Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

McMurphy

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.

Who were the friends with Bailey on the night in question?

Who told her she had a clear cut case?

Who's idea was it to use the "supervision" and "no signage" line of defence?

Bailey has implicated Madigan(s) on at least one of those things, time will tell how deep it goes.

James Brown

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

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.

Not for want of trying lad?

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Mods, could this thread be moved to the new “Current Affairs” forum, please?

The stench of mouth-breathing from the last couple of pages is starting to stink the place up.

Do you chat to a man with two pints or receive phone calls from people telling you how loaded they are? Would you call people you disagree with 'whingers'? Do you have trouble telling fantasy from reality?

JeffKenna

BattleCorp wrote: »

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.

Ah yes, I remember now...she wasn't able to run etc

McMurphy

BattleCorp wrote: »

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

And a 10k run time undertaken 3 weeks later to quickly dismiss that they were in any way serious.

JeffKenna

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

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.

It's the lack of you touch with reality that annoys me about FG. Same as the water charges, the fools didn't realise how big of an issue it was until it was too late.

BattleCorp

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Who were the friends with Bailey on the night in question?

Who told her she had a clear cut case?

Who's idea was it to use the "supervision" and "no signage" line of defence?

Bailey has implicated Madigan(s) on at least one of those things, time will tell how deep it goes.

No idea who was with her on the night in question. What does that matter? Even if it was Madigan, what difference does that make?

Nothing illegal or wrong about telling a client that they have a clear cut case. And we don't even know if that was actually said to Bailey by her legal team. People here are quick to call Bailey a liar but have no problem believing her that she was told she had a clear cut case.

I'd be 99% sure that her legal team would have come up with the supervision and signage idea. That's the type of thing that legal people do. They would have also added in that the swing was unsafe, didn't have anti-slip tape etc. Again, nothing wrong with alleging that. It's up to the court as to whether they accept that or not.

Even if Madigan is, as you say implicated, what difference will that make? She's a solicitor doing what solicitors do, representing and advising their client. And I don't think time will tell. FG will do fcukall about this. And Madigan won't spill the beans because she can't - legal privilege and all that.

And if Bailey has any hope of weathering this storm (which I doubt), she won't open her gob on the matter again.

JeffKenna

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

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.

It's the lack of touch with reality that annoys me about FG. Same as the water charges, the fools didn't realise how big of an issue it was until it was too late.

James Brown

BattleCorp wrote: »

No idea who was with her on the night in question. What does that matter? Even if it was Madigan, what difference does that make?

Nothing illegal or wrong about telling a client that they have a clear cut case. And we don't even know if that was actually said to Bailey by her legal team. People here are quick to call Bailey a liar but have no problem believing her that she was told she had a clear cut case.

I'd be 99% sure that her legal team would have come up with the supervision and signage idea. That's the type of thing that legal people do. They would have also added in that the swing was unsafe, didn't have anti-slip tape etc. Again, nothing wrong with alleging that. It's up to the court as to whether they accept that or not.

Even if Madigan is, as you say implicated, what difference will that make? She's a solicitor doing what solicitors do, representing and advising their client. And I don't think time will tell. FG will do fcukall about this. And Madigan won't spill the beans because she can't - legal privilege and all that.

And if Bailey has any hope of weathering this storm (which I doubt), she won't open her gob on the matter again.

It means another FG member was involved in the bullshyte claim.

BattleCorp

JeffKenna wrote: »

Ah yes, I remember now...she wasn't able to run etc

Not being able to run isn't evidence. I'm a fat cnut and I can't run either. But not being able to run might have bumped up Bailey's claim.

Her medical records would be the evidence.

James Brown

BattleCorp wrote: »

Not being able to run isn't evidence. I'm a fat cnut and I can't run either.

Her medical records would be the evidence.

And her social media on her run weeks later.

BattleCorp

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It means another FG member was involved in the bullshyte claim.

A suspected bullshyte claim. We all suspect it. But, you know, proof.

Jupiter Mulligan

Auguste Comte wrote: »

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

Disappointing to see that your remedial teacher didn't properly explain the meaning of the word "context" to you. But there's still time.

Jupiter Mulligan

JPCN1 wrote: »

Leo had a chance to do the right thing but bottled it in the worst way.

What, in your opinion, would "the right thing" have been?

JeffKenna

BattleCorp wrote: »

JeffKenna wrote: »

Ah yes, I remember now...she wasn't able to run etc

Not being able to run isn't evidence. I'm a fat cnut and I can't run either. But not being able to run might have bumped up Bailey's claim.

Her medical records would be the evidence.

Its the same as you suing your parents because your a fat cnut, and then it transpires that you're actually not a fat cnut at all.

McMurphy

Complains about the thread here........

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Mods, could this thread be moved to the new “Current Affairs” forum, please?

