40k claim for a failed muscle-up

JJayoo

A community gym in a neighbouring parish has just been hit with a 40k claim after some little sh1t broke his arm while trying to do a muscle up.

My village has a new gym connected to the football pitch and I'm just looking for advice on how to make it less likely some cnut will sue, I really don't care if they paralyse themselves as long as the gym doesn't have to pick up the tab.

Any time I have joined a gym or used on a PAYG basis I had had to sign a waiver stating that I accept all liability for any incident. My plan is to draw up one of these documents and make it mandatory to read and sign before a person is allowed to use the gym.

The gym has also changed the locks as people kept getting copies of the key cut.

In regards to the waiver what is the process in writing up one of these? Can most solicitors sort this?

I'm just worried that some little prickk will ruin the gym for the rest of the community. Would really appreciate any info/feedback

bladespin

Surely you're training at your own risk unless you're under 1 to 1 supervision; madness.

viclemronny

I would imagine that the fault lies with the person who could have most easily avoided it.

For example if the gym-goer was using the equipment correctly and had checked and found no obvious flaw in the equipment, but it had been poorly made or constructed or set up, then the gym could arguably be at fault.

However, if the gym provided safe equipment and the user either did not execute the exercise correctly or executed a dangerous exercise, then they are at fault as they could have most easily avoided the accident.

Also, it's worth noting that just because someone lodges a claim, it does not follow that they will be successful. This could be a costly and folly venture for the person claiming.

JJayoo

His claim is that he wasn't shown how to execute the exercise, yano the bullsh1t exercise he saw on YouTube.

And his claim will be successful absolutely no doubt about it.

Brian?

So it hasn't been awarded yet? I'd be fairly confident it won't be, unless the gym in question displayed negligence.

bladespin

JJayoo wrote: »

His claim is that he wasn't shown how to execute the exercise, yano the bullsh1t exercise he saw on YouTube.

And his claim will be successful absolutely no doubt about it.

Under that logic you could have grounds if you're sore the next day.

LiamaDelta

Unless the equipment/gym was negligent then his claim likely won't get far. Not being shown how to do something is not negligence (unless instructed to do it).

Mellor

You'd be surprised what claims get through in gyms.

We had a women, who was an experienced gym user, load up a calf raise with **** loads of weight. Start doing reps and tore something her her ankle. I think tendon/avulsion fracture.
Completely her fault right? Any gym goer would agree I imagine.
Well her lawyer argued that because the tiny warning label (saying to get instruction, use suitable load, etc) was missing, the gym was liable.
She was successful, $100k.

Galwegian44

Don't be naive enough to think that the basis for a claim succeeding or not is dependent on who was at fault.

I've spent quite a bit of time arguing the pros/cons of Disclaimers/Waivers with independent Risk managers and Insurance Risk Managers and the general consensus is that you should use them to deter people from making nuisance claims because they don't understand the law. In fact, you cannot sign away your rights so if a gym is negligent in any way then a customer has a valid case regardless of what they signed. Don't go to a solicitor to get a waiver/disclaimer, have a look at what other gyms are using and create your own.

So, to determine negligence or responsibility is a grey area where the advantage in Ireland lies very favourably with the customer, that's why insurance premiums and insurance payouts are so high. Not only do you have to ensure all equipment is in order, staff are trained on all equipment etc but you have to make sure that you have enough supervision to stop even the most stupid customer from hurting themselves through ignorance of the equipment, weight load, technique etc.

Assume that you have full responsibility (not just a duty of care) for the well being of all customers, especially the ones who don't know what they are doing and then you will have some idea of what you must do to avoid or at least reduce insurance claims.

I suggest that you ring your insurance company/broker and discuss your options with them, they can be surprisingly helpful.

Good Luck.

JJayoo

It's crazy how naive some people seem to be about the law, Ireland has developed a compo -culture. Look at two recent cases that made the newspapers, a woman hit her leg against a table in a restaurant and another woman slipped on a chip, both won their cases, both had won previous compensation cases.

In a company that I used to work with in Galway a woman opened a fire emergency door causing the alarm to go off, this caused her distress and she won a claim against the company. I think they settled instead of going to court.

