General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

walshb

Going by all the info in the public domain it seems to me that this accident was pretty much her fault.....

I have read nothing mentioning a defective swing or any defective surroundings that caused the accident. She fell off a swing. It's life. And likely the alcohol on board and her not having a proper grip was the absolute cause....

In this instance she is no different than so many in society today. Always looking to blame someone else...

I have no issue with claiming when you need to claim.....I can't see it here.

And her dodging and deflecting and evasiveness in the interview cements my view.

She strikes me as someone who would trip over and fall whilst out running due to her laces not being tied, and then looking hard to find someone to blame and claim.

walshb

BTW, she mentions that all she wanted was her 7 k medical bills paid...

The hotel's fighting this caused the claim to then become a damages claim, for 60 k?

VinLieger

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Just to clarify, I don't believe it's correct to say that her claim was fraudulent - on the facts, she was on the swing, she fell off the swing and she incurred medical expenses and pain as a result of the fall.

Her affadavit had blatant lies in it, she claimed she wasn't able to run for 3 months but was actually out doing a 10k marathon 3 weeks later that she completed only 8 seconds slower than the previous year.


There is no way she was not out running for those 3 weeks to get that time.

walshb

As SOR rightly pointed out, nobody is disputing that she did not fall and did not get hurt. The issue is why she decided to seek damages/payment from the hotel for this? Why she may have felt them responsible.

FreudianSlippers

The Occupiers' Liability Act is clear on this - the occupier of a property is responsible for visitors thereupon, they owe them a duty of care to ensure that the visitor doesn't suffer any damage or injury from a danger on the land. It's pretty obvious, I'd suggest, that a wooden swing in a bar is an inherent danger (I've been to that bar many times mind you and I've seen some very drunk people manage to not fall off it). They key issue in law is that the breach of duty of care is both subjective and objective - so the defendant may know that the swing is potentially dangerous in its location/design/etc. or it should be in the view of the reasonable person potentially dangerous. I'd say it's objectively difficult to not believe a swing in that location in a bar is not dangerous potentially.

Once this is proven, the special damages should be paid by the defendant... in this case MB claims something like €6,000-7,000 worth of medical expenses IIRC; even if she had some general damages arising from the fall (which doesn't seem to be true based on the fact she ran a marathon the next week or so after the fall) she would have been advised that the District Court jurisdiction was €15k and more than enough to make her whole.

I think if she sued in the District Court this would have been settled and we'd never have heard about it. It's the fact that this was brought in the Circuit Court for a much larger general damages award which makes it particularly bad.

FreudianSlippers

VinLieger wrote: »

Her affadavit had blatant lies in it, she claimed she wasn't able to run for 3 months but was actually out doing a 10k marathon 3 weeks later that she completed only 8 seconds slower than the previous year.


There is no way she was not out running for those 3 weeks to get that time.

I made that point as well, so I don't disagree that her claim appears to have been exaggerated and that it's nonsense that her affidavit was just "filled in" by her lawyers (whatever that means?) but it doesn't make her underlying claim "fraudulent".

VinLieger

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I made that point as well, so I don't disagree that her claim appears to have been exaggerated and that it's nonsense that her affidavit was just "filled in" by her lawyers (whatever that means?) but it doesn't make her underlying claim "fraudulent".

Her underlying claim may not be fraudulent, but the fact is the case that was filed deffinitely was.


Not to mention she went to the circuit court where the maximum payout can be as high as 60k instead of the district court where its only 15k. There's only one reason you do that.

Chips Lovell

She's managed to destroy her political career in the space of a few days. There's no way she's gong to be selected for the next general election. And Fine Gael has nothing to lose by deselecting her, since they currently have three TDs in Dun Laoghaire because Sean Barrett was automatically reelected. They'd have little or no chance of winning three in other circumstances.

What amazes me is that she's managed to survive in politics for fifteen years with so little judgement, and so much entitlement.

