The definitive rugby union forum. Talk to fans from around the world about your favourite team
https://forum.planetrugby.com/
Yeah true enough.Mullet 2 wrote:That was the jury tbf
Plus she just belched out a sprog so will no doubt be given a house at taxpayers expense sooncamroc1 wrote:Here's a doozy.
Why on earth should anyone take any ressponsibility for their actions, when they'll get a half million payout anyway. KaChing.
You don't even have to prove negligence now FFS !
From the IT :
Woman injured ‘tram surfing’ on Luas awarded €550,000
Judge says Rebecca Kelly, now aged 20, knew that she did a ‘silly thing’ at the Fatima stop
about an hour ago
A woman who sustained a severe brain injury when she was a teenager after falling off the side of a Luas while ‘tram surfing’, has settled her High Court action for €550,000.
Rebecca Kelly, who was 13 at the time of the incident, jumped on the outside of a Luas tram and gripped the edge of the doors as it departed the Fatima stop on the Red Line on the night of September 3rd, 2010.
She then fell back onto the tracks and hit her head before her friend and others pulled her out of the way of an oncoming Luas tram.
Bruce Antoniotti SC, for Ms Kelly, told the High Court his client, who recently became a mother, accepted the accident was her fault. She acknowledged she should not have been ‘tram surfing’ and knew at the time that it was a dangerous activity. He said his client did not want to blame the driver.
Ms Kelly, now aged 20, of Pearse House, Pearse Street, had, through her mother Elizabeth Kelly, sued the Luas operators, Veolia Transport Dublin Light Rail Ltd and Veolia Transport Ireland Ltd as a result of the incident.
Visual systems
She alleged failure to have any or any adequate visual systems employed and activated on the tram. She alleged that meant the driver was unable in the circumstances to see the non-platform side of the tram before leaving the station.
It was claimed that the tram pulled off from the station without first observing the non-platform side.
All the claims were denied and Veolia pleaded contributory negligence on Ms Kelly’s part in allegedly exposing herself to the risk of injury by ‘tram surfing’ with a total disregard for her own safety.
Mr Antoniotti said it was a tragic case. He said Ms Kelly was with a group of friends on the inbound platform at the Fatima stop at 9.15pm. At that time, young people engaged in ‘tram surfing’, he said.
Mr Justice Cross said it was what boys used to do in the past by hanging on to the back of lorries. Counsel said ‘tram surfing’ involved people jumping on to the side door where there was a small ledge and putting their fingers between the door and the body of the tram whole holding on “for dear life”.
Metal strips
There were 54 incidents of tram surfing recorded on Luas trams between 2005 and 2010 but the placing of metal strips to prevent gripping between the door and the body of the train had helped deter the practice, counsel said.
He said Ms Kelly jumped on to the side of the Tallaght bound tram but fell off very quickly and hit her head. She had never ‘tram surfed’ before, he added.
In this case, the tram pulled in to the Tallaght bound platform and the driver had to watch the platform where passengers were getting on and off. To view the other side of the tram, where Ms Kelly jumped on, would have required him to switch cameras and the driver also had to be looking straight ahead when the tram moving off as people often try to cross in front, counsel said.
Approving the settlement, Mr Justice Cross said it was not necessary for the court to tell Ms Kelly she did a “silly thing” as she knew that. However, he commended her for her honesty.
The claims were denied so it was being litigated. The defendant's issue is she was 13 when it happened, there's a kind of "kids will be kids" rule that makes any contribution to their own injury really hard to stick.Onelostbear wrote:AJ will be around soon to point out that it was a settlement so the judge was just rubber stamping the offer. so nothing to d with the judge he can only approve what is offered.
why the company felt the need to make such a high settlement offer when she has admitted she was at fault is a separate matter all together.
So if you get a brain injury, despite it being your own fault, you're quids in?The Prophet Zarquon wrote:The claims were denied so it was being litigated. The defendant's issue is she was 13 when it happened, there's a kind of "kids will be kids" rule that makes any contribution to their own injury really hard to stick.Onelostbear wrote:AJ will be around soon to point out that it was a settlement so the judge was just rubber stamping the offer. so nothing to d with the judge he can only approve what is offered.
why the company felt the need to make such a high settlement offer when she has admitted she was at fault is a separate matter all together.
