Swinging off a goal post insurance payout

sebdavis

The age of the person, the fact it fell on the ground I expect this was a set of nets which could be moved around and not the stationary ones which are in the ground.

A parent letting their child swing out of them, the parent should be fined
No excuse for a gobs**t parent

olestoepoke

sebdavis wrote: »

The age of the person, the fact it fell on the ground I expect this was a set of nets which could be moved around and not the stationary ones which are in the ground.

A parent letting their child swing out of them, the parent should be fined
No excuse for a gobs**t parent

But that would go against 45 years of case law. You may not agree with it, you can argue it was too much €52k, I don't know how injured the child was. But thats the law wether you like it or not.

Irishphotodesk

olestoepoke wrote: »

I'm involved in our local under 11s soccer team. We are well aware the hazard that the goal posts carry and we make sure they are weighed down at the back with sandbags and large iron saucer type weights on astro or spiked down into grass if its on the field, I've watched 3 or 4 kids swing on the post at the same time and it holds with the weights, common sense to do this really.

So... You and your club are aware of the need to ensure the goalposts are secure, in this case it would appear that the club and its people failed to ensure this happened and somehow...the parent was not held properly accountable for their decisions in not assessing the danger properly and failing to protect/supervise their child.

olestoepoke

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

To any intelligent person. You seem to think 52k is fair though, because you played on goalposts as a kid. Still trying to figure out the logic behind that one.

Judges for the most part are highly intelligent and extremely versed in the law of the land. I'm not a solicitor but I think scaring to the face carries weight when it comes to compensation so maybe thats why it is excessive.

Curse These Metal Hands

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

To any intelligent person. You seem to think 52k is fair though, because you played on goalposts as a kid. Still trying to figure out the logic behind that one.

I never said it is fair enough, I said it is a cheap lesson for the club to learn.
Things could have been much worse.
Kids play in all sorts of unsuitable things, that's kids for you.

olestoepoke

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

So... You and your club are aware of the need to ensure the goalposts are secure, in this case it would appear that the club and its people failed to ensure this happened and somehow...the parent was not held properly accountable for their decisions in not assessing the danger properly and failing to protect/supervise their child.

I think it is reasonable to assume that some people would not know or even think about how goal posts are secured.

Curse These Metal Hands

olestoepoke wrote: »

I'm involved in our local under 11s soccer team. We are well aware the hazard that the goal posts carry and we make sure they are weighed down at the back with sandbags and large iron saucer type weights on astro or spiked down into grass if its on the field, I've watched 3 or 4 kids swing on the post at the same time and it holds with the weights, common sense to do this really.

Still, if a kid climbs the up the net and falls over the top, you're back to quare one and it's compo time.

You could have signage, but the kids might have reading difficulties. Better just to close down the club, too risky.

olestoepoke

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

Still, if a kid climbs the up the net and falls over the top, you're back to quare one and it's compo time.

Yeah most probably, this is why me and the managers and several other parents supervise. The club also padlocks the astro gate and its is almost impossible for a kid to climb the gates and even if they did manage to do this the goals are all weighed down and padlocked. There have been loads of cases over the years where people have done stupid things and been rewarded and this has many people feeling peed off but I think this particular case was cut an dry, unlocked gate, unsecured goal post and child's face scared.

PCeeeee

SouthWesterly wrote: »

Even the defence said she'd get less if it went to a full trial.

Crazy money.

This.

Curse These Metal Hands

olestoepoke wrote: »

Yeah most probably, this is why me and the managers and several other parents supervise. The club also padlocks the astro gate and its is almost impossible for a kid to climb the gates and even if they did manage to do this the goals are all weighed down and padlocked. There have been loads of cases over the years where people have done stupid things and been rewarded and this has many people feeling peed off but I think this particular case was cut an dry, unlocked gate, unsecured goal post and child's face scared.

You said earlier you saw four kids swinging out of the goalposts. Risky.

olestoepoke

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

You said earlier you saw four kids swinging out of the goalposts. Risky.

