40k claim for a failed muscle-up

LiamaDelta

Deleted User wrote: »

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

The Council didn't even try to deny negligence. They unsuccessfully tried to infer that the injury was received elsewhere and they weren't able to prove their point. Seems like they knew they couldn't get out of the negligence side so tried another angle, but did so very poorly.

JJayoo

McCambridges on shop street in Galway has seen its insurance jump from 14k to over 100k in the last 5 years due to claims. Due to the insurance continuing to rise they have had to settle a large number of claims before it gets to the courts, pretty much a solititors letter shows up and you take a gamble.

ford2600

OP if it was me I'd ask for guidance from laywer.

I wouldn't allow pay as you go, but make ever user of premises a member of club. The law on club members suing club is tricky for a Plaintiff I would think
http://hcalaw.ie/liability-of-club-members-for-personal-injuries/

Have a nose around Legal Discussion forum for similar threads, some lawyers post there.

Get every member to do a basic safety walk through the gym.

Disclaimers are useless I would think.

Lads are comparing cases for someone falling on a chip in a shopping centre to falling on street in a public area. They are completely different in terms of duty of care.

Local Authorities can make a defence (which is successful quite often) of non feasance; they can't be found negligent for doing nothing. If road/footpath breaks up through normal wear and tear and you fall, tough luck. misfeasance is where they acted, but made a boll1x of a repair for example.

In a shop/private premises once a Defendant can show they had a robust checking system with records they can often defend those types of cases

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

The council didn't dispute that they were negligent and instead implied the claimant was a liar. I'm not getting how this is relevant.

Either the council were negligent and knew it or their defence team were awful.

kippy

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.

My problem is the courts, the legal profession and the people who extract the urine. In the case mentioned the plaintiff had similar issues in the past. Judge commented on same I believe.
The factors need to be changed if that is the cause of these ridiculous payouts. We are going to get to a point where people and business will be restricted from going about their daily business as a result of these issues.

JJayoo

Ford that is an extremely interesting read. Pretty much exactly what I wanted to find out.

bladespin

kippy wrote:

My problem is the courts, the legal profession and the people who extract the urine. In the case mentioned the plaintiff had similar issues in the past. Judge commented on same I believe. The factors need to be changed if that is the cause of these ridiculous payouts. We are going to get to a point where people and business will be restricted from going about their daily business as a result of these issues.

Previous 'issues' cannot be taken into account in court, doesn't matter if it's their 1st or 50th claim, each case is considered on it's own.

bladespin

kippy wrote:

My problem is the courts, the legal profession and the people who extract the urine. In the case mentioned the plaintiff had similar issues in the past. Judge commented on same I believe. The factors need to be changed if that is the cause of these ridiculous payouts. We are going to get to a point where people and business will be restricted from going about their daily business as a result of these issues.

Previous 'issues' cannot be taken into account in court, doesn't matter if it's their 1st or 50th claim, each case is considered on it's own.

bladespin

kippy wrote:

My problem is the courts, the legal profession and the people who extract the urine. In the case mentioned the plaintiff had similar issues in the past. Judge commented on same I believe. The factors need to be changed if that is the cause of these ridiculous payouts. We are going to get to a point where people and business will be restricted from going about their daily business as a result of these issues.

Previous 'issues' cannot be taken into account in court, doesn't matter if it's their 1st or 50th claim, each case is considered on it's own.

rondog

It really infuriates me when I hear of these nonsensical claims.It will ruin businesses and put them out of being able to afford insurance.
There should be a new common sense law brought in.Readin gabout serial claimers with ridiculous claims and getting away with it time and time again.
Its beyond ridiculous the judiciary lets people away with these ridiculous claims.

Zillah

"Common sense" is usually invoked by people who either can't or won't understand the complexities of real world situations.

deadlybuzzman

ford2600 wrote: »

OP if it was me I'd ask for guidance from laywer.

I wouldn't allow pay as you go, but make ever user of premises a member of club. The law on club members suing club is tricky for a Plaintiff I would think
http://hcalaw.ie/liability-of-club-members-for-personal-injuries/

Have a nose around Legal Discussion forum for similar threads, some lawyers post there.

Get every member to do a basic safety walk through the gym.

Basically that's what my gym has done. It's members only, you need a fob to get in and there's a sign saying Private Club Members Only