It depends on how debilitating the injury was but brain injury awards are millions, so I'd say they were delighted to get out of it for that.
=cash moneyThere should have been signage saying it's dangerous to slam your face into it on that car. It's a disgrace Joe.Nolanator wrote:So if you get a brain injury, despite it being your own fault, you're quids in?The Prophet Zarquon wrote:The claims were denied so it was being litigated. The defendant's issue is she was 13 when it happened, there's a kind of "kids will be kids" rule that makes any contribution to their own injury really hard to stick.Onelostbear wrote:AJ will be around soon to point out that it was a settlement so the judge was just rubber stamping the offer. so nothing to d with the judge he can only approve what is offered.
why the company felt the need to make such a high settlement offer when she has admitted she was at fault is a separate matter all together.
It depends on how debilitating the injury was but brain injury awards are millions, so I'd say they were delighted to get out of it for that.
Wash your neck...Gauss wrote:Have a look at her sister mouthing off in the comments of the indo story on FB.
Kids will be kids... fineThe Prophet Zarquon wrote:The claims were denied so it was being litigated. The defendant's issue is she was 13 when it happened, there's a kind of "kids will be kids" rule that makes any contribution to their own injury really hard to stick.Onelostbear wrote:AJ will be around soon to point out that it was a settlement so the judge was just rubber stamping the offer. so nothing to d with the judge he can only approve what is offered.
why the company felt the need to make such a high settlement offer when she has admitted she was at fault is a separate matter all together.
It depends on how debilitating the injury was but brain injury awards are millions, so I'd say they were delighted to get out of it for that.
We’re not the only country to use these type of teams are weEverReady wrote:They brought in a load of measures to stop the surfing practice. This was clearly an acknowledgement that the Luas lended itself to this dangerous practice
And tonight Matthew I am...ANON JOE *crowd cheers
Why does it have to be somebody’s fault? Kids do stupid shit, accidents happen. There is no justification for a payout here. It was a tragic accident.CM11 wrote:Any more info on the 'severe brain injury'?
If we want to move to a no fault system then fine, go for it. And if she did suffer an injury, fine, cover the medical costs. But is she really being given 500k into her bank account? That's not going to end well if so.
Tragic? She was clearly a bit of moron before the accident.so no change there. The only tragedy is that she got anything other than ridiculeDuff Paddy wrote:Why does it have to be somebody’s fault? Kids do stupid shit, accidents happen. There is no justification for a payout here. It was a tragic accident.CM11 wrote:Any more info on the 'severe brain injury'?
If we want to move to a no fault system then fine, go for it. And if she did suffer an injury, fine, cover the medical costs. But is she really being given 500k into her bank account? That's not going to end well if so.
Duff Paddy wrote:Why does it have to be somebody’s fault? Kids do stupid shit, accidents happen. There is no justification for a payout here. It was a tragic accident.CM11 wrote:Any more info on the 'severe brain injury'?
If we want to move to a no fault system then fine, go for it. And if she did suffer an injury, fine, cover the medical costs. But is she really being given 500k into her bank account? That's not going to end well if so.
If you're young enough,its not legally your "fault" regardless of what you did. the law assesses that at 13 did she fully appreciate and weigh up the risk, and decide to do it anyway? Was she induced to do it because she'd seen her friends do it and nobody stopped them? If it was a common thing, should the Luas operators not have taken more measures to stop it happening? Is it reasonable to expect a 13 year old to be that cognisant of the risk. If so, at what age does this responsibility kick in? If she was 6? 5?Nolanator wrote:So if you get a brain injury, despite it being your own fault, you're quids in?The Prophet Zarquon wrote:The claims were denied so it was being litigated. The defendant's issue is she was 13 when it happened, there's a kind of "kids will be kids" rule that makes any contribution to their own injury really hard to stick.Onelostbear wrote:AJ will be around soon to point out that it was a settlement so the judge was just rubber stamping the offer. so nothing to d with the judge he can only approve what is offered.
why the company felt the need to make such a high settlement offer when she has admitted she was at fault is a separate matter all together.
It depends on how debilitating the injury was but brain injury awards are millions, so I'd say they were delighted to get out of it for that.
