For once im reading a negligence settlement and I'm not appalled

lifeandtimes

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/schoolgirl-14-awarded-55k-for-elbow-injury-after-falling-off-flicker-scooter-that-hit-pothole-36495150.html

Not too many facts here but from what I've read this is a classic case of negligence on the councils part and I find the settlement and compensation to be adequate.

The child and mother don't seen money hungry, the child did kickboxing and won medals so obviously this will effect her but the honesty at the end of them admitting her making a great recovery made this story all the more appealing to a neutral.

Does anyone agree or have anything to argue or dispute on on this compensation case?

hullaballoo

Just a general comment but when you are basing your assessment of the adequacy or excess of a settlement sum or award of damages on a newspaper summary of the case, you are going to go wildly wrong.

The fact that the summary in this case tallies with what one might reasonably expect is sheer coincidence.

johnnyskeleton

Not too many facts here but from what I've read this is a classic case of negligence on the councils part and I find the settlement and compensation to be adequate.

Thats good because for children cases the settlement has to be approved of.

lifeandtimes

hullaballoo wrote: »

Just a general comment but when you are basing your assessment of the adequacy or excess of a settlement sum or award of damages on a newspaper summary of the case, you are going to go wildly wrong.

The fact that the summary in this case tallies with what one might reasonably expect is sheer coincidence.

Valid point,thank you

Gatling

So a child falls off a notoriously instable flicker scooter ,and suffers an injury and is awarded 55k and it's considered a decent thing,

lifeandtimes

Gatling wrote: »

So a child falls off a notoriously instable flicker scooter ,and suffers an injury and is awarded 55k and it's considered a decent thing,

There's more to it than that.

If you were cycling a bike and your wheel hit a whole that was meant to be filled after work has been done, it would send your bike and you flying you would be entitled to claim compensation for any injury you incurred plus how thos injury infects your everyday life going forward.

Nobody would just say "man cycling on road wasn't looking where he was going and hit a hole"

Sue Pa Key Pa

lifeandtimes wrote: »

There's more to it than that.

If you were cycling a bike and your wheel hit a whole that was meant to be filled after work has been done, it would send your bike and you flying you would be entitled to claim compensation for any injury you incurred plus how thos injury infects your everyday life going forward.

Nobody would just say "man cycling on road wasn't looking where he was going and hit a hole"

But that didn't happen. The case you cite could be discussed on it's own merits. The poster makes a valid point in this instance IMO

lifeandtimes

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

But that didn't happen. The case you cite could be discussed on it's own merits. The poster makes a valid point in this instance IMO

"It was claimed works had been carried out on the road in an allegedly unworkmanlike manner.

It was further claimed there was an alleged failure to seal and bond a reinstatement trench perimeter to adjacent macadam surfacing when the defendant knew, or ought to have known, ravelling would occur and a depression would result."

This is what was alleged

If there was no work done on the area then I would agree with poster but in this instance works had been carried out and the area (allegedly) was returned to a state not fit for people to travel on which resulted in the child not being able to control their scooter

colm_mcm

The instructions for those flicker scooters tell you that you should always wear helmet, elbow pads and knee pads as well as long sleeved top and long pants.

Sue Pa Key Pa

lifeandtimes wrote: »

"It was claimed works had been carried out on the road in an allegedly unworkmanlike manner.

It was further claimed there was an alleged failure to seal and bond a reinstatement trench perimeter to adjacent macadam surfacing when the defendant knew, or ought to have known, ravelling would occur and a depression would result."

