35000 for falling in your own yard

Nermal

LirW wrote: »

Not saying it justifies the payout but maybe lazy councils finally get the message.

the message being 'i'll sue you if you don't maintain my free house'

LirW

Nermal wrote: »

the message being 'i'll sue you if you don't maintain my free house'

Every landlord has an obligation to maintain their property. Christ, if you sign your property up for hap you'll have an inspection before to make sure everything is gravy. Private landlords can prepare for PRTB hearings over that stuff. It shouldn't matter how the rent is paid, properties should be well maintained by tenant and landlord within their obligations. Potholes are definitely not tenant business.

nthclare

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

Money to procure more monkeys

Probably takes 7 of them to agree with an idea that some aul fella with a Tweed cap and a smell of cow **** off him could squeeze out of half a brain cell.

I worked alongside county council s and they always have to wait for the engineer's opinion, which could mean 7 guy's breast feeding shovels around a hole laughing at the system.

Its pandemic in these organisations, guy's paid from the neck down, and guys unable to think from the neck up.

But there's always a shooooshhh the engineer is a former hurler, he failed his driving test today so say nothing...
He's so and so's son too.

Nermal

LirW wrote: »

Every landlord has an obligation to maintain their property.

every tenant has an obligation to look where they're going

nthclare

Nermal wrote: »

the message being 'i'll sue you if you don't maintain my free house'

Damn right.

Landlords all over the country treating tennants like plebs.

Some of us work hard for a living, and anytime I worked with any of these layabouts into free this that and the other was an absolute nightmare...

They're not like us, they belong together as we don't get them nor them us.

Leave them have their 35k because it won't be in their pocket's for long, straight back into the system and around and around it goes....

LirW

Nermal wrote: »

every tenant has an obligation to look where they're going

So it's okay for the council to not fulfill their maintenance obligation because "ah shur tenants have 2 eyes, they'll realise that there's a hole"?

nthclare

LirW wrote: »

So it's okay for the council to not fulfill their maintenance obligation because "ah shur tenants have 2 eyes, they'll realise that there's a hole"?

Factually you're absolutely correct, that's the way it should be.

There's no point in getting all worked up about someone getting 35k

I blame the bottom line here, if that hole was filled up accordingly there would never have been a big claim.

Simple as, the law's are the law's no ifs or buts.

If a high profile person had a fall in a 5 star hotel there would be nothing said about their payout.

kippy

nthclare wrote: »

Factually you're absolutely correct, that's the way it should be.

There's no point in getting all worked up about someone getting 35k

I blame the bottom line here, if that hole was filled up accordingly there would never have been a big claim.

Simple as, the law's are the law's no ifs or buts.

If a high profile person had a fall in a 5 star hotel there would be nothing said about their payout.

There has to be some level of common sense here though.

The tenants brought the issue to the attention of the property owner - I am assuming there is a paper trail here. We do not know how many times they contacted the property owner or when the issue was initially brought to the attention of the property owner.
It looks as if the property owner did not act in any way to try resolve the issue.
Ergo - the property owner has some blame in this.

The tenant, knew that there was an issue at the property and continued to allow their child to play in this area. Child happened to do themselves and injury on the part of ground that had been reported to the property owner.
Ergo - the tenant has some blame in this also.

Finally.
Child makes full recovery. No broken bones. Awarded 35K - once can assume tax free (not sure about this).

Three things there - the primary one being the award amount. For the injury it was a crazy amount of money to pay out.

The council were at fault, as were the parents. There should be some contributory portion of blame assigned to the parents also for allowing their child to partake in activities on ground they felt was unsafe.

None of it matters though.

nthclare

kippy wrote: »

There has to be some level of common sense here though.

The tenants brought the issue to the attention of the property owner - I am assuming there is a paper trail here. We do not know how many times they contacted the property owner or when the issue was initially brought to the attention of the property owner.
It looks as if the property owner did not act in any way to try resolve the issue.
Ergo - the property owner has some blame in this.

The tenant, knew that there was an issue at the property and continued to allow their child to play in this area. Child happened to do themselves and injury on the part of ground that had been reported to the property owner.
Ergo - the tenant has some blame in this also.

Finally.
Child makes full recovery. No broken bones. Awarded 35K - once can assume tax free (not sure about this).

Three things there - the primary one being the award amount. For the injury it was a crazy amount of money to pay out.

The council were at fault, as were the parents. There should be some contributory portion of blame assigned to the parents also for allowing their child to partake in activities on ground they felt was unsafe.

None of it matters though.

I agree with you 100%

It could have been worse, 35k was low for all we know there could have been a bigger settlement outside the court a few months ago and these people dug their heels in and greed got in their way.

I'v heard of people expecting 100,000 and their hope's and dreams dashed to 30,000 k

They were offered 60,000 by the opposing barrister but decided to go into court and got SFA

Cienciano

suicide_circus wrote: »

https://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Will-Ferrell-LOL.gif

Local publican is stocking up on fat frog ingredients

mikemac2

kippy wrote: »

Finally.
Child makes full recovery. No broken bones.

The child fractured her ankle

Alrigghtythen

mikemac2 wrote: »

The child fractured her ankle

And then it healed

nice_guy80

I've often rented a house in the past and painted it when it got grubby
Chopped shrubbery to tidy it up or cut the grass in the garden

Its called being house proud.

nice_guy80

nthclare wrote: »

Factually you're absolutely correct, that's the way it should be.

