Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Fire in Douglas - See Mod note in post #506

Options
1…2425272930…38

Comments

  • Options
    #782
    Cork Trucker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭Cork Trucker


    mordeith wrote: »
    Even if the security didn't do anything it would be irrelevant to the car owner suing (if there is any truth to that at all). He would be under no obligation to put a fire out in someone's car.

    I know. From what i remember reading, if there is any truth to it, the lady was blaming the security guard for the fire that resulting in the damage it caused. Again merely speculation.


  • Options
    #783
    grogi
    Registered Users Posts: 8,615 ✭✭✭grogi


    airy fairy wrote: »
    How do you know the owner is trying to sue?
    Seems outrageous that someone thinks the centre is liable.

    It's not outrageous - it is a valid legal defence. Do you remember the case in UK where a cyclist was ordered to pay £105,000 for knocking over woman who crossed road looking at phone? It ended that way because the cyclist didn't sue...

    What is outrageous is a legal system that we have that requires such moves.


  • Options
    #784
    the beer revolu
    Registered Users Posts: 17,038 ✭✭✭✭the beer revolu


    We need to bare in mind that the original story of the smoking car entering the car park, now appears to be a crock of shlt.
    Without sound evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that every rumour regarding this fire and its aftermath is a crock of shlt.


  • Options
    #785
    g6fdyotp5nj2l7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭g6fdyotp5nj2l7


    the beer revolu wrote:
    We need to bare in mind that the original story of the smoking car entering the car park, now appears to be a crock of shlt. Without sound evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that every rumour regarding this fire and its aftermath is a crock of shlt.


    Never let the truth get in the way of a good story


  • Options
    #786
    beer enigma
    Registered Users Posts: 6,166 ✭✭✭beer enigma


    This is a fire claim, differs from third party. If your car or house catches fire and sets fire to the car or house next to it then there's no claim allowable against your policy unless it was deliberate.

    This wasn't deliberate so if its proven to be part of the recall, Opel will likely be liable but they will argue recall was ignored. Failing that its claim against your own with the industry agreement of no prejudice against your policy.

    Suing the centre for what? At liberty to try but good luck on that and to be honest the risk of costs against them I'd say all smoke no fire.... Pun intended


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #787
    two wheels good
    Registered Users Posts: 1,996 ✭✭✭two wheels good


    the beer revolu wrote: »
    We need to bare in mind that the original story of the smoking car entering the car park, now appears to be a crock of shlt.
    Without sound evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that every rumour regarding this fire and its aftermath is a crock of shlt.

    Correct. It always was. Yet surprising how many people were keen to repeat it.
    This implausible rumour was contradicted by photos and audio interviews that were widely reported.
    Unfortunately The Examiner's unattributed and irresponsible reporting promoted the rumour.


  • Options
    #788
    grogi
    Registered Users Posts: 8,615 ✭✭✭grogi


    beer enigma wrote: »
    This is a fire claim, differs from third party. If your car or house catches fire and sets fire to the car or house next to it then there's no claim allowable against your policy unless it was deliberate.

    This wasn't deliberate so if its proven to be part of the recall, Opel will likely be liable but they will argue recall was ignored. Failing that its claim against your own with the industry agreement of no prejudice against your policy.

    Suing the centre for what? At liberty to try but good luck on that and to be honest the risk of costs against them I'd say all smoke no fire.... Pun intended

    Ignoring a recall is gross negligence. It changes the dynamics a bit.


  • Options
    #789
    Barr
    Registered Users Posts: 7,010 ✭✭✭Barr


    beer enigma wrote: »
    This is a fire claim, differs from third party. If your car or house catches fire and sets fire to the car or house next to it then there's no claim allowable against your policy unless it was deliberate.


    That doesn't seem right , surely if your car or house catches fire and damages next doors car or house , then your policy is liable for the damages . Regardless of being deliberate or not.


  • Options
    #790
    Cork Trucker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭Cork Trucker


    Barr wrote: »
    That doesn't seem right , surely if your car or house catches fire and damages next doors car or house , then your policy is liable for the damages . Regardless of being deliberate or not.

    I know of one particular case some years ago where a car was torched by arsonists, is took an adjacent car with it. The adjacent car couldn’t claim from the offending vehicle so to speak and had to sort it themselves, the adjacent vehicle was uninsured. The owner of the other vehicle claimed off their own policy


  • Options
    #791
    Quackster
    Moderators, Regional South Moderators Posts: 5,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quackster


    Barr wrote: »
    That doesn't seem right , surely if your car or house catches fire and damages next doors car or house , then your policy is liable for the damages . Regardless of being deliberate or not.

    Accidental Fires Act 1943
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1943/act/8/enacted/en/html


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #792
    Acosta
    Registered Users Posts: 2,367 ✭✭✭Acosta


    Local radio reporting a crash on the south ring. Someone called in to tell them there's no crash it's just people banging on their brakes to look at the demolition works. **** me!


  • Options
    #793
    Cork Trucker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭Cork Trucker


    Acosta wrote: »
    Local radio reporting a crash on the south ring. Someone called in to tell them there's no crash it's just people banging on their brakes to look at the demolition works. **** me!