VinLieger

Chips Lovell wrote: »

What amazes me is that she's managed to survive in politics for fifteen years with so little judgement, and so much entitlement.

Daddy covering for her methinks which would also explain the entitlement

McMurphy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Finally got around to listening to it last night and I don't see how MB will make it to the end of the week, but not sure what JM has to do with any of this? I know MB slightly dodged the question as to whether she consulted JM in relation to the claim, but it would seem to be a stretch to blame JM for this?

Bailey said the she was advised by her legal team that the case was clear cut, someone then decided that they went to the court they chose to take it to.

SOR: Of course, tell me this much Maria Bailey, in what way do you believe the hotel was negligent in this?

MB: Sean, that would have been for a judge to adjudicate, that is not for you or me, that would have been ...

SOR: I want you to explain to me ...

MB: Sean I’m not a legal person, I took legal advice on this and I put every faith into that legal system and I was told I had a clear cut case.

Granted, this could be lies from Bailey as to what her legal team actually advised her.

Also equally plausible that the legal team gave any advice based on the information provided to them by Bailey - obviously in good faith.

But either way, as Josepha Madigan was practising in the firm when Bailey contacted them, and for two years afterwards, I don't think it's plausible at all that she wasn't fully aware of this case, and like it or not, bailey has embroiled her in the controversy.

AndrewJRenko

VinLieger wrote: »

Daddy covering for her methinks which would also explain the entitlement

And she returned the favour by employing him in her Dail office.

VinLieger

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And she returned the favour by employing him in her Dail office.

I can make peace with people employing partners/spouses but parents is taking the piss, especially parents that have a history like her dad does not to mention he already makes 47k as a councilor in dun laoighaire/rathdown just makes the whole thing so much worse

L1011

If we go to by-elections instead of a GE, anyone want to take a guess at likely candidates and/or outcomes? This is going to be 80% wrong probably :pac:

Dublin Fingal I think FF would see as a major target and run Clifford-Lee again. Reilly may give it a go for FG. Dean Mulligan as Daly's anointed successor for I4C I'd presume; and Labour and Greens will probably pick one of the new Cllrs - but not the 20 year old, he can't run in a GE yet! SF have one Cllr which is probably the logical option.

Dublin Mid-West I see FG losing, but dunno to who. FG have two Cllrs to pick from but could also try sell Keating as having Dail experince. Tuffy is the only sensible option for Labour. Paul Gogarty will probably have another go as will Anne Marie McNally for the SDs. There would have to be an SPBP candidate but is Johanssen an Irish citizen? SF have one poll topping Cllr in Ward which makes sense.

For either of these I could see SF try get Boylan back in instead

Wexford - no idea how this would turn out. Byrne for FF, Clune if she loses her seat for FG, possibly Lawlor for Labour. Wallace hasn't got any affiliated Cllrs that I'm aware of. SF have two to pick from

EDIT - I got my FG-TDs-who-lost-seats-in-2011-due-to-vote-management backwards; it was D'Arcy in Wexford and he's back already. So no idea on Wexford for FG.

Cork North Central - FF hold? Couple of solid enough candidates there, O'Flynn Jr possibly? FG have two Cllrs, and their second GE candidate last time isn't one of them... Labour would have to run Lynch, Ted Tynan will probably run again, the new Green Cllr and one SPBP Cllr presumably; and Gould again for SF - unless they decide to run Ni Riada miles away from home if she doesn't squeak back in

Muahahaha

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Just to clarify, I don't believe it's correct to say that her claim was fraudulent - on the facts, she was on the swing, she fell off the swing and she incurred medical expenses and pain as a result of the fall.

She swore an affidavit with what now turns out to be not the truth. If plaintiffs are just allowed to lie on affidavits willy nilly with no consequences then the entire legal system falls down.

The question here is, really, to what extent was the fall due to the negligence of the hotel or her own contributory negligence?

