Luas Surfing

Knine

The Luas Today

CatFromHue

Anyone know what the brain injury was? usually they say

Samuel T. Cogley

I'm suprised no one has mentioned the man hit by train thread yet... Damn it.

holyhead

McCrack wrote: »

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

She's no lady. She has screwed the system and being rewarded for doing so. She and her ilk make me sick. The system is screwy for letting her be compensated for her own stupidity.

Rubberchikken

Only fools do that type of thing.
Personally think that girl should not have been awarded as much as a cent. Her choice to do it. These people are idiots.

Liam McPoyle

Rubberchikken wrote: »

Only fools do that type of thing.
Personally think that girl should not have been awarded as much as a cent. Her choice to do it. These people are idiots.

That's what is so maddening. Even though what she did was incredibly dangerous and stupid and she did it of her own free will, the law in this country states that Veolia owed her a duty of care to ensure that she could not do that incredibly dangerous and stupid thing.

I saw a claim once where a guy was in a pub, obliterated drunk, and he fell backwards off the stool and hit his head on the cigarette machine. He was awarded over €400k partly because the barman continued to serve him even though he had very clearly drank too much already. The barman and by extension his employer failed in their duty of care to the customer.

Doesn't make much sense but dems de rules.

Gimme A Pound

The self entitlement/lack of personal responsibility is just beyond out of hand. Someone asked on another thread why the anger... well the likes of this is why. It depresses me reading about this stuff so much - I know some might think "Well don't read it". You can be sure I don't seek it out, but it's so frequent that it can be unavoidable.

Yer Da sells Avon

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I'm suprised no one has mentioned the man hit by train thread yet... Damn it.

I've spent years trying to forget that thread. They warned me not to watch the video, but did I listen?

myshirt

Was contributory negligence not acknowledged?

I understand people's frustration, but that is the best that can be done. She would have got about 800k but for this.

McCrack

holyhead wrote: »

She's no lady. She has screwed the system and being rewarded for doing so. She and her ilk make me sick. The system is screwy for letting her be compensated for her own stupidity.

Bitterness and jealousy

In any event she suffered a quite a significant injury and the defendant acknowledged and its responsibility to her and settled. She was 13 at the time.. 550k or not I certainly would not like to trade places with her.

McCrack

Business Cat wrote: »

That's what is so maddening. Even though what she did was incredibly dangerous and stupid and she did it of her own free will, the law in this country states that Veolia owed her a duty of care to ensure that she could not do that incredibly dangerous and stupid thing.

I saw a claim once where a guy was in a pub, obliterated drunk, and he fell backwards off the stool and hit his head on the cigarette machine. He was awarded over €400k partly because the barman continued to serve him even though he had very clearly drank too much already. The barman and by extension his employer failed in their duty of care to the customer.

Doesn't make much sense but dems de rules.

It does make sense. A publican is given a license to sell alcohol. He has a duty of care to every customer. He cannot continue to serve an extremely drunk person until they literally drop down and if he does and they do and injure themselves on his premises then liability most likely will attach.

erica74

myshirt wrote: »

Was contributory negligence not acknowledged?

I understand people's frustration, but that is the best that can be done. She would have got about 800k but for this.

Contributory negligence was factored in, I'd be interested to see what the split was.

I don't understand how she is deemed to have suffered a "severe brain injury" but can walk and has recently had a child. Judging by her social media accounts, she has lived a normal life but yet has a "severe brain injury"

I can understand how the luas operator was found to be partially to blame but €550k is outrageous.

mikemac2

Business Cat wrote: »

I saw a claim once where a guy was in a pub, obliterated drunk, and he fell backwards off the stool and hit his head on the cigarette machine. He was awarded over €400k partly because the barman continued to serve him even though he had very clearly drank too much already. The barman and by extension his employer failed in their duty of care to the customer.

Doesn't make much sense but dems de rules.

The publican is not blameless there

NIMAN

mikemac2 wrote: »

The publican is not blameless there

Correct, he added to the conditions that might bring about an injury to the customer.

The LUAS company didn't in any way, did they?

thebiglad

NIMAN wrote: »

Correct, he added to the conditions that might bring about an injury to the customer.

The LUAS company didn't in any way, did they?

In no way do I support the actions of the claimant but in the eyes of the law...

LUAS apparently knew this practice was going on yet they did not change their operating practice, instruct drivers nor take steps to prevent - i believe that is why they expected to have a case to answer.

They subsequently changed procedures on check before pulling off, put strips to remove any grip points to prevent people attempting and added cameras above the doors for the driver to view.

This was settled many years after the event and then, after starting the case (the claimant had started to give evidence) - the settlement was proposed by LUAS operator and was only approved by the judge.

Unfortunately as with the previous poster analogy of a bar man, in law you can be responsible for other people's stupidity if you do not nothing to prevent them or aid them in any way.

