Luas Surfing

Working class heroes

na1 wrote: »

So giving $550k to some lowlife scumbag makes the safety better than spending the same amount of money (by court order) on installing the new safety equipment?

€

na1

hullaballoo wrote: »

The company was aware children were hanging onto the outside of trams while in motion for 5 years prior to this incident and did nothing to prevent it.

Imagine you have a car outside the house each night, and every week for 5 years some "children" cut you tyres, and you do nothing to prevent it. At one night they cut off their fingers with a sharp knife while trying to cut your tyre - because there were no lights in the area (you didn't repair the outdoor lights). And they sue you for a health and safety issue.

ZX7R

na1 wrote: »

So giving $550k to some lowlife scumbag makes the safety better than spending the same amount of money (by court order) on installing the new safety equipment?

Money was paid because the company messed up big time,the company did not do a proper risk assessment and did not implement proper health and safety protocol,in full knowledge that there was privous instance of the action taken place.
If they did there job properly, they would not have to pay out anything.
The girl was given a settlement due to negligence.
Not because she was looking for compo

bucketybuck

hullaballoo wrote: »

The company was aware children were hanging onto the outside of trams while in motion for 5 years prior to this incident and did nothing to prevent it.

It took a child to get brain damage for them to address the issue. When they did address it, all it took was a bit of metal over the gap in the doors.

It was a stupid thing for the child to do but children do not appreciate risks and do stupid things all the time. It doesn't usually take 5 years and a brain injury to a child for responsible adults to implement a very simple safety precaution when they become aware of a risk of serious injury or death.

I think that's maybe why they thought they'd end up on the hook.

Wasn't the brain injury before the incident?

After all, nobody with a functioning brain thinks its a good idea to hang from a moving train.

Galwayguy35

hullaballoo wrote: »

The company was aware children were hanging onto the outside of trams while in motion for 5 years prior to this incident and did nothing to prevent it.

It took a child to get brain damage for them to address the issue. When they did address it, all it took was a bit of metal over the gap in the doors.

It was a stupid thing for the child to do but children do not appreciate risks and do stupid things all the time. It doesn't usually take 5 years and a brain injury to a child for responsible adults to implement a very simple safety precaution when they become aware of a risk of serious injury or death.

I think that's maybe why they thought they'd end up on the hook.

Ah get away out of it, at 13 she should have known it was a stupid thing to do and what happened is her own fault.


Her sister was giving it large on the comments section on FB earlier, she was abusing everyone there and couldn't string a sentence together to save her life.

Skangers is all they are.

na1

ZX7R wrote: »

The girl was given a settlement due to negligence.
Not because she was looking for compo

ZX7R wrote: »

Probably make companies implement there proseigures

You're changing your mind:

So the money were given due to negligence or to implement new H&S measures?

ZX7R

na1 wrote: »

Imagine you have a car outside the house each night, and every week for 5 years some "children" cut you tyres, and you do nothing to prevent it. At one night they cut off their fingers with a sharp knife while trying to cut your tyre - because there were no lights in the area (you didn't repair the outdoor lights). And they sue you for a health and safety issue.

Car is on private property , your argument doesn't relate in any way to business health and safety of the original post

prinzeugen

hullaballoo wrote: »

The company was aware children were hanging onto the outside of trams while in motion for 5 years prior to this incident and did nothing to prevent it.

It took a child to get brain damage for them to address the issue. When they did address it, all it took was a bit of metal over the gap in the doors.

It was a stupid thing for the child to do but children do not appreciate risks and do stupid things all the time. It doesn't usually take 5 years and a brain injury to a child for responsible adults to implement a very simple safety precaution when they become aware of a risk of serious injury or death.

I think that's maybe why they thought they'd end up on the hook.

Its not as simple as adding a bit metal. There have been similar issues in the UK.

The Luas can not go adding bits to the trams here and there. While they may own them, Alstolm are responsible for modifications etc as the trams are still under warranty.

The bit metal would need to be designed, tested and get certification before it could be fitted. It may have required a new door design. That is Alstolms responsibility not the NTA/Luas.

But kids and adults need to start taking responsibility for their actions. Its always somebody elses fault when something happens.

ZX7R

na1 wrote: »

You're changing your mind:

So the money were given due to negligence or to implement new H&S measures?