Well we will never know without that CCTV. But it is accepted now that Bailey had a bottle of beer in one hand and either a bottle of wine in the other hand or else she was lurching across for a bottle of wine with her other hand at the time of the fall. Bailey was simply not in control of the ropes, of that there is no doubt. Also questions to be asked about how intoxicated she was, not many people go into bars, buy a drink and then dont consume it as she claimed yesterday. Not many people go to a mates house for pre drinks and only have one glass of wine. Not many people fall off swings that arent even designed to be swung when they are sober.

It was a frivilous claim for general damages pure and simple. She could have had her medical expenses paid but she wanted more. It goes on every day of the week in this country and people get big payouts from it. That needs to stop but Fine Gaels credibility on this issue has now gone right out the window.

Hotblack Desiato

L1011 wrote: »

Dublin Mid-West I see FG losing, but dunno to who. FG have two Cllrs to pick from but could also try sell Keating as having Dail experince. Tuffy is the only sensible option for Labour. Paul Gogarty will probably have another go as will Anne Marie McNally for the SDs. There would have to be an SPBP candidate but is Johanssen an Irish citizen? SF have one poll topping Cllr in Ward which makes sense.

Definitely not an inspiring line-up there, AMMN is the only one I'd vote for

Gogarty, ugh.

My wife (not SPBP) knows Madeleine Johansson, she's not an Irish citizen afaik.

FreudianSlippers

Muahahaha wrote: »

She swore an affidavit with what now turns out to be not the truth. If plaintiffs are just allowed to lie on affidavits willy nilly with no consequences then the entire legal system falls down.

I agree and said as much in my post; however that does not mean the claim was fraudulent.

It was a frivilous claim for general damages pure and simple. She could have had her medical expenses paid but she wanted more. It goes on every day of the week in this country and people get big payouts from it. That needs to stop but Fine Gaels credibility on this issue has now gone right out the window.

I'm sorry, but that's factually incorrect. Let's be very clear here:

1) MB's statement that she only wanted her medical costs paid (special damages) is clearly untrue - if that was true she would have brought a District Court case;

2) If she was seeking specials + generals for her injury, which to me sounds like a minor soft tissue back injury which has substantially recovered at the time of bringing the case, it is correctly a Circuit Court case when you add the PIAB general damages and her alleged special damages.
See page 31 of the book of quantum:
https://www.piab.ie/eng/forms-guidelines/Book-of-Quantum.pdf

3) Her danger here is bringing a CC case where there is significant contributory negligence which would bring her below the CC jurisdiction. This to me is what sounds like happened.

Either way, the word "fraudulent" is inherently incorrect.


What I will say in relation to this is that we need to hire international medical consultants to completely re-assess the PIAB book of quantum.

markodaly

Election Winners:

Greens
Social Democrats
FG/FF

Election Losers:

SF
PBP-SOL

Election Stalemate:
Indos
Labour


What does that say about the state of the nation? People are not over the moon perhaps with FG and/or FF but they trust them enough to keep the show on the road, but are looking to newer fields for inspiration namely the Greens and SD's.
Expect one of them, if not both of them to feature in the next government.

What does it say about the losers? Well, megaphone angry politics has a limit as one can see. The perpetual hurlers on the ditch that is SF have gotten a lesson here especially as they see themselves in government in the near future. Not on this showing they will.

The rest of the looney left are in a heap as well. Spouting the same nonsense for years if not decades. Goes well of course when times are bad, but clearly, even with all the problems Ireland has, things are going well, in general. It's all so tiresome really.
It's astonishing to me why they get so much air time. 1.9% of the people voted for them, yet they are invariably brought onto the airways to tell us all what the government is doing wrong, but rarely put to task on what they would do instead.
They are good at shouting and protest but not much else. Bless em.

The next election will be an election on who the biggest party will be between FF and FG, FG still have an advantage though imo here. As the Euro election has shown the people trust them more on the national issues than FF.
But I think regardless it will be difficult for either party to form a majority government.