This is what was alleged

If there was no work done on the area then I would agree with poster but in this instance works had been carried out and the area (allegedly) was returned to a state not fit for people to travel on which resulted in the child not being able to control their scooter

All I'm saying is that a parent allowed a 12 year old to use a risky piece of equipment on a public road, which is a different risk to a cyclist using it. IMO, the level of award is high for the injury sustained (we've become desensitised to big numbers with compo) and indicates no reduction for contributory negligence

Cookie_Monster

So no proper safety gear being worn and not under proper supervision by parents, who should have noted poor state of the road and told her to avoid it.
Another fabulous decision :rolleyes:

hullaballoo

It would have been open to the defendant to put the instruction manual for the scooter to the plaintiff at trial if it thought that point would exonerate it.

hullaballoo

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Another fabulous decision :rolleyes:

It was a settlement, not a decision on liability.

As above, if the defendant had a defence that wpuld have absolved it of liability, it was open to it to run same at trial.

lifeandtimes

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So no proper safety gear being worn and not under proper supervision by parents, who should have noted poor state of the road and told her to avoid it.
Another fabulous decision :rolleyes:

It doesn't say she was or wasn't wearing gear.

So this is an assumption

I'm sure the defendant would have weighed their options on the information they had.

They decided to settle for what they thought was best

Steve

lifeandtimes wrote: »

They decided to settle for what they thought was best

Easy decision to make when other people, aka 'us' are footing the bill.

Disturbing that there is still no concept of parental supervision or responsibility to answer for.

Gatling

Steve wrote: »

Easy decision to make when other people, aka 'us' are footing the bill.

Disturbing that there is still no concept of parental supervision or responsibility to answer for.

This is my point from earlier ,we got a very one sided point ,
But we have a very unstable flicker been used on a less than perfect surface and yet it's someone else's fault ,
Flickers a are dangerous thing to play on anything but perfect surface and under proper supervision with PPE ,
I also believe it would have been easy money especially if it was claimed the accident just happened where work was been carried out

hullaballoo

Steve wrote: »

Easy decision to make when other people, aka 'us' are footing the bill.

Disturbing that there is still no concept of parental supervision or responsibility to answer for.

This concept is well-known to law (alongside the great leveller, personal responsibility) as contributory negligence.

If a plaintiff (or parent) was partially responsible, that is reflected by a reduction in the sum payable by a defendant.

It is noteworthy in that regard that this case settled in the circuit court jurisdiction even though the action was maintained in the high court.

Steve

hullaballoo wrote: »

This concept is well-known to law (alongside the great leveller, personal responsibility) as contributory negligence.

If a plaintiff (or parent) was partially responsible, that is reflected by a reduction in the sum payable by a defendant.

It is noteworthy in that regard that this case settled in the circuit court jurisdiction even though the action was maintained in the high court.

My point was more like the defendant, whether found guilty or innocent or chose to settle on the steps, never actually had to suffer a loss to make the plaintiff whole (shudder).

From what an earlier poster said, there was a defense available wrt wearing personal protective equipment as per the manufacturers explicit instructions that were ignored by the plaintiff and could have saved 50 grand of taxpayers money, and maybe got my sick mother off a trolley in the hospital....

Sorry H , I want to rant but not going there. g'night.

1874

lifeandtimes wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/schoolgirl-14-awarded-55k-for-elbow-injury-after-falling-off-flicker-scooter-that-hit-pothole-36495150.html

Not too many facts here but from what I've read this is a classic case of negligence on the councils part and I find the settlement and compensation to be adequate.

The child and mother don't seen money hungry, the child did kickboxing and won medals so obviously this will effect her but the honesty at the end of them admitting her making a great recovery made this story all the more appealing to a neutral.

Does anyone agree or have anything to argue or dispute on on this compensation case?

Thats mad, how can you agree with this? I was expecting to read a real story of heartbreak where some innocent had received horrific injuries and their whole life impacted, I dont get that from this. If the child was as good, interested and participated in kickboxing, they'd as likely receive injuries through that.
I cannot see how you can square that thread title and what you are saying with what Ive read.
I see, gave up dancing for a while, recovered well from injuries and a scar in a not readily apparent place, even if it was square across the childs face, do people not have responsibility for their own actions?

I guess I should go out and buy a unicycle or flicker or whatever and split my face open when gravity takes over