FutureGuy

He'll win. they all win.

JJayoo

The main problem for our gym is that it is unstaffed, so just a gym at the football pitch that anyone can use, so little ****ts invite their even ****tier gimp friends for a messing session.

In regards to the wavier, would it be possible to just use one from another gym? So just take a copy and make copies?

The only positive about this gimp sueing the neighbouring gym is that it will allow for some tough rules to be enforced.

Brian?

JJayoo wrote: »

It's crazy how naive some people seem to be about the law, Ireland has developed a compo -culture. Look at two recent cases that made the newspapers, a woman hit her leg against a table in a restaurant and another woman slipped on a chip, both won their cases, both had won previous compensation cases.

In a company that I used to work with in Galway a woman opened a fire emergency door causing the alarm to go off, this caused her distress and she won a claim against the company. I think they settled instead of going to court.

They both won because they proved negligence though. You're making it sound an awful lot simpler than it was.

Zillah

JJayoo wrote: »

another woman slipped on a chip

If you leave food on the floor, and I slip on it and hurt myself, you can bet your ass I expect you to pay the bill.

Taylor365

Zillah wrote: »

If you leave food on the floor, and I slip on it and hurt myself, you can bet your ass I expect you to pay the bill.

What if there is no bill?

JJayoo

Brian? wrote: »

They both won because they proved negligence though. You're making it sound an awful lot simpler than it was.

Just out of curiosity how would you remedy the situation in which the woman hit her leg of the table? Remove all furniture? Maybe have a padded room ?

ED E

The only way you ensure you don't get stung like this is to completely refresh the judiciary or move to a sane nation.

Zillah

Taylor365 wrote: »

What if there is no bill?

If there are literally no consequences for me other than an instant of embarrassment, then there is still an argument to be made for punishing the establishment for being negligent - it could easily have been a fragile old lady slipping rather than a young man.

But more likely in these cases people have injuries that cause them pain and incapacity that interferes with their ability to work and enjoy their lives. Should they have to miss out on living 6 or 12 months of their lives properly without being compensated by the negligent party? That deserves compensation, regardless of any actual doctor's bill.

JJayoo

Zillah wrote: »

If you leave food on the floor, and I slip on it and hurt myself, you can bet your ass I expect you to pay the bill.

It was actually one chip.

And this case made the papers due to the ridiculousness of it, it actually made a lot of press overseas due to how stupid it was.

Zillah

JJayoo wrote: »

It was actually one chip.

So? It was enough to make her slip. One chip left in a place where people should be able to walk safely is one chip too many - clean it up.

And this case made the papers due to the ridiculousness of it, it actually made a lot of press overseas due to how stupid it was.

Am I supposed to put more faith in tabloid rabble rousing than the judgement of a court?

LiamaDelta

JJayoo wrote: »

Just out of curiosity how would you remedy the situation in which the woman hit her leg of the table? Remove all furniture? Maybe have a padded room ?

The point argued was that she was directed to sit at a particular seat by a staff member. The chair had been placed in such a position that the leg was an obstruction. Therefore the argument was made successfully that the hotel was negligent in directing her to sit in somewhere that there was an obstruction that caused her injury. Had she not been directed to sit there and chose the seat herself then it would be reasonable that she should check underneath before sitting down. (thats a loose explanation of it as I read it at the time...it may not be totally correct, but my point is that she was able to prove someone else was negligent).

LiamaDelta

Mellor wrote: »

You'd be surprised what claims get through in gyms.

I am! Regularly surprised...but there are so many variables. From my own experience many of those ridiculous claims get through because the entity has not done enough to defend itself....our courts require you to prove that you took 'reasonable' steps....many entities do this but they have no evidence to back it up and then they lose.

The high cost of litigation is also a massive factor....very often insurance companies will settle out of court for a few grand rather than go through the process (it's purely a numbers game). This leads many people (including bad journalists) to the impression that the person 'won' their case whereas it is often just the least costly option.

Mellor

Zillah wrote: »

So? It was enough to make her slip. One chip left in a place where people should be able to walk safely is one chip too many - clean it up.

What if the person who dropped the chip had only just past. The cleaners are unable to instantly clean up all food when it hits the floor.