    There will be a crash from it yet.


  • Options
    #794
    who_me
    Registered Users Posts: 3,669 ✭✭✭who_me


    grogi wrote: »
    Ignoring a recall is gross negligence. It changes the dynamics a bit.

    True, but then so too is building and selling a car that spontaneously catches fire...


  • Options
    #795
    who_me
    Registered Users Posts: 3,669 ✭✭✭who_me


    the beer revolu wrote: »
    We need to bare in mind that the original story of the smoking car entering the car park, now appears to be a crock of shlt.
    Without sound evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that every rumour regarding this fire and its aftermath is a crock of shlt.

    Has that been established? Do you have a link handy? (Not doubting you in the slightest, I'd just like to read something about this whole affair that's not "I heard that....")


  • Options
    #796
    Harika
    Registered Users Posts: 4,458 ✭✭✭Harika


    who_me wrote: »
    Has that been established? Do you have a link handy? (Not doubting you in the slightest, I'd just like to read something about this whole affair that's not "I heard that....")


    http://www.redfm.ie/news/cork/the-car-that-started-a-huge-blaze-at-douglas-village-shopping-centre-was-not-on-fire-when-it-entered-the-multi-storey-car-park/

    The center manager


  • Options
    #797
    grogi
    Registered Users Posts: 8,615 ✭✭✭grogi


    who_me wrote: »
    True, but then so too is building and selling a car that spontaneously catches fire...

    It would be if Opel knew it catches fire and did nothing.

    It isn't possible to build a car that is faultless. It is absolutely normal to build one that will need adjustments during its life.


  • Options
    #798
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Acosta wrote: »
    Local radio reporting a crash on the south ring. Someone called in to tell them there's no crash it's just people banging on their brakes to look at the demolition works. **** me!
    There was a crash, it was in the overtaking lane just after the onramp westbound at the Mahon interchange

    The delays from the crash were minor compared with the delays from the rubberneckers at the Douglas flyover though.


  • Options
    #799
    kub
    Registered Users Posts: 6,546 ✭✭✭kub


    marno21 wrote: »
    There was a crash, it was in the overtaking lane just after the onramp westbound at the Mahon interchange

    The delays from the crash were minor compared with the delays from the rubberneckers at the Douglas flyover though.

    Yes, an Opel Corsa, a BMW and a Van all in the outer lane, I passed going west bound and east bound approx an hour later.
    What I think is ridiculous is the amount of time it takes Gardai and removal services to get to these incidents on the N40 at rush hour.
    I remember years ago when the tunnel first opened a Garda traffic Corp unit was on constant duty on the N40 and tunnel with tow trucks on standby.
    Now with traffic levels at an all time high, it is high time they were reintroduced


  • Options
    #800
    Cork Trucker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭Cork Trucker


    kub wrote: »
    Yes, an Opel Corsa, a BMW and a Van all in the outer lane, I passed going west bound and east bound approx an hour later.
    What I think is ridiculous is the amount of time it takes Gardai and removal services to get to these incidents on the N40 at rush hour.
    I remember years ago when the tunnel first opened a Garda traffic Corp unit was on constant duty on the N40 and tunnel with tow trucks on standby.
    Now with traffic levels at an all time high, it is high time they were reintroduced

    Fitzpatrick’s recovery have the contract for towing cars that are broken down in or near the tunnel, I assume crashed cars as well. As for the Garda presence? Depleted resources will be cited as the reason for that.


  • Options
    #801
    kub
    Registered Users Posts: 6,546 ✭✭✭kub


    Cork Trucker wrote: »
    Fitzpatrick’s recovery have the contract for towing cars that are broken down in or near the tunnel, I assume crashed cars as well. As for the Garda presence? Depleted resources will be cited as the reason for that.

    Perhaps they subbed it out to JD's because I saw one of their trucks being escorted through the back log by a Garda motor cyclist.

    You are correct about resources, but if for example, there was a big event on such as a match or some big gathering in the city centre, then it will be policed adequately.
    The N40 is as we all know jammed on a daily basis, in these vehicles there are hundreds of people, it has an obvious economic effect also it is a primary route for Ambulances to one of this country's main A&E's.

    It is ridiculous that Garda management cannot just put a single Garda on a motorcycle to be there, during rush hours and be ready to intervene in the Event of even a fender bender, that could cause havoc neverlone something more serious.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #802
    Cork Trucker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭Cork Trucker


    kub wrote: »
    Perhaps they subbed it out to JD's because I saw one of their trucks being escorted through the back log by a Garda motor cyclist.

    You are correct about resources, but if for example, there was a big event on such as a match or some big gathering in the city centre, then it will be policed adequately.
    The N40 is as we all know jammed on a daily basis, in these vehicles there are hundreds of people, it has an obvious economic effect also it is a primary route for Ambulances to one of this country's main A&E's.

    It is ridiculous that Garda management cannot just put a single Garda on a motorcycle to be there, during rush hours and be ready to intervene in the Event of even a fender bender, that could cause havoc neverlone something more serious.

