Swinging off a goal post insurance payout

NIMAN

This was no accident though.
The ultimate endgame of all these claims is that there will be no leisure facilities available, as councils, authorities and schools simply can't take the risk any more. Some schools have already stopped kids running in the playground. Play parks will become a thing of the past, if people just see them as potential sources of cash.

When I was at secondary school in the 80s, a set of goalposts fell on a student in our school, and smashed his skull. He died.

I wonder how much his parents claimed for?

olestoepoke

kippy wrote: »

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.

This is exactly wha we have done as a club, our astro has high fences and are locked at all times except training which is highly supervised.

beauf

A lot of clubs are on public ground with no gates.

Even if you had gate and a goal fell I doubt it would be any defence.

GhostyMcGhost

biko wrote: »

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

2 bills

olestoepoke

NIMAN wrote: »

This was no accident.

When I was at secondary school in the 80s, a set of goalposts fell on a student in our school, and smashed his skull. He died.

I wonder how much his parents claimed for?

I'd well believe it, we use metal goalposts that are moveable. Not full sized posts but a decent size for schoolboy soccer and if they fell on an adult they'd do serious damage never mind a child.

olestoepoke

beauf wrote: »

A lot of clubs are on public ground with no gates.

Even if you had gate and a goal fell I doubt it would be any defence.

Any club I've ever seen carry their posts in and out to the public grounds for games. They are never left out for fear of being stolen, always locked up secured. The only posts that you see on public grounds left unsupervised are the proper full grown up posts and they are mostly pretty well secured into the ground.

beauf

olestoepoke wrote: »

Any club I've ever seen carry their posts in and out to the public grounds for games. They are never left out for fear of being stolen, always locked up secured. The only posts that you see on public grounds left unsupervised are the proper full grown up posts and they are mostly pretty well secured into the ground.

Thatb is true. But if someone was to fall off one....

touts

biko wrote: »

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

Of course not. The Justice Industry (which many of the posters on here seem to work for) makes more money taking money off centres and clubs like this which contribute to society and giving it mostly to themselves with a little going to their clients.

While some of the Justice Industry hacks here will point to the statute books to prove why it isn't actually corrupt its morally corrupt and rotten to the core.

kippy

olestoepoke wrote: »

This is exactly wha we have done as a club, our astro has high fences and are locked at all times except training which is highly supervised.

I think clubs tend to do this with Astros for other reasons. I am talking specifically around facilities in general. The local club have 20 acres, three pitches, a club house and a walkway round it. What is the point of clubs putting resources into developing these things if they are on the hook for pretty much anything that happens on the facility? Particularly when you are dealing with volunteers?
The end game is completly securing the facility and very limited use.
Insurance costs are going through the roof. It's been going on years now and absolutely nothing done about it....

McCrack

touts wrote: »

Of course not. The Justice Industry (which many of the posters on here seem to work for) makes more money taking money off centres and clubs like this which contribute to society and giving it mostly to themselves with a little going to their clients.

While some of the Justice Industry hacks here will point to the statute books to prove why it isn't actually corrupt its morally corrupt and rotten to the core.

I've absolutely no doubt in my mind that if you suffered an injury caused by anothers negligence you would be straight down to a solicitor (which is perfectly acceptable)

The ones that bemoan will never think twice when the shoes on the other foot

biko

bubblypop wrote: »

Did she break their equipment?

How do you think goal posts at pitches are held up?

McCrack

kippy wrote: »

I think clubs tend to do this with Astros for other reasons. I am talking specifically around facilities in general. The local club have 20 acres, three pitches, a club house and a walkway round it. What is the point of clubs putting resources into developing these things if they are on the hook for pretty much anything that happens on the facility? Particularly when you are dealing with volunteers?
The end game is completly securing the facility and very limited use.
Insurance costs are going through the roof. It's been going on years now and absolutely nothing done about it....

They are not on the hook for pretty much anything, not every injury is caused because of negligence, if they keep their house in order they won't have successful claims made against them... Everyone is better off.. Less people injured, less claims which should mean less premiums but the insurance companies don't always keep their side of the bargain on that

olestoepoke

beauf wrote: »

Thatb is true. But if someone was to fall off one....

