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

Swinging off a goal post insurance payout

Options
123578

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    olestoepoke wrote: »
    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.

    I think the state realised it would open the flood gates..


  • Options
    #123
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,602 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    olestoepoke wrote: »
    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.

    What's the level of effort that is acceptable?


  • Options
    #124
    olestoepoke
    Registered Users Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭olestoepoke


    NIMAN wrote: »
    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?

    That would depend on the circumstances. What category the child and their guardian fell into, are they a visitor (Invited and therefore a higher duty of care owed) or are they recreational users or trespassers. Rec users and trespassers are owned the very same duty of care.


  • Options
    #125
    NIMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 33,654 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Trespassers are owed a duty of care?

    Any wonder the claims are through the roof.


  • Options
    #126
    Sheep Shagger
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 6,412 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sheep Shagger


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Seriously?
    Kids swing on goalposts all the time, Jesus I'm in my forties and we did it as kids!

    And djd anyone get a payout if something went wrong? I suspect it was just an accident and you had to suck it up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Sheep Shagger
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 6,412 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sheep Shagger


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Seriously?
    Kids swing on goalposts all the time, Jesus I'm in my forties and we did it as kids!

    And djd anyone get a payout if something went wrong? I suspect it was just an accident and you had to suck it up.


  • Options
    #128
    RobbingBandit
    Registered Users Posts: 18,148 ✭✭✭✭RobbingBandit


    How the hell is anyone but the mother and daughter at fault here they were trespassing, madness.


  • Options
    #129
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    NIMAN wrote: »
    Trespassers are owed a duty of care?

    Any wonder the claims are through the roof.

    Often they've ignored signs and high fences and still get payouts...


  • Options
    #130
    Sheep Shagger
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 6,412 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sheep Shagger


    RobbingBandit wrote: »
    How the hell is anyone but the mother and daughter at fault here they were trespassing, madness.

    IIRC a kid got a payout a few years back when climbing over a barbed wite fence to trespass into a building site and damaged his arm in the process..


  • Options
    #131
    olestoepoke
    Registered Users Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭olestoepoke


    RobbingBandit wrote: »
    How the hell is anyone but the mother and daughter at fault here they were trespassing, madness.

    If you bothered to read the thread instead of jumping in with silly comments you'd know that the fault was shared by the mother and daughter and the club because as has been discussed at nauseaum this is the law.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    McCrack
    Registered Users Posts: 2,972 ✭✭✭McCrack


    NIMAN wrote: »
    Trespassers are owed a duty of care?

    Any wonder the claims are through the roof.

    Youre displaying ignorance

    Of course a duty is owed to trespassers.. If you cross a farmers field for example you are a trespasser. The landowner still owes a duty not to recklessly cause you an injury


  • Options
    #133
    olestoepoke
    Registered Users Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭olestoepoke


    The duty of care that a landowner owes to a trespasser is twofold.

    Firstly the landowner is not to intentionally injure or harm the person, and secondly, the landowner is not to act with reckless disregard for their safety.

    The first duty of care is rather standard and self- explanatory. The occupier of the land must not set out to intentionally harm any trespassers. The second duty of care, however, is a bit more complicated. The phrase “reckless disregard” must first be understood.

    This means that you must take all care and measures to allow for the safety of any persons entering the land, and to protect and prevent them from any obvious or hidden dangers that might have the potential to harm any persons entering the land.

    In effect, you must have regard for any dangers that exist on your lands, and take every effort to protect any potential trespassers from these dangers.

    Copied from the Irish Examiner


  • Options
    #134
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,164 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    olestoepoke wrote: »
    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.

    But it was fenced off and behind a gate?


  • Options
    #135
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,164 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    At what point do the club sue the family for damages to their goal post?


  • Options
    #136
    Yakult
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 7,941 Mod ✭✭✭✭Yakult


    Whatever about the amount, you've got to ask about the safety of those goal posts in general. If a 13 year old girl swinging on them was enough to bring it down, then whose to say it wouldnt have came down during training or a match.

    Goaloposts arent designed for swinging, we know that, but in fairness it must have been fairly compromised to begin with. So they were not being maintained correctly.


  • Options
    #137
    olestoepoke
    Registered Users Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭olestoepoke


    GreeBo wrote: »
    But it was fenced off and behind a gate?

    Ok so you made an effort and that would help if it went to court. Also if kids climbing it was a regular occurrence and you had evidence that you contacted their guardians and told them about it also shows and effort. The law is there but most certainly the circumstances are considered on an individual basis.


  • Options
    #138
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,164 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    olestoepoke wrote: »
    Ok so you made an effort and that would help if it went to court. Also if kids climbing it was a regular occurrence and you had evidence that you contacted their guardians and told them about it also shows and effort. The law is there but most certainly the circumstances are considered on an individual basis.

    But why does it only help?
    The grounds are fenced off behind a gate and the goal was in perfect condition for it's purpose... Why is there any question if the club being liable?
    There is no regular occurrence here, it was their first time there according to the article.


