Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

Auguste Comte

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

I'm trying to keep on topic so perhaps you could do the same.

Says the lad that tried to deflect to Willie O'Dee.

JPCN1

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

**It is my belief** that Madigan is heavily involved in this, Bailey has the proof of it, Bailey's passionate plea to SOR on how she worked so hard, built up a career etc etc, that she's not going to go quietly, if she goes, she'll spill the beans on Madigan.

Madigan goes, the press go to town on Madigan, and lord only knows what compo claims her paws are all over.

It's the only logical explanation imo.

FGers reading this, if you think it sounds far fetched, ask yourself how farfetched this story would have sounded 5 weeks ago, especially the bit where Leo has let it drag on.....

Time to get the dead cat of the pitch lads.

Wouldn't be too far off my view on things...

If a report into such a small incident can take so long we know why debacles like the children hospital happen.

Leo had a chance to do the right thing but bottled it in the worst way. It's still there and not going to go away. Humanity will be crossed again and again before this is done.

Pintman Paddy Losty

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

**It is my belief** that Madigan is heavily involved in this, Bailey has the proof of it, Bailey's passionate plea to SOR on how she worked so hard, built up a career etc etc, that she's not going to go quietly, if she goes, she'll spill the beans on Madigan.

Madigan goes, the press go to town on Madigan, and lord only knows what compo claims her paws are all over.

It's the only logical explanation imo.

FGers reading this, if you think it sounds far fetched, ask yourself how farfetched this story would have sounded 5 weeks ago, especially the bit where Leo has let it drag on.....

Time to get the dead cat of the pitch lads.

Put down the doobie and take off the sunglasses of delusion mi amigo. You're hearing hooves and immediately thinking there's a herd of zebra.

This isn't the water gate scandal that you and a bunch of online cranks are about to blow wide open. It's a storm in a teacup that most people have already forgotten about.

RustyNut

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

All that FG can do is remove the whip from her for conduct unbecoming of a FG public rep. - and if they did there's every chance that she'd sue them for trauma, mental anguish, discrimination, PTSD and God knows what else.

Well not really. Leo could declare publicly that he has lost confidence in Bailey and Farrell and ask for their resignation, show a little leadership.

Plumbthedepths

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote:

This isn't the water gate scandal that you and a bunch of online cranks are about to blow wide open. It's a storm in a teacup that most people have already forgotten about.

lol.

_blaaz

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Put down the doobie and take off the sunglasses of delusion mi amigo. You're hearing hooves and immediately thinking there's a herd of zebra.

This isn't the water gate scandal that you and a bunch of online cranks are about to blow wide open. It's a storm in a teacup that most people have already forgotten about.

For something is a storm in a teacuo....its terrible leadership to let it get this out of hand

James Brown

RustyNut wrote: »

Well not really. Leo could declare publicly that he has lost confidence in Bailey and Farrell and ask for their resignation, show a little leadership.

No way. Saving face is more important than anything. Worst case for Bailey he'll organise a senate seat or something to get her off side but sorted.

Plumbthedepths

Pintman reckons it's a storm in a teacup and no one cares. Another story in today's Indo about Bailey and co. Someone cares, ;-)

James Brown

The blue brigade send the odd poor lad over the top to try 'it's old news' or 'nobody cares' every now and again. It's gas.

BattleCorp

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

**It is my belief** that Madigan is heavily involved in this, .

The lynch mob will be after me for this but why would Madigan be in trouble over Maria Bailey's claim?

As far as I'm aware it's the job of a solicitor to represent their clients in personal injury claims. Isn't that what Madigan's firm did? They had a normal solicitor client relationship. Yes, they were friends and work colleagues but that doesn't prevent Madigan's firm from acting as her solicitor.

Shefwedfan

BattleCorp wrote: »

The lynch mob will be after me for this but why would Madigan be in trouble over Maria Bailey's claim?