In many public cases the claimant has a high degree of contribution but often this is disregarded as the liability of the defendant and the legal costs/risks of an argument are much higher.

Panrich

The next time I’m in a fancy restaurant I’m going to stand up and stab myself in the arse with a steak knife.

That’s got to be worth €100k. What do you reckon?

bear1

I'm fantastically interested into veolias reasons for giving her half a million for acting the twat plus I imagine they coughed up for the legal costs.
People slave and work themselves to the bone to make ends meet (myself included) and yet it's **** like this which makes you wonder "what's the point?".
Christ above she admitted her guilt and got 550k, where the fook is the justice there?

mikhail

Panrich wrote: »

The next time I’m in a fancy restaurant I’m going to stand up and stab myself in the arse with a steak knife.

That’s got to be worth €100k. What do you reckon?

Let us know in advance if you're going through that, so we can avoid the restaurant. I wouldn't like to be on the hook as a bystander for not stopping the crazy man with the knife.

PCeeeee

McCrack wrote: »

Bitterness and jealousy

In any event she suffered a quite a significant injury and the defendant acknowledged and its responsibility to her and settled. She was 13 at the time.. 550k or not I certainly would not like to trade places with her.

What is her injury?

Nermal

thebiglad wrote: »

LUAS apparently knew this practice was going on yet they did not change their operating practice, instruct drivers nor take steps to prevent

Why should they have to?

Nermal

Nermal wrote: »

Why should they have to?

because the practice could kill someone. If they’re operating the service and people are doing something dangerous the company has to take measures to prevent people from doing so.

NIMAN

Ezekiel Rich GourdMGS wrote: »

because the practice could kill someone. If they’re operating the service and people are doing something dangerous the company has to take measures to prevent people from doing so.

So Ferrari should put speed limiters on their cars?

NIMAN

NIMAN wrote: »

So Ferrari should put speed limiters on their cars?

We have traffic cops to watch for speeding drivers. That’s the preventive measure in that instance. When Luas was well aware the practice was going on but did nothing to stop it until someone was hurt and sued them, you can say that wasn’t stupid on their part. I’m not defending this imbecile but that still doesn’t mean Luas shouldn’t have dealt with the issue before a serious injury occurred. It’s not like they were totally unaware it was happening

Liam McPoyle

mikemac2 wrote: »

The publican is not blameless there

I didn't say they were?

My point was we live in a society where we can indulge in reckless behaviour then make others carry the can for it. At what point does personal accountability end?

Gimme A Pound

McCrack wrote: »

Bitterness and jealousy

In any event she suffered a quite a significant injury and the defendant acknowledged and its responsibility to her and settled. She was 13 at the time.. 550k or not I certainly would not like to trade places with her.

No, disgust at someone making the decision themselves - nobody else doing so - to do something ridiculously stupid and when this high risk, unnecessary idiocy didn't turn out well (as was the overwhelming likelihood) being rewarded for it. So you have lack of personal responsibility, selfishness, self entitlement and greed all rolled into one - and it gets rewarded!

But do keep deluding yourself that the perfectly reasonable and logical objections to this are bitterness and jealousy.

Hococop

Ezekiel Rich GourdMGS wrote: »

We have traffic cops to watch for speeding drivers. That’s the preventive measure in that instance. When Luas was well aware the practice was going on but did nothing to stop it until someone was hurt and sued them, you can say that wasn’t stupid on their part. I’m not defending this imbecile but that still doesn’t mean Luas shouldn’t have dealt with the issue before a serious injury occurred. It’s not like they were totally unaware it was happening

Yet people are still dying due to speed, does that mean the families can sue the gards?

McCrack

Mae Purple Cornmeal wrote: »

No, disgust at someone making the decision themselves - nobody else doing so - to do something ridiculously stupid and when this high risk, unnecessary idiocy didn't turn out well (as was the overwhelming likelihood) being rewarded for it. So you have lack of personal responsibility, selfishness, self entitlement and greed all rolled into one - and it gets rewarded!

But do keep deluding yourself that the perfectly reasonable and logical objections to this are bitterness and jealousy.

She was 13 years of age. Children and teenagers do stupid things

The defendants at the time knew about it and hadn't modified their procedures and also cctv on each door and metal strips

They acknowledged their own shortcomings and settled the case and have since modified the trams

McCrack

Hococop wrote: »

Yet people are still dying due to speed, does that mean the families can sue the gards?

No but they can sue the speeding driver for negligence

beauf

I wonder many of these cases would make the luas operator go bankrupt.

Dravokivich

beauf wrote: »

I wonder many of these cases would make the luas operator go bankrupt.

I'd imagine it'd be done via insurance as opposed to straight out their back pocket?

beauf

Regardless we'll all be paying for it.

