Latest compo culture award

Cheeky whoor solicitor was on an evening show on radio giving it the big one blaming the insurance companies for the large premiums.

Let me tell you a simple fact. The legal profession are the only winners in this. They're literally creaming it.

I know someone that lost the tip of their finger. Quite genuine case. The settlement out of court was 20k

The solicitors took that specialise in chasing ambulances took a nice slice of it to the tune of 7k. I seen 1 invoice for 1500 from a plastic surgeon constantly for 15 mins

Susan was on Liveline to explain her side of the story. While I totally agree with the judgement in this case it was interesting to hear her side of it. She thought it was okay to sit on the swing with a child to support the child as I think she said he was a bit afraid on his own (something to that effect). I would say that if the child was too nervous to use the swing on his own or too young for such a "bird's nest" swing as it was described then the child should not have been using it. Susan said that an engineer's report stated that the swing should be lifted another foot off the ground for safety and to avoid accidents. But ....what about the fact that if that were done the swing would be too high for some children and they could fall out of it and injure themselves? I blame the engineer for such a report. He must have been judging the height of the swing from an adult's perspective yet the swing was designed for use by young children! Susan was awarded €23,000 by a lower court (I think) but the Council rejected her claim so she took it to a higher court. Susan said she would have been happy to accept that amount. She had the advice of a barrister to go to a higher court and the barrister has also informed her that she has grounds for appeal. Good advice? I don't think so and I'm no barrister! Susan stated that she sat on the swing without thinking too much about it (she was simply helping the child she was minding at the time) and she doesn't agree that adults should use children's play equipment in playgrounds. That's fair enough.

I think this is a case where everything wasn't thought through. Susan appeared to have good motives for her case. She didn't want an accident to happen to anyone else and she wanted to send a message to the County Council and so on. She was also unable to work for a good few weeks after her accident. The fact that the other lady Sarah (whom she met at the court and apparently has no friendship with) was taking a similar case to the court probably helped to convince her that she was doing the right thing. From listening to Susan today I don't think she was out for as much as she could get (unlike some!) ... I didn't get that impression anyway. I think she was badly advised (and yes I do think some barristers like to line their own pockets!) When you think about it rationally playgrounds are for children, not adults. I'm nearly sure (and stand corrected if I'm wrong) that there were signs in the playground to that effect. Perhaps additional signs warning adults NOT to accompany children on the equipment need to be erected? There are times when people need to think these things through for them selves and perhaps not be swayed by engineers and barristers. It's called common sense.

It's human instinct to blame someone else for accidents rather than look inward

If you look at someone walking on lego with their bare feet the immediate reaction is who the **** left that there..

Accidents happen. I broke my hand in work. Twice. I never sued anyone, because on the first occasion was my own fault and the second was a genuine accident. Literally no fault of anyone. Of course, If I was a thieving little scroat, I could make l a case and cash them cheques. But I'm not a cnut.

Well said Caquas. Joe Duffy did himself no favours by not challenging Susan. There were so many questions he could have asked her but instead chose to back her by quoting and re-quoting excerpts from the judge's report. He definitely picks who to challenge on Liveline. It actually makes him appear stupid because any rational thinking person listening to Susan would ask her the obvious questions you posed in your post Caquas. He didn't need to be unkind, just ask her why she didn't see the obvious and why she was so influenced by the so called "experts" or help her to see why such an action failed because she definitely had some blind spots herself! Joe failed to be impartial and play devil's advocate. That's his job!! There are times when he is good at putting both sides of an argument forward and he tries to be fair but not this time.

Anyway, Susan shot herself in the foot by trying to justify her claim and though I don't think her story should have been given oxygen yesterday if it makes some people think twice about making a claim perhaps it may be worth it.

Finally, I hope some of Joe's backroom team read boards.ie and pass on these messages 😉

I heard that on the radio and just to your point about the 23k award, I understood it was from PIAB or whatever it is called now. Which I understand would be more of a kind of mediation body than a court.

While of course a frivolous case should always be challenged, (and in this case the judge agreed with the position that there was no negligence), there is also a point that Councils and their employees don't appear to face any repercussions or accountability for wastage or overspend.

So we would not want to have a situation where a Council employee can abuse the effectively unlimited resource pot to bully citizens out of making claims where it is a justified claim.

Actually we don't know whether your last sentence is correct or not. It was the PIAB which calculated that she was entitled to 23k. She said she would have accepted this but the council did not accept it. The PIAB came up with that figure. It was not mentioned how much she asked for. I don't know whether a claimant actually has to ask for a figure when they go to PIAB or whether they just provide information and the PIAB determines the amount unilaterally.

No. Did i say that?

Christ.

If you're referring to the McDonalds case, that was actually remarkably good press management by McD. The woman suffered serious injuries, and McD had already been told to serve their coffee at a lower temperature. That is part of the reason for the large payout in that case. They knew they were serving coffee at a temperature that made it unsafe, and continued to do so.

What you could do is sue the lotto when your numbers don’t come up and you don’t win... the disappointment of building up your hopes of being a millionaire through advertising then you not winning has negatively impacted your mintal health...