If you read my original post properly,
I said she got the payment due to health and safety reasons.

Health and safety procedures where not carried out thats negligence.

So payment that was made did in a way interduce new h/a measures, the one's that should have been in place , where interduced

na1

ZX7R wrote: »

Car is on private property , your argument doesn't relate in any way to business health and safety of the original post

You said the target is to "save the lives".

So people can be killed by neglect on a private property for no cost, if the property owner is a bankrupt?

ZX7R

na1 wrote: »

You said the target is to "save the lives".

So people can be killed by neglect on a private property for no cost, if the property owner is a bankrupt?

No I said in my view health and safety is to save lives.

A person could die on private property due to negligence and owner be held accountable, but that's not a health and safety matter, that would be a civil matter

na1

ZX7R wrote: »

If you read my original post properly,
I said she got the payment due to health and safety reasons.

Health and safety procedures where not carried out thats negligence.

So payment that was made did in a way interduce new h/a measures, the one's that should have been in place , where interduced

Again how exactly payments to that person can force the new measures to be introduced?
The could pay the same amount to the state or any other person - this will make no difference.
What exactly this means:"she got the payment due to health and safety reasons."

Dr. Bre

ZX7R wrote: »

No I said in my view health and safety is to save lives.

A person could die on private property due to negligence and owner be held accountable, but that's not a health and safety matter, that would be a civil matter

That would be an ecumenical matter

na1

ZX7R wrote: »

No I said in my view health and safety is to save lives.

A person could die on private property due to negligence and owner be held accountable, but that's not a health and safety matter, that would be a civil matter

So does the private person violates the health and safety regulations or not?
Or private person's property is excluded from the health and safety?

ZX7R

na1 wrote: »

So does the private person violates the health and safety regulations or not?
Or private person's property is excluded from the health and safety?

Private person property is excluded from health and safety
Normally but if you have a person /company enter your house property to do work then technically you are classified as an employer and then you are.
But that is a grey area of cross overs and a different kettle of fish

Topdolla

Kilometres na gcopaleen wrote: »

Did you ever see anyone do it or did you ever do it yourself??

You must of seen me surfing while it was stopping at the museum earlier :cool:

buried

lol This country is F**ked man. Skangers and lowlives keeping the law racket in plenty of the greasy cash money, while everybody else, the majority of the country, the ones who abide by the f**king rules, they're treated like the suspicious ones out to do no good.

archer22

Right I'm off to the airport to surf on the wings of the aircraft taking off.

A fall off of one of them must be worth at least 10 million :cool:

Cienciano

Of course it was the red line. Some serious scum on the red line.

Source: I live on the red line

Hoboo

Cienciano wrote: »

Of course it was the red line. Some serious scum on the red line.

Source: I live on the red line

Pondlife

Working class heroes

Hoboo wrote: »

Pondlife

You live there too?

Samuel T. Cogley

archer22 wrote: »

Right I'm off to the airport to surf on the wings of the aircraft taking off.

A fall off of one of them must be worth at least 10 million :cool:

I suppose the point being if you could get on to the wing of a departing aircraft at 13, you probably would be due compensation on the grounds of negligence. Thankfully you can't even make a last minute dash for Amsterdam.

Squeeonline

TallGlass wrote: »

I honestly can't believe what I am reading. 550k for knowingly jumping onto the side of a tram door as it moves.

What did she expect to happen here?

It's honestly official judges have lost there minds.

The only thing wrong with your post is ...

*their

Samuel T. Cogley

Squeeonline wrote: »

The only thing wrong with your post is ...

*their

And the fact that the Judge had no power to refuse the settlement.

the_syco

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/woman-injured-tram-surfing-on-luas-awarded-550-000-1.3669184

A woman who sustained a severe brain injury when she was a teenager

who recently became a mother

Ms Kelly, now aged 20, of Pearse House, Pearse Street, had, through her mother Elizabeth Kelly, sued the Luas operators

If she had to sue the company via her mum as her brain injury was too severe, are we to assume that she can't mentally look after her child?

hullaballoo wrote: »

The company was aware children were hanging onto the outside of trams while in motion for 5 years prior to this incident and did nothing to prevent it.

Kids like to play chicken with oncoming trains at locations where there are no cameras. Do you have a suggestion of how Irish Rail can prevent this?

tuxy

.....