As far as I'm aware it's the job of a solicitor to represent their clients in personal injury claims. Isn't that what Madigan's firm did? They had a normal solicitor client relationship. Yes, they were friends and work colleagues but that doesn't prevent Madigan's firm from acting as her solicitor.

If they are doing nothing after Bailey went onto a live radio show and made a complete arse of herself and the whole party...I very much doubt they will do anything to Madigan who has kept her trap shut

ChikiChiki

BattleCorp wrote: »

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

**It is my belief** that Madigan is heavily involved in this, .

The lynch mob will be after me for this but why would Madigan be in trouble over Maria Bailey's claim?

As far as I'm aware it's the job of a solicitor to represent their clients in personal injury claims. Isn't that what Madigan's firm did? They had a normal solicitor client relationship. Yes, they were friends and work colleagues but that doesn't prevent Madigan's firm from acting as her solicitor.

Because in this case the client (Bailey) was advised by their solicitor (Madigans) that they had a clear cut case when they very obviously did not.

Itssoeasy

ChikiChiki wrote: »

BattleCorp wrote: »

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

**It is my belief** that Madigan is heavily involved in this, .

The lynch mob will be after me for this but why would Madigan be in trouble over Maria Bailey's claim?

As far as I'm aware it's the job of a solicitor to represent their clients in personal injury claims. Isn't that what Madigan's firm did? They had a normal solicitor client relationship. Yes, they were friends and work colleagues but that doesn't prevent Madigan's firm from acting as her solicitor.

Because in this case the client (Bailey) was advised by their solicitor (Madigans) that they had a clear cut case when they very obviously did not.

Which begs the question was Maria bailey upfront about all the details of the incident ?

BattleCorp

Shefwedfan wrote: »

If they are doing nothing after Bailey went onto a live radio show and made a complete arse of herself and the whole party...I very much doubt they will do anything to Madigan who has kept her trap shut

I know this goes against the majority but they don't have enough evidence to get rid of the two of them.

Yes, Bailey's claim is questionable, but that isn't evidence. An inaccuracy in an affidavit, while problematic, isn't evidence of wrongdoing as it didn't get to court. Madigan providing advice and representing her client again isn't evidence and to be honest, I can't see what wrongdoing Madigan could have done. Solicitors advise clients all the time, it's their job.

People seem to be losing sight of the fact that it is without question that Bailey fell off the swing. Now if it was Bailey's fault or the hotel's fault, we can't say for certain. Only a court would have been able to rule on that. The fact that she fell meant that she had grounds to claim. Would she have won, I don't know. I have my doubts but weaker cases have succeeded in court before.

While none of us are happy with the claim etc., but there is no proof of wrongdoing. We all suspect there may be wrongdoing, but I don't think it's enough for FG to go after both of them, even if they had the will to do so.

The Bishop Basher

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

But the FG review isn't addressing the Farrell claim. I'm trying to keep on topic so perhaps you could do the same.

The appalling manner in which this saga has been “handled” and the ensuing damage to FG and Leo’s reputation is very much on topic.

ChikiChiki

Itssoeasy wrote: »

ChikiChiki wrote: »

BattleCorp wrote: »

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

**It is my belief** that Madigan is heavily involved in this, .

The lynch mob will be after me for this but why would Madigan be in trouble over Maria Bailey's claim?

As far as I'm aware it's the job of a solicitor to represent their clients in personal injury claims. Isn't that what Madigan's firm did? They had a normal solicitor client relationship. Yes, they were friends and work colleagues but that doesn't prevent Madigan's firm from acting as her solicitor.

Because in this case the client (Bailey) was advised by their solicitor (Madigans) that they had a clear cut case when they very obviously did not.

Which begs the question was Maria bailey upfront about all the details of the incident ?

No, but I suppose that info is her bargaining chip. Release that into the public domain and there is the real likelihood the Government implodes.

Potential-Monke

BattleCorp wrote: »

Now if it was Bailey's fault or the hotel's fault, we can't say for certain.