  • Options
    #139
    Curse These Metal Hands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,076 ✭✭✭Curse These Metal Hands


    Yakult wrote: »
    Whatever about the amount, you've got to ask about the safety of those goal posts in general. If a 13 year old girl swinging on them was enough to bring it down, then whose to say it wouldnt have came down during training or a match.

    Goaloposts arent designed for swinging, we know that, but in fairness it must have been fairly compromised to begin with. So they were not being maintained correctly.

    We don't know if they were just light goalposts for moving around with ease for training sessions. They will tip over fairly easily, it should be common sense not to hang out of them, if it was indeed those goals.

    Unless I've missed something, then I don't know why people keep suggesting something broke?

    Don't know if anyone is familiar with the place? Is it astro turf?


  • Options
    #140
    touts
    Registered Users Posts: 6,505 ✭✭✭touts


    beauf wrote: »
    clubs will close and insurance and legal will lose that income..

    Yes. But the important thing is people like olestoepoke will make a fortune in legal fees before it all comes crashing down and they pull the ladder up behind them.


  • Options
    #141
    Montage of Feck
    Registered Users Posts: 3,642 ✭✭✭Montage of Feck


    What a great life lesson for the child, do something stupid and take no personal responsibility and cha-ching!

    🙈🙉🙊



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    astrofool
    Registered Users Posts: 16,725 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Yakult wrote: »
    Whatever about the amount, you've got to ask about the safety of those goal posts in general. If a 13 year old girl swinging on them was enough to bring it down, then whose to say it wouldnt have came down during training or a match.

    Goaloposts arent designed for swinging, we know that, but in fairness it must have been fairly compromised to begin with. So they were not being maintained correctly.

    Describe the maintenance needed and how a moveable goalpost could become compromised. Also describe how you prevent a moveable goalpost from falling when someone decides to swing off it.


  • Options
    #143
    corner of hells
    Registered Users Posts: 8,385 ✭✭✭corner of hells


    astrofool wrote: »
    Describe the maintenance needed and how a moveable goalpost could become compromised. Also describe how you prevent a moveable goalpost from falling when someone decides to swing off it.

    It sounds from the article the goalpost was left unattended in an unsecured area , that said ,52 grand for a couple of stiches is unbelievable. 100euros for A&E should've been enough.

    Im in my 50s now and if my parents were to sue for every injury i got from acting the bollix as a kid id be worth a fortune .


  • Options
    #144
    olestoepoke
    Registered Users Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭olestoepoke


    touts wrote: »
    Yes. But the important thing is people like olestoepoke will make a fortune in legal fees before it all comes crashing down and they pull the ladder up behind them.
    Ha how do I make a fortune in legal fees? I'm a carpenter who did a few accountancy modules that had plenty of law in them as an interest outside of my job as a carpenter. I've never met a carpenter who charges legal fees have you? Lol.


  • Options
    #145
    olestoepoke
    Registered Users Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭olestoepoke


    GreeBo wrote: »
    But why does it only help?
    The grounds are fenced off behind a gate and the goal was in perfect condition for it's purpose... Why is there any question if the club being liable?
    There is no regular occurrence here, it was their first time there according to the article.

    Because that's the law


  • Options
    #146
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,602 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    olestoepoke wrote: »
    Because that's the law

    Well surely this is the issue.
    If it's the law why is it the law and why can't it be changed? Indeed why isn't it changed?
    Or why aren't the awards less?
    Or at what point does right thinking society call a halt to this nonsense?


  • Options
    #147
    olestoepoke
    Registered Users Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭olestoepoke


    kippy wrote: »
    Well surely this is the issue.
    If it's the law why is it the law and why can't it be changed? Indeed why isn't it changed?
    Or why aren't the awards less?
    Or at what point does right thinking society call a halt to this nonsense?

    They should have had the foresight to lock the gate and secure the goalpost and they didn't. Their own defence admitted negligence and argued the level of contributory negligence because they knew that was their best chance of a reduced payout. The fee was high because scarring to the face is always higher.


  • Options
    #148
    Odyssey 2005
    Registered Users Posts: 21,065 ✭✭✭✭Odyssey 2005


    I'd say Maria Bailey is kicking herself.;)


  • Options
    #149
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,602 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    olestoepoke wrote: »
    They should have had the foresight to lock the gate and secure the goalpost and they didn't. Their own defence admitted negligence and argued the level of contributory negligence because they knew that was their best chance of a reduced payout. The fee was high because scarring to the face is always higher.
    Say they had locked the gate. What happens then?
    Higher than what?


  • Options
    #150
    olestoepoke
    Registered Users Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭olestoepoke


    kippy wrote: »
    Higher than what?

    Higher than the payout for scarring that is not on the face, sorry I thought that was obvious. If they'd have locked the gate then they could have argued they did everything possible within reason to make sure no one would get injured on their property and this would be taken into account.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Gussie Scrotch
    Registered Users Posts: 852 ✭✭✭Gussie Scrotch


    If a person climbed onto the roof of my house, fell and injured himself, would he have a case against me for negligence?


Advertisement