Liam McPoyle

The claimant was awarded the money because Veolia did not have the foresight to ensure people couldn't hang off the outside of the luas.

The feckers!

This is Ireland in 2018.

The reckless, the stupid and the brass necked will get rewarded.

I've been banging the drum for years about stupid insurance payouts and this is just another example of that.

If she suffered a life altering injury then I'd have no issue with Veolia paying for rehab for her but the fact that she can have a kid and appear in court two weeks later says to me that any injury suffered is not all that life changing.

All this does is provide an invitation for others to act the bollox and make others pay for their actions.

It's going to get to a point where multiple businesses and clubs are forced to close because the cost of their liability insurance will be too prohibitive. It's already happening and is only going to get worse.

dinorebel

6 months before she's in court for nicking E301 worth of clothes from Penny's

I thought the OP meant sitting on luas’ and riding around the city. :pac:

thebaz

Approving the settlement Mr Justice Cross said it was not necessary for the court to tell Rebecca Kelly she did a silly thing as she knew that.
However, he commended her for her honesty.



Surely Judge Cross or someone tell the public, who will indirectly pick up the tab, through insurance hikes, why such a figure was awarded - maybe if we knew ther would be less outrage , legal accountablity or are Judges just untouchable pillars of society ?

eddie73

It would be interesting to know how long this case went on for, how many adjournments etc were called. Its not just a young woman who is making a lot of money out of this sort of case.

Why didnt Luas sue her for jumping onto the line?

Liam McPoyle

It occurred when she was 13 so it's near 7 years running. Id say with legal expenses thrown in then you are looking at the guts of €1,000,000 being paid by their insurers.

Frightening sum of money to get for engaging in imbecilic behaviour.

Blazer

another classy girl..between herself and the cash one this country is heading to the dogs...there is no way we can sustain these people and their offspring down the road...what happens when there's another recession and a few hundred thousand people lose their jobs again?
How on earth will the state support those people?

Responding to a friend who suggested she take down her social media account, Ms Kelly wrote: "I know where use are all coming from but I'm not f***ing hiding me b****x will anybody bad mouth me or my child f*** them all haters will be haters."


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/tramsurfing-girl-who-suffered-brain-injury-defends-550000-settlement-37439597.html

irishgeo

If the tram company denied all the claims why did they settle. Its not huge payouts by judges that is pushing up insurance. Its out of court settlements.

While this person did a stupid thing, and is clearly from a subculture of stupid people making stupid life decisions, it's likely that the people in this thread who are envious of somebody receiving €550,000 for a serious brain injury are not much brighter.

Liam McPoyle

irishgeo wrote: »

If the tram company denied all the claims why did they settle. Its not huge payouts by judges that is pushing up insurance. Its out of court settlements.

Because they obviously felt the claimant had a strong enough case and could have potentially been awarded more had they fought it all the way. Never mind the legal eagles that would need their pound of flesh. Out of court settlements are common because the court system is so heavily skewed in favour of claimants that more often than not it's cheaper to pay a nominal amount and let them go away.

Edgware

[Deleted User] wrote: »

While this person did a stupid thing, and is clearly from a subculture of stupid people making stupid life decisions, it's likely that the people in this thread who are envious of somebody receiving €550,000 for a serious brain injury are not much brighter.

Compensation for brain damage. Seems there was a bit of brain damage before it happened.
Didnt effect her leg spreading ability

The Crowman

"haters will be haters". I can't stand that expression and those who use it. It's an even worse, meaningless comeback than "whatever" and used soley by inarticulate thickos.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/tramsurfing-girl-who-suffered-brain-injury-defends-550000-settlement-37439597.html

Pkiernan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

While this person did a stupid thing, and is clearly from a subculture of stupid people making stupid life decisions, it's likely that the people in this thread who are envious of somebody receiving €550,000 for a serious brain injury are not much brighter.

Hopefully her long term social welfare payments will be means tested. But I'm sure it's just another victory for dole scoungers in their war on the working class.

judestynes

Minderbinder wrote: »

The entire workforce of Ireland should go on strike, preferably on dole day. The workers need to stand up for themselves. Seriously, things are so ridiculous. What is wrong with normal Irish people that they'll eat s**t and pay for it when they're finished?

