Swinging off a goal post insurance payout

is_that_so

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

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's a nonsensical thing to say.

The child was 13, mostly probably not terribly heavy and it fell over. Legally that is a case a council will not win as it was clearly not properly maintained. Can't say I saw too many falling goalposts in my youff and we shook and swung off plenty of them, sometimes more than one kid at a time. Now, had it happened as described we would not have looked for compo , just put it down to the fun of childhood.

Curse These Metal Hands

is_that_so wrote: »

The child was 13, mostly probably not terribly heavy and it fell over. Legally that is a case a council will not win as it was clearly not properly maintained. Can't say I saw too many falling goalposts in my youff and we shook and swung off plenty of them, sometimes more than one kid at a time. Now, had it happened as described we would not have looked for compo , just put it down to the fun of childhood.

Your personal experience really isn't evidence of anything. "I swung out of a goalpost 20 years ago and it was grand, therefore this goalpost must be faulty."

There's a big difference between cemented goalposts and lightweight training goalposts. There's no evidence or suggestion that anything was poorly maintained, let alone "clearly."

olestoepoke

Gate should have been locked and the goals secured, thats undeniably negligence. The girls face was scared which always increases the payout, the judge acknowledged the contributory factor and said he adjusted the payout accordingly. Any argument against the payout holds no water in law.

is_that_so

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

Your personal experience really isn't evidence of anything. "I swung out of a goalpost 20 years ago and it was grand, therefore this goalpost must be faulty."

There's a big difference between cemented goalposts and lightweight training goalposts. There's no evidence or suggestion that anything was poorly maintained, let alone "clearly."

You seem very exercised by this, I'm really not. If something falls over when briefly assaulted by a mini-adult, it's not well maintained. Any court would find that and the family saw a compo opportunity and took it. It's far too much of a payout but the right outcome I'm afraid.

olestoepoke

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

Your personal experience really isn't evidence of anything. "I swung out of a goalpost 20 years ago and it was grand, therefore this goalpost must be faulty."

There's a big difference between cemented goalposts and lightweight training goalposts. There's no evidence or suggestion that anything was poorly maintained, let alone "clearly."

Yes, clearly not enough information given so a lot of assumptions being made. Maybe there was an attempt to weigh the posts down but it wasn't enough, We don't know. What was said though is that the gate was unlocked and this was a mistake on their part.

Curse These Metal Hands

is_that_so wrote: »

You seem very exercised by this, I'm really not. If something falls over when briefly assaulted by a mini-adult, it's not well maintained. Any court would find that and the family saw a compo opportunity and took it. It's far too much of a payout but the right outcome I'm afraid.

Exercised by this? Well, describe what you mean by not well maintained? Lots of things that aren't meant to be swung on will fall over, I don't see how that reflects on the maintenance of the object.

Away With The Fairies

I'm off to spend the day on some goalposts.

olestoepoke

I think it's a shame that kids these days aren't allowed to take risks and be kids. I grew up next to Beaumont Hospital and played in the fields that were there before the hospital was built. If you remember that hospital took a long time to build and open and we did things in the site that would have given our parents a stroke if they knew. We were kids and we climbed trees and anything else that was climbable, ran along 6 ft walls, wrapped ropes around lampposts and swung on them. There has been some ridiculous compo cases in Ireland and it has us all annoyed. A great documentary to watch on this issue is 'Hot Coffee' about the famous case of a woman getting millions because Mcdonalds coffee scalded her. Because of the media and the general distain the public had for frivolous law suits this case was said to be just that a frivolous claim and everything that is wrong with the law etc. When asked about the case 99% of people would say oh yeah I remember that and complain, thats the woman who got millions because her coffee was too hot in McDonalds. However, when the facts of the case are presented to you see that it was in fact 100% warranted.

Curse These Metal Hands

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

Your personal experience really isn't evidence of anything. "I swung out of a goalpost 20 years ago and it was grand, therefore this goalpost must be faulty."

There's a big difference between cemented goalposts and lightweight training goalposts. There's no evidence or suggestion that anything was poorly maintained, let alone "clearly."

And how many 13 year olds would be aware of those differences?
Or that the goalposts would not be secure enough for them to swing on?

Curse These Metal Hands

bubblypop wrote: »

And how many 13 year olds would be aware of those differences?
Or that the goalposts would not be secure enough for them to swing on?

That's right, keep ignoring the fact that they were supervised by an adult.

touts

Why wasn't she charged with vandalism, trespass and criminal damage?

Curse These Metal Hands

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

That's right, keep ignoring the fact that they were supervised by an adult.

How am I ignoring it?
It was a contributory factor also. As stated by the judge

Curse These Metal Hands

bubblypop wrote: »

How am I ignoring it?
It was a contributory factor also. As stated by the judge

The parent is responsible for the child, so why are you asking about a 13 year old's knowledge of goalposts? Doesn't make sense.

touts

touts wrote: »

Why wasn't she charged with vandalism, trespass and criminal damage?

