Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

McCrack

CrankyHaus wrote: »

So what's the defect with the swing?

I am not privy to whatever inspection may have been carried out on it

On a general point a licenced premises are not a suitable place for swings for obvious reasons.. leave them where they belong

tayto lover

CrankyHaus wrote: »

So what's the defect with the swing?

Too ah swingey.

CrankyHaus

McCrack wrote: »

I am not privy to whatever inspection may have been carried out on it

On a general point a licenced premises are not a suitable place for swings for obvious reasons.. leave them where they belong

So on the one hand you're saying there has to be a defect for liability and you're not aware of any with the swing.

But on the other you're saying there doesn't have to be any defect for a swing on a licensed premises to give rise to liability.

So what exactly are you saying? They're two contradictory statements.

McCrack

CrankyHaus wrote: »

So on the one hand you're saying there has to be a defect for liability and you're not aware of any with the swing.

But on the other you're saying there doesn't have to be any defect for a swing on a licensed premises to give rise to liability.

So what exactly are you saying? They're two contradictory statements.

Risk v foreseeability

I haven't seen any engineers report on the swing following inspection in the Dean but I understand they since put grips on its surface

Go figure

lola85

WishUWereHere wrote: »

I agree, but bringing up steps etc makes the whole possibility of a publican/hotel business fraught to incurring insurance claims by people like Baile6.

Where is the line drawn?

Heard from someone who works in insurance today that Brexit is the cause of high premiums as a lot are all working from Lloyd’s and a lot of British companies are afraid to come into the Irish market due to the uncertainty.

Don’t know how true it is but shows us plebs are been screwed every way.

stampydmonkey

lola85 wrote: »

Heard from someone who works in insurance today that Brexit is the cause of high premiums as a lot are all working from Lloyd’s and a lot of British companies are afraid to come into the Irish market due to the uncertainty.

Don’t know how true it is but shows us plebs are been screwed every way.

What's stopping European insurers coming in?

Edit...or what has stopped European insurers coming in historically?

lola85

stampydmonkey wrote: »

What's stopping European insurers coming in?

Edit...or what has stopped European insurers coming in historically?

No idea.

pablo128

lola85 wrote: »

No idea.

The fact that the 'Irish' insurers made it very difficult for them to access the relevant databases.

A cartel in layman's terms.

salmocab

McCrack wrote: »

Risk v foreseeability

I haven't seen any engineers report on the swing following inspection in the Dean but I understand they since put grips on its surface

Go figure

They put on grips because to their surprise one person was incapable of doing what a 2 year old does instinctively.

Muahahaha

tayto lover wrote: »

Too ah swingey.

Gas thing is these swings are not very swingey at all, they are literally so close to the wall that they've been designed just to be sat on briefly to take a photo, as thousands of girlos have done for Instagram. It wasnt like the hotel put some circus trapeze swing hanging from the roof in the middle of the bar and invited people to release their inner gymnast; they are swings placed just a foot from the back wall and you couldn't possibly actually swing on them.

Anyway Matt Ryan of the Press Up group said on Marian Finucane at the weekend that they have these swings in two of their other properties and that nobody had fallen off the swings before Bailey came along and nobody has fallen off them since either. Out of the thousands of people who have sat on those swings Bailey was the only one who wasnt able to figure it out.

pinkyeye

After listening to the interview that chap had a very interesting life story and you can see why he fought back against this kind of bull****.

He's seen real trauma in his life so he's very reluctant to put up with privileged chancers.

Fair play to him.

jmreire

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Perhaps one could question the long term sustainability of holding all premises liable for the actions of consenting adults instead of the adults themselves.

I like to have the choice to play darts in a pub.
I like to have the choice to play pool in a pub.
I like to have the choice to walk up and down steps.
I like to have the choice to drink from glass containers.

All of these actions carry risks, that we as adults can control by acting reasonably.
This nonsense of extending liability onto the premises for any and all acts of stupidity by adults just transfers money from the rest of society to the legal profession and insurance companies while making routine activities prohibitive and infantilising all of us.

And that's it in a nutshell...I don't think that there is any Country outside of Ireland where these kind of claims would be entertained,because there they have very strong culture of persons having to look out for themselves in every circumstance...in other word's Personal Responsibility. Even the chipped glass or slippy / faulty step's argument would not work there...and you know, something, it work's.....people check the glass before they drink from it...they take extra care when climbing steps etc.... because, if they fall and hurt them self's...tough.And under no circumstances would any kind of claim be entertained where the person was under the influence of drink or drug's.
The way to go in this Country is to make Law's which put much more emphasis on personal responsibility...but of course, that would reduce claims significantly, and therefore the income of all the claim's " Beneficiaries", and that's why it will not happen. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all claims are like this..obviously you will have car/ work/other accidents with serious injury's sustained, and that's what insurance is for..no problem there...but for the likes of swing gate, slips and falls etc. They need to be stopped.

lola85

jmreire wrote: »

And that's it in a nutshell...I don't think that there is any Country outside of Ireland where these kind of claims would be entertained,because there they have very strong culture of persons having to look out for themselves in every circumstance...in other word's Personal Responsibility. Even the chipped glass or slippy / faulty step's argument would not work there...and you know, something, it work's.....people check the glass before they drink from it...they take extra care when climbing steps etc.... because, if they fall and hurt them self's...tough.And under no circumstances would any kind of claim be entertained where the person was under the influence of drink or drug's.
The way to go in this Country is to make Law's which put much more emphasis on personal responsibility...but of course, that would reduce claims significantly, and therefore the income of all the claim's " Beneficiaries", and that's why it will not happen. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all claims are like this..obviously you will have car/ work/other accidents with serious injury's sustained, and that's what insurance is for..no problem there...but for the likes of swing gate, slips and falls etc. They need to be stopped.