Yes very, and?

Irishphotodesk

olestoepoke wrote: »

I think it is reasonable to assume that some people would not know or even think about how goal posts are secured.

And do you believe that ignorance is acceptable in a court of law ? As I mentioned in my first post on this thread, common sense isn't very common.

It could also be considered reasonable to assume that a parent should be mindful of their child when allowing/encouraging them to climb....and not permit them to climb objects which may not be secure.

I have seen a vast amount of cases through the civil court over the past 20+ years, having worked there, and I can safely say that the system is wrong.... Everyone involved needs their payment and the system requires multiple levels of people involved to apportion blame in a case, which in turn means the legal profession benefit and payouts are (in my opinion) inflated.

Curse These Metal Hands

olestoepoke wrote: »

Yes very, and?

Doesn't sound like great supervision as you claim. You've dodged a major bullet by the sounds of things.

sebdavis

olestoepoke wrote: »

But that would go against 45 years of case law. You may not agree with it, you can argue it was too much €52k, I don't know how injured the child was. But thats the law wether you like it or not.

Maybe but at some stage people need to take responsibility otherwise everything will just shut down.

The same people will be out crying their children have nowhere to go and its the governments fault they are turning into little criminals. Yet if anyone opens something for young people they will sue it for a stubbed toe.

In this case it is clear it was the parents fault. No one elses

olestoepoke

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

Doesn't sound like great supervision as you claim.

I said I've seen kids swing on the goal post I didn't say we don't tell them to stop or get down as we do all the time but they are children and often don't listen. You mistakingly presumed that we just stand there and let them swing on the posts. We are a very well supervised club with plenty of help, kids will be kids so its just as well we have the posts secured.

McCrack

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

To any intelligent person. You seem to think 52k is fair though, because you played on goalposts as a kid. Still trying to figure out the logic behind that one.

Clearly the injury reflected that as the insurance company agreed the figure

Irishphotodesk

Just to mention I do agree with you olestoepoke the negligence on behalf of the club is the major factor in play in this case,
but the parental responsibility seems to be overlooked as a massive contributing factor, it was noted but not in such a way to minimise the payout... Which in my opinion should have been the best way to push for less of these claims.
it would have been easy for the judge to say, the payout should be in the region of €50k but owing to the negligence of the parent to observe/protect and allow their child to climb the goalposts the amount should have been sub €10k.

Curse These Metal Hands

olestoepoke wrote: »

I said I've seen kids swing on the goal post I didn't say we don't tell them to stop or get down as we do all the time but they are children and often don't listen. You mistakingly presumed that we just stand there and let them swing on the posts. We are a very well supervised club with plenty of help, kids will be kids so its just as well we have the posts secured.

It only takes a second for accidents to happen unfortunately. Then it's game over.

Beasty

Thread title updated to reflect the story

olestoepoke

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

And do you believe that ignorance is acceptable in a court of law ? As I mentioned in my first post on this thread, common sense isn't very common.

It could also be considered reasonable to assume that a parent should be mindful of their child when allowing/encouraging them to climb....and not permit them to climb objects which may not be secure.

I have seen a vast amount of cases through the civil court over the past 20+ years, having worked there, and I can safely say that the system is wrong.... Everyone involved needs their payment and the system requires multiple levels of people involved to apportion blame in a case, which in turn means the legal profession benefit and payouts are (in my opinion) inflated.

I never agreed with the system and I said many times I agree we have a problem. Argue that the law needs to change or that judges need to interpret the law differently or that the level of payout is excessive all valid arguments but some posters are arguing that the club is not at fault here and this is 100% incorrect according to the law of the land, like it or not thats the law.

McCrack

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

Just to mention I do agree with you olestoepoke the negligence on behalf of the club is the major factor in play in this case,
but the parental responsibility seems to be overlooked as a massive contributing factor, it was noted but not in such a way to minimise the payout... Which in my opinion should have been the best way to push for less of these claims.
it would have been easy for the judge to say, the payout should be in the region of €50k but owing to the negligence of the parent to observe/protect and allow their child to climb the goalposts the amount should have been sub €10k.