Maybe FG/Green/SD/Labour - Rainbow v2.0 or substitute FF for FG.
One thing is certain though, SF is still transfer toxic. If their first prefs fall in the next GE, they will lose many seats.

markodaly

MB will not be a TD in the next Dail, that is 100% certain. She has destroyed her own career on a whim. Too bad for her.

VinLieger

markodaly wrote: »

MB will not be a TD in the next Dail, that is 100% certain. She has destroyed her own career on a whim. Too bad for her.

She may yet bring Josepha down with her as well

markodaly

VinLieger wrote: »

She may yet bring Josepha down with her as well

I doubt it personally.

VinLieger

markodaly wrote: »

I doubt it personally.

I hope she doesn't as I do like Josepha, however if it comes out that she was A present in the dean and B also advised her to take the case after witnessing what actually happened she will be in some trouble.


The fact neither will say she wasn't advising her kinda is admitting she was but nobody can pin her for that non-answer. If it comes out via other witnesses or even the CCTV leaking that she was also there then there will be some trouble.

McMurphy

Josepha will be down on the knees praying that the CCTV footage isn't released if she is in fact the mystery friend in the story.

If she witnessed the incident, then further advised her to take the personal injuries claim based on the hotel being negligent, then oh boy will she be in bother.

walshb

Not sure how relevant/impacting the CCTV footage is as regards MB trying to apportion blame onto the hotel. I take it MB doesn't want the CCTV to show her in a bad light....

Surely that will show her getting on a swing, and falling off a swing. Her choice, her actions, drink consumed, hands not free to grip correctly....

McMurphy

walshb wrote: »

Not sure how relevant/impacting the CCTV footage is as regards MB trying to apportion blame onto the hotel. I take it MB doesn't want the CCTV to show her in a bad light....

Surely that will show her getting on a swing, and falling off a swing. Her choice, her actions, drink consumed, hands not free to grip correctly....

Perhaps the CCTV will deem wherever or not she had something in each hand, as she (Maria Bailey) couldn't seem to decide, opting instead to suggest that that was for a judge to adjudicate on.

Considering that she claimed that she had received legal advise that it was a "clear cut case" that the hotel was negligent in regards to her fall, then the CCTV would indeed be very relevant.

If the legal advice received was based on Maria's recollection of accounts, then obviously I don't see any problems with Madigans involvement in taking the case.

If however Josepha was at the scene of the incident, and further initiated the legal action, that's a whole other can of worms.

I'm leaning in the direction of believing Josepha has pulled strings here in some shape or form, but how far she pulled them is still to be established.

markodaly

The CCTV footage is not in the public domain nor should it be unless one advocates violating GPDR.

walshb

I thought she admitted that she had items in her hand; the adjudicating was to do with whether or not this was a contributory factor in the fall...

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

The CCTV footage is not in the public domain nor should it be unless one advocates violating GPDR.

Does GDPR apply to CCTV footage from a public venue/area?


Remember, the footage of this unfortunate incident occurred in 2015, long before GDRP came into affect, God only knows how many people the footage was passed on to (insurers/defence/prosecution/staff members for the aforementioned and hotel/hotel security staff etc etc)

A copy could well end up in the public domain.

walshb

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Considering that she claimed that she had received legal advise that it was a "clear cut case" that the hotel was negligent in regards to her fall, then the CCTV would indeed be very relevant.

Would the CCTV show the swing to be defective or something? Can't see how.

All CCTV likely shows is her on a swing, falling off....

Even if it shows nothing in her hands, I still can't see how it helps her case...

McMurphy

walshb wrote: »

I thought she admitted that she had items in her hand; the adjudicating was to do with whether or not this was a contributory factor in the fall...

Hands, plural.

She said that that would have been for a judge to adjudicate on.

Seriously.

walshb

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Hands, plural.

She said that that would have been for a judge to adjudicate on.

Seriously.

Sorry, hands...

I think she admitted that items were in her hands....

Doesn't take a judge and a court to know that this could be a factor in the accident...