Agree. Bailey is a cheat and has been caught out.

But Ireland as a whole has a lot to answer for.

Blaming one person is pushing the boat out.

Can anyone explain why we are a nation of cheats?

We have the highest disability payments in the EU.

Someone somewhere is scamming us plebs.

Why isn’t it been clamped out Leo?

jmreire

lola85 wrote: »

Agree. Bailey is a cheat and has been caught out.

But Ireland as a whole has a lot to answer for.

Blaming one person is pushing the boat out.

Can anyone explain why we are a nation of cheats?

We have the highest disability payments in the EU.

Someone somewhere is scamming us plebs.

Why isn’t it been clamped out Leo?

As far a claims go....it's a one way street. Nothing to lose if your claim fail's, and maybe even appeal? So effectively, another roll of the dice. But if there were a price to be paid, then you would see the number of claims dropping, solicitors would be much more selective in what cases they take on if payment was in doubt, and possibly the solicitor / barrister personally might even be charged with being party to a fraudulent case ? ( this last bit is in wish full thinking Bterritory) None the less, there was a case recently where the judge dismissed 2 claims....and heavily criticized both the Solicitor and the Barrister involved not only in these 2 cases, but in general regarding the type cases they were accepting, basically just on face value and without due diligence . The Insurance Reform group has forwarded the details of both cases to the Law Society and to the Guard's for further investigation. So maybe there is a glimmer of hope on the horizon. Right now ( thanks again M/S Bailey ) insurance fraud is a political hot potato...and with a GE in the offing, various parties are sniffing the wind, and the smell that is wafting down wind is not very pleasant, so action has not only be seen to be done, but to be actually done. Be interesting to see what will happen in the next 6 -9 mths.

Chiparus

McCrack wrote: »

Indeed, and liability can attach depending on the condition of the steps, lighting etc

all pubs shold fit ramps?

Chiparus

McCrack wrote: »

I am not privy to whatever inspection may have been carried out on it

On a general point a licenced premises are not a suitable place for swings for obvious reasons.. leave them where they belong

Where children fall off them?
do you think swings should be banned, people could fall off them?

expectationlost

CrankyHaus wrote: »

So what's the defect with the swing?

slippy seats which they tried to address with non-slip tape https://twitter.com/lostexpectation/status/1132949892446466048 [linking to tweet because it easier then copying and pasting links and pictures]

Snow Garden

Why doesn't the lady above have 2 bottles of alcohol in her hands? She is doing it wrong...

McMurphy

expectationlost wrote: »

slippy seats which they tried to address with non-slip tape https://twitter.com/lostexpectation/status/1132949892446466048

Moot point - no one fell off the swings (which are physically impossible to swing on) before or since.

Shameless plug of presumably your own tweet, which has so far, since the 27th of May garnered one x retweet?

ArrBee

lola85 wrote: »

Heard from someone who works in insurance today that Brexit is the cause of high premiums as a lot are all working from Lloyd’s and a lot of British companies are afraid to come into the Irish market due to the uncertainty.

Don’t know how true it is but shows us plebs are been screwed every way.

huh?
that doesn't make sense.

Sure, competition can put prices in check, but I don't agree that lack of competition is the root cause of increases...
That would come down to greedy cartels.

sydthebeat

lola85 wrote: »

Heard from someone who works in insurance today that Brexit is the cause of high premiums as a lot are all working from Lloyd’s and a lot of British companies are afraid to come into the Irish market due to the uncertainty.

Don’t know how true it is but shows us plebs are been screwed every way.

brexit doesnt effect european insurance providers who are equally as reluctant to get involved in irish policies.

its down to the ridiculously high in court pay outs;
the ease of out of court payouts;
the ridiculously high legal costs;
the ridiculously biased decisions in favor of the appellant;
and most of all the lack of any deterrent for exaggerated, spurious or fraudulent claims.

BattleCorp

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Moot point - no one fell off the swings (which are physically impossible to swing on) before or since.

How do you know nobody fell off the swings before or since? On the balance of probabilities, I'd bet both my testicles that someone has fallen off them before (and probably since). Don't forget that this is an establishment that serves alcohol and people have been known to fall off stationary chairs due to the effects of the auld gargle.

I'd say most people would be too embarrassed to claim that they fell off the swing. They would just get up and get on with things.

McMurphy

BattleCorp wrote: »

How do you know nobody fell off the swings before or since? On the balance of probabilities, I'd bet both my testicles that someone has fallen off them before (and probably since). Don't forget that this is an establishment that serves alcohol and people have been known to fall off stationary chairs due to the effects of the auld gargle.