If they fail to clean up when in the area, that's negligence. But in a food court of that size, with that many people, chips will fall all the time.

Alf Veedersane

Mellor wrote: »

What if the person who dropped the chip had only just past. The cleaners are unable to instantly clean up all food when it hits the floor.

If they fail to clean up when in the area, that's negligence. But in a food court of that size, with that many people, chips will fall all the time.

This is the same principle as injuries on paths etc. If the correct authority has been made aware of an issue that may cause an injury but have done nothing to remedy it, then they will be found liable, otherwise, probably not.

For more on this, read Bob Loblaw's Law Blog.

LiamaDelta

Mellor wrote: »

What if the person who dropped the chip had only just past. The cleaners are unable to instantly clean up all food when it hits the floor.

If they fail to clean up when in the area, that's negligence. But in a food court of that size, with that many people, chips will fall all the time.

That's why you see those cleaning schedule things on the back of toilet doors etc. One way to greatly reduce your chances of being deemed negligent is to show that you have a system in place to limit the risk. There have been many cases where the judge has ruled that the company has a reasonable and proportional system in place and was not reasonably expected to be able to clean up all spills immediately. Perhaps in this case they weren't able to show that.

JJayoo

Zillah wrote: »

So? It was enough to make her slip. One chip left in a place where people should be able to walk safely is one chip too many - clean it up.

Do you think there is a single restaurant in the country that hasn't had food on the floor at one stage or another? How can a restaurant possibly ensure that no customer at no.time will knock food onto the floor " where people should be able to walk safely" ?

Because that is the standard that you seem to be looking for.

The law and logic do not correlate when it comes to compensation. Another example that I know of personally is off a person climbing across a fence into my neighbours field to " relieve himself". He climbed the fence and cut his.leg on the barb wire, didn't need stitches but brought a claim because he hurt himself on the man's property, the neighbours solicitor told him to settle.out of court because it could end up very expensive. End result guy gets paid, both solicitors get paid, neighbour gets fooled.

Anyhow this thread has gone off the rails

Alf Veedersane

Best bet is to engage a solicitor.

You could try and draw up something but you'd still need to get a solicitor to review.

Shouldn't be that expensive.

Mellor

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

This is the same principle as injuries on paths etc. If the correct authority has been made aware of an issue that may cause an injury but have done nothing to remedy it, then they will be found liable, otherwise, probably not.

For more on this, read Bob Loblaw's Law Blog.

If somebody told them and they did nothing that's a different story.

That's not what I described however.
I'm saying that if somebody dropped the chip, and seconds later a person skips on it. How are the cleaners negligent?
I seen no mention of how long the chip was there. Or it being brought to their attention.
Yet, this women was awarded €40k.

Sleeper12

JJayoo wrote:

In regards to the waiver what is the process in writing up one of these? Can most solicitors sort this?

A waiver won't stand up in the court. Roll rinks always have "skating at the your own risk" yet they are sued all the time.

There has to be negligence for a successful claim. There's no guarantee that this 40k claim will win

Alf Veedersane

Mellor wrote: »

If somebody told them and they did nothing that's a different story.

That's not what I described however.
I'm saying that if somebody dropped the chip, and seconds later a person skips on it. How are the cleaners negligent?
I seen no mention of how long the chip was there. Or it being brought to their attention.
Yet, this women was awarded €40k.

If something arose and they weren't told, then they couldn't be expected to know of it being there. In the same sense that the restaurant couldn't do anything about a chip being on the floor if they didn't know about it.

In both cases, neither are negligent because they couldn't reasonably be expected to know about the issue.

That's why what I said wasn't dissimilar.

Mellor

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Best bet is to engage a solicitor.

You could try and draw up something but you'd still need to get a solicitor to review.

Shouldn't be that expensive.

Waivers are fairly useless for gyms.
They cover sports like rugby, MMA, boxing, where there's an expectation of being injured. But if somebody gets hurt in the gym, the waiver is out the window.
See the calf raise example above. Signed waiver, familiar with equipment, personally to blame. Gets 100k from insurance claim.

JJayoo

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Best bet is to engage a solicitor.

You could try and draw up something but you'd still need to get a solicitor to review.