If someone was to fall off the big secured goalposts in a publicly accessible park then I don't think they'd have much of a claim. Nowhere near the same as entering a private clubs grounds as in this case is it?

biko

biko wrote: »

How do you think goal posts at pitches are held up?

You tell me?

olestoepoke

touts wrote: »

Of course not. The Justice Industry (which many of the posters on here seem to work for) makes more money taking money off centres and clubs like this which contribute to society and giving it mostly to themselves with a little going to their clients.

While some of the Justice Industry hacks here will point to the statute books to prove why it isn't actually corrupt its morally corrupt and rotten to the core.

People are 'justice industry hacks' because they can tell the difference between a child damaging their eye on the arial of their car and being responsible for their own property? You are right about our system though, wasn't this one of the key talking points with the Troika and one of the conditions of our bailout? I'm pretty sure major reforms have been on the cards for years now. The said people like yourself still cant get their heads around the basics and really should try to educate themselves on it for their own good.

Nesta99

I cant really comment from a legal payout perspective but from a coach angle it is a worry that a goal failed with what seems like minimal abuse. Im presuming that a crossbar fell - this would suggest that it is an outdated system of temporary goal that was in use where the bar were slotted in to place but no mechanism to prevent a bar from hopping out of its slot and falling. Kid will be kids and indeed adults and naturally hang from swing on any part of a goal. The most commonly used system used now, after fatal accidents involving goals, are similar to construction scaffolding where pins (some integrated) are used to prevent the goal coming apart - a shot cracked of a cross bar Ive seen make a cross bar hop out of its 'socket' and a pin system prevents this. There is a liability issue imo if an older system is used but im no legal expert. (mobile goals should be anchored with pegs and/or sandbags just as an extra note when assembled but not in use ).

One experience which is cringe all round and questionable liability where a large pay out happened. Young chap climbs up a goal post and up the post to 10-15m, dangerous and a misuse of working and 'safe' equipment. He was instructed to CAREFULLY' descend under supervision (coaching moving to assist the descent from on top of the crossbar) but a bit of a know all kids and proceeded to immediately slide down the goal rotating like it was a fireman's pole. Instructed to stop as while he may have forgotten the cross bar and the mechanism to keep in in place the coaches did not. The safety system subsequently tore jeans at the cotch and injured underlying anatomy in quite a nasty injury. A paramedic was on site so the injury was managed quickly while waiting for an ambulance. While the injury was nasty and I could have done without seeing any internal parts of a male reproductive system, there was no permanent damage and its was said that these type of injuries' can often look worse than they are.

There was a whole lot going on in this case and I can see why a claim was made, even with supervision and management of a dangerous situation an injury did occur whether there were long-term implications or not. I would have though that there were mitigating factors on what were paid in damages in relation to how the injury came about eg misuse if equipment and quick efforts to resolve the situation safely and ignoring instruction, the presence of a medic on the scene and all safety issues covered and then some (I think its impossible to cover every eventuality). Anyway the award to the chap (who was nearly 16 if thats relevant) was in 6 figures and not low 6 figures.

Odd thing about these 2 cases is that Id be more concerned about what happened and how in the case of the OP example than the one I mention.

NIMAN

McCrack wrote: »

I've absolutely no doubt in my mind that if you suffered an injury caused by anothers negligence you would be straight down to a solicitor (which is perfectly acceptable)

So explain in this case how it was someone else's fault and negligence that this girl decided to swing on the posts?

olestoepoke

NIMAN wrote: »

So explain in this case how it was someone else's fault and negligence that this girl decided to swing on the posts?

This has been discussed at length throughout the thread. The gate was unlocked and the goalpost unsecured which makes the club negligent under our current laws. You dont have to agree with it, just acknowledge that thats the way it is.