The stench of mouth-breathing from the last couple of pages is starting to stink the place up.

And here......

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Apologies, B.

I assumed, obviously incorrectly, that the new CA forum was there to take in these sort of threads and to cut down on the over zealous, almost “bot-like”, posting ad infinitum about “dis and tat”, regarding “loosers” in other political parties, so the more normal AH reader wouldn’t have to endure it.

I, respectfully, withdraw my comment about the “mouth breathing”.

Stays for the shyts and giggles anyway.......:p

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

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.

BattleCorp wrote: »

No idea who was with her on the night in question. What does that matter? Even if it was Madigan, what difference does that make?

Hang on, if Madigan was with her, especially at the time of her fall, and knew that she took a tumble following her self confessed tale of having beer in one hand, and reaching for a bottle of wine in the other.....

Well that makes Madigan witness, how in the hell could any solicitor with any integrity whatsoever go on then to advise their client that the hotel was negligent because they weren't using two hands to grip a swing, and further go with the unsupervised, and lack of signage angle for her line of attack?


It would make quite a difference I imagine.

Jupiter Mulligan

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.

That isn't leadership, it's following the mob. Furthermore, it's gutless.

Generally speaking, the mob is made up largely of cretins; and leaders who pander to the wishes of cretins don't generally last long.

BattleCorp

Matt Barrett wrote: »

And her social media on her run weeks later.

That doesn't do too much harm to her claim. It might reduce the amount of the payout, but it doesn't lessen her chance of succeeding.

She could also claim that she thought that the run might do her good, but the injury became worse following the run. That might bump up her claim.

The most important function of the court is to determine who is liable for the incident. That's their first concern. The second concern is the level of compensation, if any.

BattleCorp

JeffKenna wrote: »

Its the same as you suing your parents because your a fat cnut, and then it transpires that you're actually not a fat cnut at all.

Nah, the evidence is pretty unquestionable regarding me being a fat cnut.


But yeah, it's pretty easy to exaggerate and lie to get a medical report to say that you are injured. I'm not saying that's what happened in Bailey's case, I'm just stating an opinion.

Pintman Paddy Losty

Let's see how deep this goes... This could cause the government to implode...

This is truly laughable stuff. Yah.. In the midst of brexit the government will implode as a result of a forgotten issue. You lads are hilarious.

Not trying to defend Bailey. I certainly wouldn't have put in a claim but it's worth noting that the Dean put in that high friction sandpaper strips on the seat AFTER this incident. Probably realised having drunk biddys full of wine swinging on a polished seat was a bad idea.

pablo128

BattleCorp wrote: »

That doesn't do too much harm to her claim. It might reduce the amount of the payout, but it doesn't lessen her chance of succeeding.

She could also claim that she thought that the run might do her good, but the injury became worse following the run. That might bump up her claim.

The most important function of the court is to determine who is liable for the incident. That's their first concern. The second concern is the level of compensation, if any.

I doubt a person planning to do a 10k run gets up that morning having not ran in 3 weeks and goes on to do a fine time by her own standards. She had to have been out practising in the weeks up to the event.

cameramonkey

BattleCorp wrote: »

That doesn't do too much harm to her claim. It might reduce the amount of the payout, but it doesn't lessen her chance of succeeding.

She could also claim that she thought that the run might do her good, but the injury became worse following the run. That might bump up her claim.

The most important function of the court is to determine who is liable for the incident. That's their first concern. The second concern is the level of compensation, if any.

She claimed that she could not run for many weeks after the indecent, this claim was proven to be untrue. This makes it look like she told a lie about her injuries. It leads to people believing that maybe some other parts of her story may not be true. The fact that she lied and was caught out means that most likely none of her rather outlandish and incredible tale would not be believed. I think that is the reason she withdrew her claim.


Your scenario above is just as incredible,it looks like something she may have made up, she would have lost in court on that as well.

Jupiter Mulligan

The Bishop Basher wrote: »

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.

Indeed it is. But if you put on your reading glasses, you'll note that the poster to whom I was responding had raised the Alan Farrell compensation case which took place last year and isn't related to the Bailey nonsense.

Farrell took a case for compo. A learned judge (and here we must all genuflect, for judges swear a solemn oath to uphold the Laws of Ireland and must therefore be regarded as superior beings) decided that he was entitled to some compo for his incurable hard neck - a verdict that meant that the other party had to pick up his legal costs. Unsavoury, I grant you, but at least his case went to court - AND HE WON.

BattleCorp

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Hang on, if Madigan was with her, especially at the time of her fall, and knew that she took a tumble following her self confessed tale of having beer in one hand, and reaching for a bottle of wine in the other.....