Shouldn't be that expensive.

Yup because at the.moment it is dodgy, the problem is trying to.convince the people who make decisions to listen but hopefully this 40k claim will help enforce rules.

So I'm thinking before you are allowed to use the gym you have to sign a waiver and you have to be shown how to use the equipment. I have the qualifications for gym.instructor and PT so might even be worth while for me to get insured and do the initial demonstration. Now for people who have been using the gym for the past year it would be more a token gesture as it's the young bucks just beginning that are the biggest risk, boredom/hormones/ego = trouble.

And finally I want there to be a yearly membership of maybe 20 euro, as I find people always respect things more when they feel a sense of ownership, and the money can be used for buying bits of equipment here and there.

the_syco

Zillah wrote: »

If you leave food on the floor, and I slip on it and hurt myself, you can bet your ass I expect you to pay the bill.

You you put the food on the ground, and you slip on said food, seems you'll still get money if you sue...!

Brian?

JJayoo wrote: »

Just out of curiosity how would you remedy the situation in which the woman hit her leg of the table? Remove all furniture? Maybe have a padded room ?

I don't know the ins and outs of the case exactly. But liability in cases like this are based on negligence.

I know you think this is gone off the rails, but I was trying to reassure you that it may not be a valid claim that will stand up in court.


The tabloids love to to scream about "compo-culture", but in pretty much every case I've read about it was hard to argue with the judgement. Restaurants not cleaning up, equipment not being serviced, hazards being highlighted and ignored and so on. Don't ever take these things at face value.

Charlie-Bravo

JJayoo wrote: »

The main problem for our gym is that it is unstaffed, so just a gym at the football pitch that anyone can use, so little ****ts invite their even ****tier gimp friends for a messing session.
.

Who out of the group was allowed to be there. Do you have to have signed up or be a member of the club? I'd be calling the guards for trespassing if they're not supposed to be there. That'll change their tune.

Alf Veedersane

Mellor wrote: »

Waivers are fairly useless for gyms.
They cover sports like rugby, MMA, boxing, where there's an expectation of being injured. But if somebody gets hurt in the gym, the waiver is out the window.
See the calf raise example above. Signed waiver, familiar with equipment, personally to blame. Gets 100k from insurance claim.

I didn't say it had to be a waiver.

I meant something that would minimise the potential for claims insofar as is possible.

JJayoo

I always wonder how children's playgrounds can function and what their insurance is like, the amount of fall combined with parents looking for someone else to blame must be through the roof.

Brian?

JJayoo wrote: »

I always wonder how children's playgrounds can function and what their insurance is like, the amount of fall combined with parents looking for someone else to blame must be through the roof.

Because if a child falls and breaks their arm in a playground, the owner of the playground isn't liable unless they've been negligent. If they've poorly maintained the equipment or ignored complaints in the past about possible hazards.

I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but claims are not as straightforward as the tabloids would have you believe.

rubadub

Brian? wrote: »

Because if a child falls and breaks their arm in a playground, the owner of the playground isn't liable unless they've been negligent.

This was a case earlier this year, looking for €38k for a broken arm.

Judge dismisses €38k claim after child fell playing chase in school yard

Veronika had been engaged in a game of chase with other children and when she fell other children had fallen on top of her. Falling to the ground had not been part of the game.

"She was engaged in a game of chase pure and simple and, while it is most regrettable that she became unbalanced and fell, this was simply an old fashioned accident and I fail to see any liability on the part of the school for that accident," Judge Groarke said.
Dismissing Veronika?s claim the judge said he believed no prudent, responsible and reasonable parent would have prohibited the game of chase that had been taking place in the school yard on the day.