There's no point in getting all worked up about someone getting 35k

I blame the bottom line here, if that hole was filled up accordingly there would never have been a big claim.

Simple as, the law's are the law's no ifs or buts.

If a high profile person had a fall in a 5 star hotel there would be nothing said about their payout.

Would they be living in the hotel though?

Potential-Monke

Ah, the picture of the 'pothole' is in the article. It's a footprint. So someone walked in fresh concrete and created a footprint. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but it doesn't look deep and I'm struggling to imagine how someone could accidentally fracture an ankle from that. But, it allegedly happened so...

Yes, the council should have fixed it. But, as already pointed out, the parents were negligent in allowing their child to play in an unsafe area. But, and this would have prevented everything and is something my own parents did at home, they put a piece of board over the hole so no one would fall into/over it. Simple job, no one got injured, the hold was filled whenever and the piece of board was put aside for the next hole. Why couldn't the parents have covered it with something? Or put something over it until it was fixed? It's a footprint size, you wouldn't need anything big to do this.

I've no problem with people getting payouts if they're entitled to it, but this payout was far too high for a now non-existant injury, and personal and parental responsibility seems to no longer be something to be considered. IMO, the payout should include personal responsibility, and I would wager 50% in this case, as it was avoidable by both sides. But that doesn't happen.

mad m

The people of this council house are in a long term tenancy. Tenants are responsible for repairs as per tenants handbook.

Tenants expect council to be responsible for everything when in fact they are not.

http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/HousingAndCommunity/LookingForAHome/tenants%20handbook.pdf

lawred2

namloc1980 wrote: »

You kind of left out the bit about the council being the landlord and not fixing the issue after they'd been told about it. Fairly important info to skip over.

Could the parents not have fixed the issue no?

Probably too busy scratching their holes

fonecrusher1

Disgraceful.

That poor child could have died falling into that pothole. She could have went on fire. It should be 3.5 million. :mad: And those poor parents. God bless them. God bless us all.

cena

Effects wrote: »

You need a better solicitor.

Too late now.

vkus6mt3y8zg2q

namloc1980 wrote: »

The council are the property owner...are you absolving property owners of responsibility to maintain their property.

When the tenants are spongers then yes.

Patrick2010

This family are serious suers, has nobody read the post from the Indo about the car “accident “ ?

machiavellianme

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

A 17-year-old schoolgirl who broke her ankle when she stepped in a pothole while playing in her back yard has been awarded €35,000 damages.


Judge Groarke, who app­roved the settlement offer of €35,000, heard that Maria suffered from a limp for a short while after her accident but had since made a complete recovery

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/girl-awarded-35000-after-breaking-ankle-in-back-yard-of-home-38004031.html


Are we absolving parents of all responsibility? The parents have a duty of care to supervise their child. Does she need someone from the council to move in and babysit?

Jesus H Christ. At the age of this girls alleged "accident", I'd have been expected to mix some cement and fill the hole myself. Instead this genius (who was aware of it, because she's not blind) somehow managed to injure herself playing? What teenage girls play in their back garden anyway?

holliehobbie

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

A 17-year-old schoolgirl who broke her ankle when she stepped in a pothole while playing in her back yard has been awarded €35,000 damages.


Judge Groarke, who app­roved the settlement offer of €35,000, heard that Maria suffered from a limp for a short while after her accident but had since made a complete recovery

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/girl-awarded-35000-after-breaking-ankle-in-back-yard-of-home-38004031.html


Are we absolving parents of all responsibility? The parents have a duty of care to supervise their child. Does she need someone from the council to move in and babysit?

I have an issue with the thread title! It wasn't the child's back yard! Her mother doesn't own the house. Although the child will probably get the tenancy passed to her unless she has a few fatherless kids and gets her own for ever home!

FishOnABike

enricoh wrote: »

Judge groarke, if i ever have a compo case it better be him on that day! A most generous man!

It was not Judge Groarke's decision that set the amount, he merely rubber stamped the amount offered by the council, who owned, were made aware of the need for repairs / maintenance and who failed to carry out repairs or maintenance which would have prevented the injury.

If anyone is deserving of your opprobrium, it is the council for not ensuring their property was maintained. It appears they were being penny wise and pound foolish.

gimli2112

judeboy101 wrote: »

Groarkey again, quicker we elect our judges the better.

Jesus no we'd have a bunch of Healy Raes and Lowreys on the bench. They just need to be accountable. It's astonishing you can't review a judge's decision's and have them removed

punisher5112

I have a crack in the concrete in my front garden.....

Who can I contact????

Oh sh1t wait I can't as I own my home.... Oh dang to late I'm mentally scarred for life now....

fonecrusher1

punisher5112 wrote: »

I have a crack in the concrete in my front garden.....

Who can I contact????

Oh sh1t wait I can't as I own my home.... Oh dang to late I'm mentally scarred for life now....

Just tell the judge your house 'identifies' as a council house or something. And say things like 'the childers be getting very scared to go outside after de fall Joe'.

You'd get a few grand at least. Its free money.

Edit: Its a disgrace. Forgot to say that.

McCrack

gimli2112 wrote: »

Jesus no we'd have a bunch of Healy Raes and Lowreys on the bench. They just need to be accountable. It's astonishing you can't review a judge's decision's and have them removed

Eh you can

It's called an appeal