You'll excuse some of us if we take her word that she fell due to no instructions and being unsupervised, along with the hotel stating she wasn't using her hands, as evidence enough that the claim was not warranted.

A friend of my mothers, doesn't have great hips, fell going down a stairs into a restaurant. Nothing wrong with the stairs, bannister was perfect, nothing tripped her, but she's still going to sue, because she has been told she'll get money either way. Bailey is the same. Unwarranted, and completely unbecoming of a member of our elected officials. Lead by example, not by greed, but greed wins again as it always does.

BattleCorp

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Because in this case the client (Bailey) was advised by their solicitor (Madigans) that they had a clear cut case when they very obviously did not.

Two things on that sentence.

You don't 100% know that Madigan said that to Bailey. That's Bailey's word.

Secondly, you don't know that Bailey didn't have a clear cut case. The rules around health and safety are very strange. There's a principle called reasonably practicable. The hotel have to do everything that is reasonably practicable to ensure the safety of their clients. It is reasonable to foresee that drunk people could fall off a swing. What precautions did the hotel take to ensure that this didn't happen. Yes, this sounds absolutely ridiculous to the man in the street but health and safety law places very onerous responsibilities on employers and business owners to ensure the safety of people on their premises.

The fact that the hotel put anti-slip take onto the swings afterwards could have given Bailey hope for succeeding with her claim. Her legal team might have argued why wasn't the anti-slip tape on the swing afterwards? I've seen that type of crap be successful in court.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Nevin Parsnipp wrote: »

I think it wise at this stage to wait and see what are the findings in the report ?

You honestly believe we are going to be told the results!! This is an internal enquiry and Leo will no doubt set up another internal review team to review the findings of it. We won’t be told a thing and especially not if there are (which there absolutely has to be) negative findings.

JeffKenna

BattleCorp wrote: »

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Because in this case the client (Bailey) was advised by their solicitor (Madigans) that they had a clear cut case when they very obviously did not.

Two things on that sentence.

You don't 100% know that Madigan said that to Bailey. That's Bailey's word.

Secondly, you don't know that Bailey didn't have a clear cut case. The rules around health and safety are very strange. There's a principle called reasonably practicable. The hotel have to do everything that is reasonably practicable to ensure the safety of their clients. It is reasonable to foresee that drunk people could fall off a swing. What precautions did the hotel take to ensure that this didn't happen. Yes, this sounds absolutely ridiculous to the man in the street but health and safety law places very onerous responsibilities on employers and business owners to ensure the safety of people on their premises.

The fact that the hotel put anti-slip take onto the swings afterwards could have given Bailey hope for succeeding with her claim. Her legal team might have argued why wasn't the anti-slip tape on the swing afterwards? I've seen that type of crap be successful in court.

Surely you would have to have suffered injuries to have a case?

BattleCorp

Potential-Monke wrote: »

You'll excuse some of us if we take her word that she fell due to no instructions and being unsupervised, along with the hotel stating she wasn't using her hands, as evidence enough that the claim was not warranted.

A friend of my mothers, doesn't have great hips, fell going down a stairs into a restaurant. Nothing wrong with the stairs, bannister was perfect, nothing tripped her, but she's still going to sue, because she has been told she'll get money either way. Bailey is the same. Unwarranted, and completely unbecoming of a member of our elected officials. Lead by example, not by greed, but greed wins again as it always does.

I agree with you 100%. People are acting the bo11ix and making ridiculous claims. I see it in my work every day as I'm involved in defending personal injury claims.

But I can't agree with your first paragraph. Without hearing all and I mean all the evidence and seeing the results of an engineering inspection and a full investigation into the matter, we can't say for sure her claim was unwarranted.

We can suspect that it was unwarranted, I know I do. But that isn't enough to say that she is guilty of wrongdoing.

James Brown

BattleCorp wrote: »

The lynch mob will be after me for this but why would Madigan be in trouble over Maria Bailey's claim?