That's completely wrong, a child should not be under compensated for their injuries because their parent was in some way lacking supervision. It's the child's injury suffered not the parents.

olestoepoke

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

It only takes a second for accidents to happen unfortunately. Then it's game over.

Yeah for sure as we all know but at least if an accident does happen and it goes to court we can present ourselves as having done everything to prevent it within reason which cannot be said for the club where this child was injured.

Irishphotodesk

sebdavis wrote: »

Maybe but at some stage people need to take responsibility otherwise everything will just shut down.

The same people will be out crying their children have nowhere to go and its the governments fault they are turning into little criminals. Yet if anyone opens something for young people they will sue it for a stubbed toe.

In this case it is clear it was the parents fault. No one elses

I have to disagree, it was deemed by the court that the club has the larger responsibility .

olestoepoke

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

Just to mention I do agree with you olestoepoke the negligence on behalf of the club is the major factor in play in this case,
but the parental responsibility seems to be overlooked as a massive contributing factor, it was noted but not in such a way to minimise the payout... Which in my opinion should have been the best way to push for less of these claims.
it would have been easy for the judge to say, the payout should be in the region of €50k but owing to the negligence of the parent to observe/protect and allow their child to climb the goalposts the amount should have been sub €10k.

I agree with what you've said, but should the occupier have the awareness to presume that some people aren't that clever or maybe aren't around goalposts and aren't aware of the danger? How long did the child swing on them before they fell? Did the adult sit there are let them swing on it for long or was it a case of walk in and the child runs to swing on them and they fall straight away? And if so does this lessen the adults contributory negligence?

olestoepoke

sebdavis wrote: »

Maybe but at some stage people need to take responsibility otherwise everything will just shut down.

The same people will be out crying their children have nowhere to go and its the governments fault they are turning into little criminals. Yet if anyone opens something for young people they will sue it for a stubbed toe.

In this case it is clear it was the parents fault. No one elses

You should go to your local library and take out a few basic Irish law books, I'm not having a go at you but if you clearly have no idea how Irish and indeed most countries law operates when it comes to occupiers liability otherwise you would not post silly statements like this.

is_that_so

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

Or don't let your kids swing on goalposts. They aren't made to be swung on, poor parenting. Go to swing to swing, not let yourself into a pitch and mess on goalposts.

Swung on many a goalpost and other things, none of them fell. Kids will be kids and will do many things parents tell them not to do. Equipment clearly not properly maintained and people just put out by the size of the award can relax because if the judges agree today these awards will be a whole lot smaller in future.

Curse These Metal Hands

is_that_so wrote: »

Swung on many a goalpost and other things, none of them fell. Kids will be kids and will do many things parents tell them not to do. Equipment clearly not properly maintained and people just put out by the size of the award can relax because if the judges agree today these awards will be a whole lot smaller in future.

Pity, you missed out on a large payout.

What's the evidence for the equipment not being maintained? Do well maintained goalposts not fall over? Even lightweight movable ones that will obviously fall when being swung out of? That's a nonsensical thing to say.

Triangle

McCrack wrote: »

That's completely wrong, a child should not be under compensated for their injuries because their parent was in some way lacking supervision. It's the child's injury suffered not the parents.

You're 100%, the parents should have been sued instead.

Edit: I'm being flippant in response to you're argument that the child deserves compensation, but only from 1 side of the negligence.

McCrack

Beasty wrote: »

Thread title updated to reflect the story

Still a misnomer

Title should have reference to an injury suffered rather than just "swinging off goalpost insurance payout" which is a bit disparaging to the child tbh

Curse These Metal Hands

McCrack wrote: »

Still a misnomer

Title should have reference to an injury suffered rather than just "swinging off goalpost insurance payout" which is a bit disparaging to the child tbh

It's all there in the OP.