All this talk of chips reminds me I have leftovers from "fish n chip day" :pac:

nice_guy80

signage everywhere
members workout at their OWN risk
centre not held responsible
consult a doctor before beginning exercise
look after equipment

cctv. inside and outside.
our local gym has had equipment walk out the door

electronic key fobs. to be handed in at end of every year.
or just change them - they are cheap.

signage at all equipment explaining how it works - threadmill, squat rack etc

Mellor

nice_guy80 wrote: »

signage at all equipment explaining how it works - threadmill, squat rack etc

This was a big factor in our case above.
The warning label says dont life too much was missing. Complete nonsense that if label was there this hero wouldn't have tried to do all the weights. But compo would have been less or non-existent

Markcheese

Use your "waiver form" to explain that the gym is not giving fitness advice.. Or how to use equipment safely advice (although a folder or laminate with each piece of equipment may be worthwhile...), you could explain the cleaning and maintenence schedules and any users or members have a responsibility to inform management of any issues they see... (a note book by the changing room door) or even place a warning sign on any equipment they feel is damaged..
. .. Use the entire thing as an ass covering exercise / useful safety procedure check...
. . And make sure users properly read and understand whatever form you come up with..

nice_guy80

Get a nice big folder
do a health and safety audit before the gym opens and make a record of all potential hazards and record how they are going to be tackled
and when you put up signage, take a photo of it in place, and then keep the photos as evidence that signage existed

CrankyHaus

OP the document you're thinking of is one in which the person signing voluntarily consents to the risk inherent in the activity.

Some sporting bodies give these to their member clubs to have participants sign, off the top of my head the horse riding body AIRE has one.
Your sporting body may well have one or your Insurer may have suggestions.

It won't stop claims arising from dodgy equipment causing accidents but will help with ones arising from people causing accidents by their own actions, like making a hames of a muscle-up. As mentioned above doing it in conjunction with a H&S Audit, regular documented equipment checks, regular and recorded cleaning, warning signs and documented gym inductions for new members will all help.

Guy Sajer

If a label on the machine says to get instruction on how to use, but there is no staff member present, is it the customers fault for not waiting for instruction, or the gyms for not providing instruction during opening hours?

Avatar MIA

Two things about waivers.

1. A person cannot waive their rights. So, if the gym was poorly maintained. $Kaching$.
2. There may be a false sense of security. 'We've a waiver, be grand'. $Kaching$

While a case may be weak, an insurance company will weigh up the cost of defending and may pay out regardless. They will recoup some or all off the insured eventually with higher premiums.

Am I too cynical?

kippy

Zillah wrote: »

If you leave food on the floor, and I slip on it and hurt myself, you can bet your ass I expect you to pay the bill.

Crazy.
Have you any personal responsibility at all? Why not sue the person who dropped the chip as well.
Chip may only had been on the floor seconds.
OP unfortunately the culture and the courts being as they are open up setups like your own to all manner of nonsense.

Brian?

kippy wrote: »

Crazy.
Have you any personal responsibility at all? Why not sue the person who dropped the chip as well.
Chip may only had been on the floor seconds.
OP unfortunately the culture and the courts being as they are open up setups like your own to all manner of nonsense.

You don't do nuance at all? The restaurant was negligent in not cleaning the floor. This was proven in court.

Zillah

kippy wrote: »

Crazy.
Have you any personal responsibility at all? Why not sue the person who dropped the chip as well.
Chip may only had been on the floor seconds.
OP unfortunately the culture and the courts being as they are open up setups like your own to all manner of nonsense.

You understand that a court will hear all of the pertinent elements and make a decision, right?

Half the people in this thread keep coming up with examples where the establishment was not negligent and then get enraged that there is compensation, but in the real world a court considers the factors involved and if the establishment was not negligent there isn't a pay out.

Your problem isn't the courts, it's your imagination and the tabloid rags you're taking too seriously.

LiamaDelta

Zillah wrote: »

If you leave food on the floor, and I slip on it and hurt myself, you can bet your ass I expect you to pay the bill.

Ah now, you're just baiting the tabloid readers :pac: I'll rephrase it for you - ' If you're negligent and I hurt myself, I expect you to pay the bill' :D

Zillah

Zillah wrote: »

You understand that a court will hear all of the pertinent elements and make a decision, right?

Half the people in this thread keep coming up with examples where the establishment was not negligent and then get enraged that there is compensation, but in the real world a court considers the factors involved and if the establishment was not negligent there isn't a pay out.

Your problem isn't the courts, it's your imagination and the tabloid rags you're taking too seriously.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/man-who-tripped-over-hole-at-halting-site-gets-60-000-1.3041074