I'd say most people would be too embarrassed to claim that they fell off the swing. They would just get up and get on with things.

Because the co-owner said they never caused a problem before or since.

I would guess loosely translated that means no one has fallen off them before or since, obviously he also could have meant that no one tried to sue them before or since - but if that's what he meant, he only further highlights what an incredibly greedy, and stupid sleveen Bailey was, and also extend that to those that gave her the legal advice to peruse it.

Also just to note, being willing to bet your nuts that people have fallen off the swing since the tape was added, doesn't that strengthen my claim that the post I quoted was a moot point?

Suckit

BattleCorp wrote: »

How do you know nobody fell off the swings before or since? On the balance of probabilities, I'd bet both my testicles that someone has fallen off them before (and probably since). Don't forget that this is an establishment that serves alcohol and people have been known to fall off stationary chairs due to the effects of the auld gargle.

I'd say most people would be too embarrassed to claim that they fell off the swing. They would just get up and get on with things.

That's the far more likely scenario here. That she fell off because she was drunk, or she missed the seat.

I genuinely believe it is harder to fall off those swings than it is to stay on.
They don't go back far enough to really 'fall off', but like a bar stool, you can sit on the edge with your bum and it will move beneath you.
Or sit too far back and you'll go over it.

Ironically, she stood up so that her friend could photograph her ability to stay on the swing.
I also believe the only reason she made a claim was because it was a swing. Not because she was hurt. She wouldn't have even attempted the claim had she 'fallen off' or more likely, missed a bar stool while in a bar holding two glasses of alcohol and reaching out to grab a bottle of wine.

jmreire

sydthebeat wrote: »

brexit doesnt effect european insurance providers who are equally as reluctant to get involved in irish policies.

its down to the ridiculously high in court pay outs;
the ease of out of court payouts;
the ridiculously high legal costs;
the ridiculously biased decisions in favor of the appellant;
and most of all the lack of any deterrent for exaggerated, spurious or fraudulent claims.

with the rise in profits from €16 Million in 2016 to €225 Million in 2017, it beggars belief just why there is not more competition in the market...especially since year on year the total value of payouts has NOT increased,, yet the Insurance Company's use the " Rise in award's " to justify their savage increase's in premium's for their Customer's...:mad:

BattleCorp

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Because the co-owner said they never caused a problem before or since.

I would guess loosely translated that means no one has fallen off them before or since, obviously he also could have meant that no one tried to sue them before or since - but if that's what he meant, he only further highlights what an incredibly greedy, and stupid sleveen Bailey was, and also extend that to those that gave her the legal advice to peruse it.

Also just to note, being willing to bet your nuts that people have fallen off the swing since the tape was added, doesn't that strengthen my claim that the post I quoted was a moot point?

It's unlikely that nobody fell off the swings before, no matter what the co-owner says. Most people who fall off such swings would just get up and go on about their business and say nothing to anybody and that would be the end of the matter. I think your assessment that nobody sued before is why the owner said they never caused a problem before.

Adding the tape does make a bit of difference though as it's an extra control measure that wasn't in place before the Bailey incident. Unfortunately the bar is set very high when it comes to incidents being reasonably foreseeable and employers/business owners must ensure that all reasonably practicable control measures are put in place. I think it is reasonably foreseeable that someone could fall off a swing, especially when alcohol is involved.

Do I think she is scummy for claiming, of course I do, but I do also think it's foolish on the part of a hotel having swings in a place that sells alcohol.

ohnonotgmail

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's unlikely that nobody fell off the swings before, no matter what the co-owner says. Most people who fall off such swings would just get up and go on about their business and say nothing to anybody and that would be the end of the matter. I think your assessment that nobody sued before is why the owner said they never caused a problem before.

Adding the tape does make a bit of difference though as it's an extra control measure that wasn't in place before the Bailey incident. Unfortunately the bar is set very high when it comes to incidents being reasonably foreseeable and employers/business owners must ensure that all reasonably practicable control measures are put in place. I think it is reasonably foreseeable that someone could fall off a swing, especially when alcohol is involved.

Do I think she is scummy for claiming, of course I do, but I do also think it's foolish on the part of a hotel having swings in a place that sells alcohol.

and especially when both of your hands are busy holding alcohol.

Shemale

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Developers and vulture funds depend on welfare for profits.

So the poor people driving up house prices and rents need welfare for profit? That's a good argument not to do it. When rents go up the welfare contribution goes up which is an even bigger burden on taxpayers.

capefear

https://twitter.com/paddymacc1/status/1177825046276038656?s=21

She is going to try and brazen this out but surely she can’t get voted back in after what she tried to do?

Suckit

capefear wrote: »

She is going to try and brazen this out but surely she can’t get voted back in after what she tried to do?

Maybe the people of Dun Laoghaire will vote her back in, but FG will lose a lot of votes elsewhere as a result of her running. I don't think I am underestimating it at all. My work has me dealing directly with business owners every day, and the majority of them are still fuming with her but a lot of the anger is now also directed at the weak-kneed leader of the party.