!

dexter_morgan

Francie Barrett wrote: »

I agree, but €50k for a scar 0.7mm?

7mm scar not 0.7mm

Scar will get much bigger as the child grows.

uli84

Ridiculous, 2 year old should sit in the pram or in the trolley in the shop like Ikea.

Boom_Bap

Don't worry, I didn't trip up and press the wrong button.

I've merged the threads on this topic. Booyaa

LexieOnRale

LexieOnRale wrote: »

And shops are entitled to expect five year old children be kept under control while on their premises.

Afraid you are mangling not only the law of negligence, but also the law of occupier's liability.

There are whole libraries and tens of thousands of cases setting out the law in each area, so it's it not easy to condense. But generic "parents should be more responsible" type stuff doesn't really set it all aside. Are you contending that the duty of care should vary depending on relationship to the injured party?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Deleted User wrote: »

Afraid you are mangling not only the law of negligence, but also the law of occupier's liability.

There are whole libraries and tens of thousands of cases setting out the law in each area, so it's it not easy to condense. But generic "parents should be more responsible" type stuff doesn't really set it all aside. Are you contending that the duty of care should vary depending on relationship to the injured party?

Conor with all due respect I wouldn't expect much more from you

LexieOnRale

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Conor with all due respect I wouldn't expect much more from you

So to defend your "Why Lexi's Law of Parenting Made Up At Lunch Today Trumps Actual...well...Law" theory, you reach for the ad hominem?

You were asked a reasonable question. If you can't answer, just put the hand up and say you can't answer.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Deleted User wrote: »

So to defend your made up "Why Lexi's Law of Parenting Made UP At Lunch Today Trumps Actual...well...Law" theory, you reach for the ad hominem?

Not nessessarily, I don't feel it's wrong to hold an opinion, but I'm not getting into it with someone who's career is justifying ambulance chasing

LexieOnRale

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Not nessessarily, I don't feel it's wrong to hold an opinion, but I'm not getting into it with someone who's career is justifying ambulance chasing

Negliwhatnow? Occupier's thingumijig? I have plucked nonsense theories about parenting out of thin air. I'm not getting into it with someone who might understand the issues.

iptba

Another large sum:

Girl awarded €65000 over fall on Dublin city pavement
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/girl-awarded-65-000-over-fall-on-dublin-city-pavement-1.2971423