As far as I'm aware it's the job of a solicitor to represent their clients in personal injury claims. Isn't that what Madigan's firm did? They had a normal solicitor client relationship. Yes, they were friends and work colleagues but that doesn't prevent Madigan's firm from acting as her solicitor.

It's a few things. We don't know who advised Bailey it was a 'clear cut case', Madigan? Could we have two FG people involved? Then you have Leo saying FG weren't consulted about the claim but if madigan was involved it brings the claim closer to the FG party rather than just Bailey, who Leo is reluctant to hold to account in any way or even divulge the finding of the report.

BattleCorp wrote: »

...

We can suspect that it was unwarranted, I know I do. But that isn't enough to say that she is guilty of wrongdoing.

We can in the court of public opinion and that's were votes are won and lost.

The Bishop Basher

Humanity has been crossed.

We need answers.

Still waiting Leo.

Cee-Jay-Cee

JPCN1 wrote: »

Leo had a chance to do the right thing but bottled it in the worst way. It's still there and not going to go away. Humanity will be crossed again and again before this is done.

Dafuq does that even mean???

BattleCorp

JeffKenna wrote: »

Surely you would have to have suffered injuries to have a case?

Bailey would have had medical reports to say that she suffered injuries.

Potential-Monke

I agree, to a point. I think it's high time the court, ie: the judiciary, wake up to this crap and stop giving out massive payouts when the person claiming is injured because of their own idiocy. Like, I don't know how to ride a motorbike. I've an idea, but not 100%. If i got up on someones bike, tried to drive it and fell off, that's my own fault. But I'm in the minority thinking this, as people now seem to think (and the judiciary is backing them up) that being an idiot leads to a payout.

In this instance, the fact that she said outright that there were no instructions shows me immediately that she knew she was wrong but came up with a legal challenge to absolve her own idiocy. This is what needs to stop, and I will also always hold elected officials to a much higher standard than anyone else. The neck on her, on 100k a year claiming 60k because she's an idiot.

BattleCorp

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's a few things. We don't know who advised Bailey it was a 'clear cut case', Madigan? Could we have two FG people involved? Then you have Leo saying FG weren't consulted about the claim but if madigan was involved it brings the claim closer to the FG party rather than just Bailey, who Leo is reluctant to hold to account in any way or even divulge the finding of the report.



We can in the court of public opinion and that's were votes are won and lost.

Why would FG be consulted regarding the claim?

If I had an accident in a pub, why would I inform my employer that I intended to claim?

Madigan works outside of her TD role too. As do many other TDs. Why would she have to notify FG of her role in a personal injury claim?

For the record, I think FG are a pack of sh1ts who are wasting billions acting the b0llix, but that's neither here nor there.

BattleCorp

The Bishop Basher wrote: »

Humanity has been crossed.

We need answers.

Still waiting Leo.

Bailey was an absolute GOBSH1TE to come out with that crap.

BattleCorp

Potential-Monke wrote: »

The neck on her, on 100k a year claiming 60k because she's an idiot.

I agree with everything you said but just to clarify, she didn't claim €60k. That's the maximum that the Circuit Court can award. She may have gotten much less than the €60k. She may have gotten nothing at all even.

EmmetSpiceland

BattleCorp wrote: »

I know this goes against the majority but they don't have enough evidence to get rid of the two of them.

Ah now, B, don’t be saying that. You’ll have this lot bawling into their Easter Lilies.

Don’t shatter their deluded dream that something as small as this incident could bring down “de gubbermint”.

It was the same when Drew Harris had his accident at the gates of Garda HQ. You had the same cohort calling him all sorts and demanding Harris be hauled over the coals and sent back up North for allowing our hallowed ground be invaded by a foreign force. Even demanding a report of what happened. It was embarrassing, just as this is getting.

It’s quite telling that it hasn’t been moved into the “Current Affairs” forum, mustn’t be deemed current as it’s a month old at this stage.