    Fitzpatrick's & JD both have Garda contracts, unless their boundaries have changed due to the recent extension and this is the reason for it, in saying that both of their depots are on the same plot of land in Noeth Esk.

    In relation to events, that is funded by either City Hall, the GAA or indeed whoever else that may be, so it isn't coming from the Garda budget.

    The N40 has been a hive of activity for all the wriong reasons this morning.

    Emergency services even have great difficulty getting through the traffic with bues and twos on.


  • Options
    #803
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Harika wrote: »
    http://www.redfm.ie/news/cork/the-car-that-started-a-huge-blaze-at-douglas-village-shopping-centre-was-not-on-fire-when-it-entered-the-multi-storey-car-park/

    The center manager

    Is the CCTV so good that it can "prove" there was no smoke, "Manager of the shopping centre Bartosz Mieszala says despite initial reports that smoke was seen coming from the car as it entered the car park, CCTV footage from the centre proves that was not the case. "

    http://www.redfm.ie/news/cork/the-car-that-started-a-huge-blaze-at-douglas-village-shopping-centre-was-not-on-fire-when-it-entered-the-multi-storey-car-park/

    And, no offence to Bartosz but he's no fire chief etc etc etc.


  • Options
    #804
    grogi
    Registered Users Posts: 8,615 ✭✭✭grogi


    Augeo wrote: »
    Is the CCTV so good that it can "prove" there was no smoke, "Manager of the shopping centre Bartosz Mieszala says despite initial reports that smoke was seen coming from the car as it entered the car park, CCTV footage from the centre proves that was not the case. "

    http://www.redfm.ie/news/cork/the-car-that-started-a-huge-blaze-at-douglas-village-shopping-centre-was-not-on-fire-when-it-entered-the-multi-storey-car-park/

    And, no offence to Bartosz but he's no fire chief etc etc etc.

    Shouldn't it be Mr Mieszala?!


  • Options
    #805
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    grogi wrote: »
    Shouldn't it be Mr Mieszala?!

    Why should it be?


  • Options
    #806
    dulpit
    Registered Users Posts: 11,053 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    Augeo wrote: »
    Is the CCTV so good that it can "prove" there was no smoke, "Manager of the shopping centre Bartosz Mieszala says despite initial reports that smoke was seen coming from the car as it entered the car park, CCTV footage from the centre proves that was not the case. "

    http://www.redfm.ie/news/cork/the-car-that-started-a-huge-blaze-at-douglas-village-shopping-centre-was-not-on-fire-when-it-entered-the-multi-storey-car-park/

    And, no offence to Bartosz but he's no fire chief etc etc etc.

    So unsubstantiated rumours > the manager who'd be in the know?


  • Options
    #807
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    dulpit wrote: »
    So unsubstantiated rumours > the manager who'd be in the know?

    The manager claims CCTV footage from the centre proves that smoke was not seen coming from the car as it entered the car park. I'd not consider that overly concrete as proof to be honest.

    It's as unsubstantiated as any rumour really.


  • Options
    #808
    dulpit
    Registered Users Posts: 11,053 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    Augeo wrote: »
    The manager claims CCTV footage from the centre proves that smoke was not seen coming from the car as it entered the car park. I'd not consider that overly concrete as proof to be honest.

    It's as unsubstantiated as any rumour really.

    It's not a rumour when it comes from the source of the CCTV, no? :confused: What end does it serve by saying the car wasn't smoking if it was?


  • Options
    #809
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    dulpit wrote: »
    It's not a rumour when it comes from the source of the CCTV, no? :confused: What end does it serve by saying the car wasn't smoking if it was?

    I would be of the view that no smoke shown on the CCTV isn't proof that there was actually no smoke.

    As the car went on fire shortly after driving into the centre, and it's widely accepted the source of the fire was the car itself I would think it's certainly not difficult to accept that perhaps the car was smoking as it entered but that this cannot be seen from CCTV.

    Again, it's the centre manager speaking from viewing the CCTV, literally it matters SFA what he saw or didn't see.

    I didn't say it's a rumour, I said it's as unsubstantiated as any roumour..... CCTV footage is rarely as good as one would like it to be. My point is essentially that I don't believe CCTV footage can prove what he claims it has done "CCTV footage from the centre proves that was not the case"


  • Options
    #810
    zilog_jones
    Registered Users Posts: 6,638 ✭✭✭zilog_jones


    If it was the known issue with the blower resistor pack in the Zafira, smoke would be flowing into the cabin of the car first. It wouldn't be easy to identify that from CCTV footage.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #811
    the beer revolu
    Registered Users Posts: 17,038 ✭✭✭✭the beer revolu


    Either the car was smoking on entering the carpark or it wasn't.
    No one here knows for sure whether it was or it wasn't.
    We have no reliable evidence or report that it was smoking.
    We have a reliable report that it was not smoking on entering (not bullet proof evidence, granted).

    Why are people so keen to believe that it was on fire/smoking going in?
    Is it because it's a juicy story?
    Is it because it involves someone doing something kinda dumb?
    Or is it because people spread the rumour gleefully and don't want to be wrong?

    I don't get it.


Advertisement