Well did she break anything? Apart from her own face?
Trespass without intent is not criminal.
Not to mention, she was 13, if she ever did commit an offence she would be dealt with by way of a juvenile caution.

olestoepoke

touts wrote: »

Why wasn't she charged with vandalism, trespass and criminal damage?

Because that would be ridiculous and totally contrary to the law of the land. I had to pay my road tax last week and it stung. Do I agree with it and how much it is? Absolutely not but it's the law and I had to pay it.

Curse These Metal Hands

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

The parent is responsible for the child, so why are you asking about a 13 year old's knowledge of goalposts? Doesn't make sense.

Is it the child's fault if the parent is negligent?

touts

bubblypop wrote: »

Well did she break anything? Apart from her own face?
Trespass without intent is not criminal.
Not to mention, she was 13, if she ever did commit an offence she would be dealt with by way of a juvenile caution.

She broke the goalposts.

She intended to go onto the land so there was intent

Let her go to juvenile court so.

Curse These Metal Hands

bubblypop wrote: »

Is it the child's fault if the parent is negligent?

Nope, but it's not 52k someone else's fault either. Crappy parenting pays off once again.

touts

olestoepoke wrote: »

Because that would be ridiculous and totally contrary to the law of the land. I had to pay my road tax last week and it stung. Do I agree with it and how much it is? Absolutely not but it's the law and I had to pay it.

You would quickly change your mind if my young lad swung off the aerial of your car until it broke and stuck in his eye and we brought you to the high court for negligance.

olestoepoke

Lads arguing wether or not the club was negligent is a waste of time. It is as clear cut as you'll ever see. Argue about the size of the payout or the judges interpretation of the level of contributory negligence fair enough. The law is clear on this and the club is at fault, not 100% but thats subjective and up to the judge and the individual circumstances. I bet there are a lot of sports clubs around the country reading this case and asking themselves the right questions about how diligent they are with their goalposts and locking gates. Which is why the law is there in the first place to protect us right?

touts

touts wrote: »

She broke the goalposts.

She intended to go onto the land so there was intent

Let her go to juvenile court so.

I think you need to brush up on your law!
Intent to commit a criminal offence, without it, trespass is not criminal.
She wouldn't go to juvenile court, as I have pointed out, she would be dealt with by a caution, under the JLO system. But only if she committed an offence, which this time, she did not, so it's not relevant

Curse These Metal Hands

olestoepoke wrote: »

Lads arguing wether or not the club was negligent is a waste of time. It is as clear cut as you'll ever see. Argue about the size of the payout or the judges interpretation of the level of contributory negligence fair enough. The law is clear on this and the club is at fault, not 100% but thats subjective and up to the judge and the individual circumstances. I bet there are a lot of sports clubs around the country reading this case and asking themselves the right questions about how diligent they are with their goalposts and locking gates. Which is why the law is there in the first place to protect us right?

I've only seen people express opinions that the current law is problematic, not that the judge has misinterpreted it.

As you say, the 52k is totally debatable which is what most people are unhappy with.

November Golf

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

Nope, but it's not 52k someone else's fault either. Crappy parenting pays off once again.

"the defence had pleaded contributory negligence"

The council acknowledged there was neligence on their part but that they shouldn't be wholy responsible.

olestoepoke

touts wrote: »

You would quickly change your mind if my young lad swung off the aerial of your car until it broke and stuck in his eye and we brought you to the high court for negligance.

Why would I care about that? The ariel is not my concern, the car manufacturer would be liable not me. Now if the young lad entered my front garden and fell into a hole that I dug and injured himself that is my problem and I would be liable. Again, you cant seem to grasp how occupier liability works so maybe you should do a little reading on it.

Curse These Metal Hands

Mike Foxtrot wrote: »

"the defence had pleaded contributory negligence"

The council acknowledged there was neligence on their part but that they shouldn't be wholy responsible.

Yeah, and? I'm saying 52k is excessive, obviously. Couldn't be more clear really. The 52k is after contributory negligence has been taken into account.

wonga77

Where do all these daft payouts end? All they are doing is encouraging more and more people to file for silly claims.
Serious question - when was the first payout recorded for something that was really stupid? I know they are more and more common now but there was a time when they didn't exist or would be laughed out of court, is it just in the last 15 years this type of thing has got worse?

biko

I suppose the centre got nothing when the girl broke their equipment?

November Golf

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

Yeah, and? I'm saying 52k is excessive, obviously. Couldn't be more clear really. The 52k is after contributory negligence has been taken into account.

It was a settlement, the council must have agreed to it.

kippy

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.

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

This is literally the way things are going - and I don't think people appreciate that fact enough.
Clubs (and other organisations) that have facilities, including pitches, walkways and all the ancillary equipment and ground that goes with those etc are either directly on the hook for peoples stupidy/accidents and/or end up paying out crazy insurance fees to cover everything.
While there is a duty of care on the organisation of course, it does look like a lot of organisations are gonna have to install high fences with locked gates around the facility and only permit use of the facility by members under highly supervised conditions. Which isn't feasible either.
So where does that leave all these "amenities"?

biko

biko wrote: »

I suppose the centre got nothing when the girl broke their equipment?

Did she break their equipment?