Nermal

Ezekiel Rich GourdMGS wrote: »

because the practice could kill someone. If they’re operating the service and people are doing something dangerous the company has to take measures to prevent people from doing so.

Why should they? They were not careless, let alone malicious. If the tram was used properly, there would be no issue. Why should the consequences of illegal behavior be borne by the rest of us, rather than the criminal?

Dravokivich wrote: »

I'd imagine it'd be done via insurance as opposed to straight out their back pocket?

Where do you think insurance payouts come from? Society has to bear the cost of this nonsense. Money spent on insurance premiums and idiot-proofing trams could have be spent on something useful.

Gimme A Pound

"We all did stupid stuff as kids" is such a feeble argument.

Yeah we did but there is a scale.

I will say **** parenting is part of the problem too though.

Fart

Should probably fine her 550k.

EdgeCase

The problem is they settled. It's not a court ruling at all.
This keeps happening because for whatever reason the insurance sector seems to think that setting is cheaper and easier.

That points to a very expensive legal system which was actually something that Troika kept raising and asking that we did during the crisis but for some reason the government misinterpreted this as an urgent call to rollout water metering instead.

McCrack

EdgeCase wrote: »

The problem is they settled. It's not a court ruling at all.
This keeps happening because for whatever reason the insurance sector seems to think that setting is cheaper and easier.

That points to a very expensive legal system which was actually something that Troika kept raising and asking that we did during the crisis but for some reason the government misinterpreted this as an urgent call to rollout water metering instead.

No insurance companies will most definitely defend a high value claim (550k plus costs) if they can escape liability or in other words their insured is not to blame

Silent Running

If it was a design fault with the tram, could the operator not sue the manufacturer, or at least recover the cost of settlement?

BTW, I'm not in any way condoning the behaviour of this stupid lowlife. There should be a limit to what is expected to make anything idiot proof. If people are determined to do stupid stuff on otherwise safe equipment, they should be liable for the lost revenue, or other expenses they cause.

We need to stop rewarding stupidity.

henryforde80

u okay hun?

endacl

henryforde80 wrote: »

u okay hun?

I think they've been through hell and back?

henryforde80

endacl wrote: »

I think they've been through hell and back?

Most of been, hope op is okay xx

Kitty6277

Can't sleep OP?

U ok? chat me hun.

Atoms for Peace

Sent the evidence you've gathered to veolia, their insurance company, the fraud squad etc.. It would be interesting to hear their response OP.

Through Hell and Back

Is there anyone who might have an idea if she could be prosecuted for fraud, and the money taken off her?

Samuel T. Cogley

NIMAN wrote: »

So Ferrari should put speed limiters on their cars?

Many high performance cars have limiters to prevent them being driven at speeds which could cause them to essentially take off. If they didn't it would be negligence. Massive claims against one care manufacturer due to fuel tanks explaoding is the text book example of the cost negligence having hurt to get companies to do things.

Samuel T. Cogley

Through Hell and Back wrote: »

I have been so disgusted with this case, that I decided to look up her Facebook page.

It took me about 10 minutes to find this one's Facebook account, and it goes back a few years. This lovely girl has had a Debs, can go out independently by herself anytime, cycle a bike, there was a photo of two people lying on top of her - no problem to her at all.She was not in hospital or had any serious medical issues at all. She is able to drink, get pregnant, give birth, and the one I love the most there was a video of her jumping off a pier which was at least 15 foot high, no bother to her at all.

There is more than enough evidence that she can lead a full life, and it can be clearly seen that her "Severe head injury" is complete lies and exaggeration, and her Facebook page proves all of this. It took me about half an hour to forty minutes to see all of this, and the legal tea from the insurance company could not find all of this prior to settling her case for more than half a million???

It is an absolute disgrace, and her case is complete lies and a huge fraud. Total disgrace this one is, and her knacker family.

Personally I thinks she's a fraud also, but there are plenty of brain injuries that mean she could lead a relatively normal life but not be fit to be in the work place. For all we know she has crippling seizures. The point being none of us here are the Doctor who would have had to produce a medical report under pain of purjury.

KevinCavan

erica74 wrote: »

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?

The whole brain injury thing seems very vague.

mfceiling

Business Cat wrote: »

I didn't say they were?

My point was we live in a society where we can indulge in reckless behaviour then make others carry the can for it. At what point does personal accountability end?

I've been saying this for ages.
Personal responsibility is a thing of the past. Look at Ms Cash...no way of supporting 1 or 2 kids? Sure have 7 then.
The state is a great tit to suck on for those that can't be arsed. Unfortunately the state also seems happy enough with this relationship.

KevinCavan

She would probably be doing medicine in Trinity College now, only for the brain injury. So in a way you can see why she got 500k.

Harry Palmr

Just heard on the news that she is afraid to go out due to internet trolls