Well that makes Madigan witness, how in the hell could any solicitor with any integrity whatsoever go on then to advise their client that the hotel was negligent because they weren't using two hands to grip a swing, and further go with the unsupervised, and lack of signage angle for her line of attack?


It would make quite a difference I imagine.

Even if Madigan was with her on the night in question, how can you be sure that Madigan witnessed Bailey falling? It's possible to be with someone and not see what exactly happened in that split second. The only way to know for sure is to see the CCTV and see if Madigan was looking at Bailey at the exact time she fell off the swing.

Secondly, investigations have to be done to establish liability. Engineering inspections need to be done etc. And Madigan is supposed to know instantly, without any investigation, whose fault it is?

Bailey only admitted to holding the beer etc. on the radio interview which was years after Madigan's firm began to represent Bailey in this case. You can't use what Bailey said years after the case against Madigan because you don't know if that's what she said to Madigan at the outset of her claim.

I think you'll find that every solicitor with integrity would have thrown everything in their arsenal at the hotel in order to achieve a successful outcome for their client (and therefore themselves).

BattleCorp

pablo128 wrote: »

I doubt a person planning to do a 10k run gets up that morning having not ran in 3 weeks and goes on to do a fine time by her own standards. She had to have been out practising in the weeks up to the event.

I'm agreeing with you but again, proof.

If someone has evidence (proof) of her running in that three week period, by all means let them come forward with it.

Anything else is baseless speculation - not evidence.

JeffKenna

The Bishop Basher wrote: »

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

And a 10k run time undertaken 3 weeks later to quickly dismiss that they were in any way serious.

There's just no getting away from this.

If she had a genuine claim she wouldn’t have been able to train to run a 10km let alone run it in under an hour.

No getting away from the stupidity of it either, which to me is as worrying as anything about all of this.

Jupiter Mulligan

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Not trying to defend Bailey. I certainly wouldn't have put in a claim but it's worth noting that the Dean put in that high friction sandpaper strips on the seat AFTER this incident. Probably realised having drunk biddys full of wine swinging on a polished seat was a bad idea.

It also offered to pay her medical bills, which to me suggests that it must have felt that it was slightly at fault.

I bet the greedy cow wishes that she had lodged the hotel's cheque for €600 instead of sending it back!

JeffKenna

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Not trying to defend Bailey. I certainly wouldn't have put in a claim but it's worth noting that the Dean put in that high friction sandpaper strips on the seat AFTER this incident. Probably realised having drunk biddys full of wine swinging on a polished seat was a bad idea.

It also offered to pay her medical bills, which to me suggests that it must have felt that it was slightly at fault.

I bet the greedy cow wishes that she had lodged the hotel's cheque for €600 instead of sending it back!

But she told Sean that she only wanted her medical bills paid for...am I missing something?

McMurphy

BattleCorp wrote: »

Even if Madigan was with her on the night in question, how can you be sure that Madigan witnessed Bailey falling? It's possible to be with someone and not see what exactly happened in that split second. The only way to know for sure is to see the CCTV and see if Madigan was looking at Bailey at the exact time she fell off the swing.,

We can't be sure of either, hence why I prefixed it with an if.

Secondly, investigations have to be done to establish liability. Engineering inspections need to be done etc. And Madigan is supposed to know instantly, without any investigation, whose fault it is?

Bailey only admitted to holding the beer etc. on the radio interview which was years after Madigan's firm began to represent Bailey in this case. You can't use what Bailey said years after the case against Madigan because you don't know if that's what she said to Madigan at the outset of her claim.

I think you'll find that every solicitor with integrity would have thrown everything in their arsenal at the hotel in order to achieve a successful outcome for their client (and therefore themselves).

Yeah, and I have also on record of saying that it could be a case that Madigan was taking Bailey at her word.

Her silence on it either way is deafening.

JohnnyFlash

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Let's see how deep this goes... This could cause the government to implode...

This is truly laughable stuff. Yah.. In the midst of brexit the government will implode as a result of a forgotten issue. You lads are hilarious.

Not trying to defend Bailey. I certainly wouldn't have put in a claim but it's worth noting that the Dean put in that high friction sandpaper strips on the seat AFTER this incident. Probably realised having drunk biddys full of wine swinging on a polished seat was a bad idea.

Same as the Drew Harris incident, Paddy. An incident that rocked the foundation of the State to the core. Or the gombeen 'one term' up in Longford or Cavan who glassed a fúcker in a pub. You'd think Enda was about to rock up to the Arás after that one.



You'd imagine lads would be better off finding work, or actually doing their work, rather than hitting refresh on this thread so they can try and get a like or two from the 'Davycc' contingent. A bad use of their time.



:rolleyes:

James Brown

BattleCorp wrote: »

A suspected bullshyte claim. We all suspect it. But, you know, proof.

Proof enough for voters to make up their mind. It's not in the courts.