NIMAN

Thanks for clearing that up.
I guess the law is geared towards the claimant then.

olestoepoke

https://twitter.com/colmoregan/status/1368112659128848384?s=08

I thought this thread would enjoy this link

Triangle

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 reckon it's thinking like this that means my kids can't play in an AstroTurf when it's not supervised, community centers are closing, festivals can't get reasonable insurance.
Sometimes **** happens, it doesn't always mean it's someone's fault.

But the legal profession don't see this as its a huge part of their income. They will fight tooth and nail to keep payouts high.

Akrasia

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

The difference is that when you were a kid, goalposts were solid and built to hold their shape, now they are made of all sorts of engineering feats to allow for easy assembling and dismantling for storage.

I have probably done it as a kid, I played as a goalkeeper in my early teenage years.

In an ideal world they should have been awarded a nominal fee of a few grand and the parent should have gotten a tongue lashing from the judge....in reality, the legals on both sides benefit from the system, the child/family benefit and the club suffers the cost.

Or maybe the club/insurance company should go after the goalpost manufacturer to recoup the cost given that they sold a dangerous unstable product in the first place

Kids are gonna climb and swing on goalposts whether they’re being supervised or not so the club and manufacturers need to account for this in the design

kippy

olestoepoke wrote: »

This has been discussed at length throughout the thread. The gate was unlocked and the goalpost unsecured which makes the club negligent under our current laws. You dont have to agree with it, just acknowledge that thats the way it is.

Indeed. And the increases in these types of claims and associated insurance costs are not at all in the interests of the wider community. The only way organisations are not negligent is if they put security fencing around their facilities, lock the gates and only allow use under permitted circumstances which is completely at odds with the ethos of a lot of these clubs and indeed the funds used to build and maintain them.


Look the goal shouldn't have come apart like that but playing devil's advocate here what if the club had them maintained, someone did something to them in the house before the child appeared and suddenly you have a club looking at a payout for something beyond their control..
Securing the posts essentiall means closing the facility.
The absolute nonsense of all this is getting to a point that will leave organisations in now doubt what they need to do to protect themselves and their reputations.

kippy

Akrasia wrote: »

Or maybe the club/insurance company should go after the goalpost manufacturer to recoup the cost given that they sold a dangerous unstable product in the first place

Kids are gonna climb and swing on goalposts whether they’re being supervised or not so the club and manufacturers need to account for this in the design

In this case who is to say that the club and manufacturer hadn't accounted for this in the design?
(I get it, the courts, but what if the equipment had been interfered with, one assumes the club should have the equipment locked up and by extension the venue completely secured)

GreeBo

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.

If it's designed to be climbed on then sure, but if, as in this case, that's not what it's for then no way. It's not a climbing frame.
If they climbed on a greenhouse would your opinion be the same?

NIMAN

So what if a child is swinging on a goalpost but slips off and breaks their arm?

Is the club or council still ok to be sued for that?

kippy

NIMAN wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up.
I guess the law is geared towards the claimant then.

The law is geared towards the legal profession.......(obviously) I'd like to know the legal fees on this incident.

I get a balance has to be struck but right now and for the last couple of decades the balance has been all wrong.
Personal responsibility and civic duty are almost dead concepts.

olestoepoke

https://www.independent.ie/news/appeal-court-overturns-56000-damages-for-woman-who-was-scalded-after-hot-water-caused-glass-jug-to-shatter-39992714.html

There are many cases where common sense has prevailed, another that comes to mind is the lady who tripped on Wicklow Way walkway.https://www.thejournal.ie/hillwalker-compensation-wicklow-overturned-3244946-Feb2017/

I think people are going to continue to look for easy money and that the real problem here is the legal professionals who convince them they have a case. That said as a previous poster said there needs to be a balance and organisations need to be held accountable if they fail in their duty of care.

beauf

clubs will close and insurance and legal will lose that income..

olestoepoke

GreeBo wrote: »

If it's designed to be climbed on then sure, but if, as in this case, that's not what it's for then no way. It's not a climbing frame.
If they climbed on a greenhouse would your opinion be the same?

If the greenhouse was on your property and you made no effort to prevent children from climbing on it then certainly they could be in a position to claim.