Been says this for years... the dole day is a nice touch though. good one:D

myshirt

The Crowman wrote: »

"haters will be haters". I can't stand that expression and those who use it. It's an even worse, meaningless comeback than "whatever" and used soley by inarticulate thickos.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/tramsurfing-girl-who-suffered-brain-injury-defends-550000-settlement-37439597.html

I'll give her a pass, she suffered a brain injury. As for anyone else who says haters gonna hate..... one face palm is not enough. Two face palms will be required.

myshirt

myshirt wrote: »

I'll give her a pass, she suffered a brain injury. As for anyone else who says haters gonna hate..... one face palm is not enough. Two face palms will be required.

Do you face palm yourself or them?

erica74

the_syco wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/woman-injured-tram-surfing-on-luas-awarded-550-000-1.3669184



If she had to sue the company via her mum as her brain injury was too severe, are we to assume that she can't mentally look after her child?


Kids like to play chicken with oncoming trains at locations where there are no cameras. Do you have a suggestion of how Irish Rail can prevent this?

The case was taken by her mother on her behalf while she was still a child (under 18) so that's why it's worded that she sued through her mother. Once she turned 18, I think she could have applied to have the proceedings changed to her own name but maybe continuing through her mother was better for her case.

The payout in this case is absolutely outrageous. How did they come to that figure? What losses are they factoring into their calculations? She may have significant medical expenses if she really did suffer a "severe brain injury" but those expenses couldn't possibly amount to over half a million! Did they assume that, had she not had this accident, she would have become a productive member of society and the figure includes potential loss of earnings?
I also don't understand how someone who suffered a "severe brain injury" could be responsible for a child?

Eggs For Dinner

irishgeo wrote: »

If the tram company denied all the claims why did they settle. Its not huge payouts by judges that is pushing up insurance. Its out of court settlements.

The tram company can deny liability all day and all night, but that doesn't make the claim go away if the claimant persists and brings it to court. Insurers would have assessed the possible outcome if it was heard in court (the judge's comments give you an indication of what they were up against) and cut their losses.

Settling out of court is not ideal, but the only saving to be made is if you secure a 100% defence. This is a good example how a claimant can be significantly responsible for their own actions, but the legal system still allows for them to take money from YOU

whiskeyman

Deleted User wrote: »

While this person did a stupid thing, and is clearly from a subculture of stupid people making stupid life decisions, it's likely that the people in this thread who are envious of somebody receiving €550,000 for a serious brain injury are not much brighter.

It's not envy.
It's anger that her stupid and reckless actions forced such a payout, that us hard working folk end up paying for through increased premiums and products.

Zonda999

This case simply makes my blood boil, this is indefensible.

Based on the recent budget, a single person earning €34,000 would have to work for 20 years to make €550,000 in net salary. Think about that for a moment,getting up and doing a job in the morning for 20 years and a teenager does something as stupid as this and in five seconds, makes the same amount.

There will be a push-back against certain members in society getting everything while doing nothing, in the future, I am sure of it. Not sure how it will materialise but it will happen. At least I hope it does:mad:

Samuel T. Cogley

Zonda999 wrote: »

There will be a push-back against certain members in society getting everything while doing nothing, in the future, I am sure of it. Not sure how it will materialise but it will happen. At least I hope it does:mad:

It's already happening. We're seeing more and more right wing groups increasing their profile across Europe.

Samuel T. Cogley

It's also probably time we reinstated juries in civil cases; rightly or wrongly there is no confidence in the current Judge led system.

McCrack

Zonda999 wrote: »

This case simply makes my blood boil, this is indefensible.

Based on the recent budget, a single person earning €34,000 would have to work for 20 years to make €550,000 in net salary. Think about that for a moment,getting up and doing a job in the morning for 20 years and a teenager does something as stupid as this and in five seconds, makes the same amount.

There will be a push-back against certain members in society getting everything while doing nothing, in the future, I am sure of it. Not sure how it will materialise but it will happen. At least I hope it does:mad:

Well yes the single worker would need to work that length because they physically and cognitively can

This young lady cannot because of her injury(brain)... Hence her compensation payment

Infini

myshirt wrote: »

I'll give her a pass, she suffered a brain injury. As for anyone else who says haters gonna hate..... one face palm is not enough. Two face palms will be required.

Ill Raise you to 3!