Yeah but your kids aren't inbred scummers one notch above Neanderthal on the evolutionary scaleCM11 wrote:Looking at my kids. I'd say around 5 for knowing not to jump on a moving train. The 3 year old would probably think twice too.
The kids will be kids thing means that she was too young to really know that what she was doing is reckless and the consequences of it, so it isn't legally her fault. Egro it is someone else's fault in our system. The tram operators knew it was a. common practice and b. very dangerous. should they not have done something to prevent it?Kids will be kids... fine
Contribution to her own injury... admitted by the defendant herself
Her brain isn't in her ovaries or uterus. The indo reported a "severe" injuryHow debilitating the injury... not very, she’s just had a child
that's special damages. the general damages awards for a permanent and life altering brain injury can also get into millions, especially when the injured person is very young and a lifetime of opportunity is lost.Brain injury awards are millions... that should only be to paid for a lifetime of care if needed
normally I'd agree, but the acid test is would you voluntarily submit to her injury if someone paid you €500k? I wouldn't.Delighted to get out of it for that... certainly but that only speaks to the madness of our PI scam/system
I thought that's been tried on already by someone who claimed PTSD after witnessing a car accident/assault ?The Prophet Zarquon wrote:The kids will be kids thing means that she was too young to really know that what she was doing is reckless and the consequences of it, so it isn't legally her fault. Egro it is someone else's fault in our system. The tram operators knew it was a. common practice and b. very dangerous. should they not have done something to prevent it?Kids will be kids... fine
Contribution to her own injury... admitted by the defendant herself
Her brain isn't in her ovaries or uterus. The indo reported a "severe" injuryHow debilitating the injury... not very, she’s just had a child
that's special damages. the general damages awards for a permanent and life altering brain injury can also get into millions, especially when the injured person is very young and a lifetime of opportunity is lost.Brain injury awards are millions... that should only be to paid for a lifetime of care if needed
normally I'd agree, but the acid test is would you voluntarily submit to her injury if someone paid you €500k? I wouldn't.Delighted to get out of it for that... certainly but that only speaks to the madness of our PI scam/system
I'm just explaining the legal thinking here btw, though I've a little sympathy for her. This gobsh1te on the other hand:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-a ... -1.3664534
He claimed for anxiety - a firefighter actually claimed that he's anxious now going to his locker because one time his helmet fell out and hit him on the head and he wanted some money for that. He should have been fired by the authority as being incapable of carrying out the role of firefighter if something so trivial makes him anxious to the point of needing compensation. Did he come up with the whole "I'm anxious" crap himself? Did he fcuk. This one's down to his lawyer - routine now to add PTSD to claims because its unproveable and easy money. We'll get to a stage soon where PTSD claims stick without any injury or even collisison.
I'll just leave this, from this mornings IT, here so.anonymous_joe wrote:Generals are usually capped in and around €450k to €500k and that would be for catastrophic paralysis.
Brain injury compensation would be future care and loss of opportunities as put forward by actuarial evidence and occupational therapists.
Woman in ‘Luas surfing’ case initially said claim worth €4m
Rebecca Kelly, who received more than €550,000 for injuries, conceded her own actions played a significant role in the incident
about 7 hours ago
Conor Gallagher
The woman who received more than €550,000 last week for injuries she suffered while “Luas surfing” initially claimed her case was worth up to €4 million.
Lawyers for Rebecca Kelly (20) told Veolia, which operated Dublin’s Luas light rail system at the time, that this claim was based on her injuries, the cost of her medical care and the loss of potential earnings relating to her injuries.
Ms Kelly suffered a subdural haematoma which left her with significant cognitive impairment, her lawyers told the tram operator.
The woman also conceded her own actions played a significant role in the incident and was advised by her lawyers she stood little chance of receiving anything close to the €4 million figure, legal sources said.
Ms Kelly was 13 in 2010 when she and a friend jumped on to the side of a tram as it left the Fatima station. She fell on to the tracks and suffered a serious head injury.
Veolia was aware Luas surfing was an issue and cameras set up in response to the problem were not functioning on the day in question.
Woman injured ‘tram surfing’ on Luas awarded €550,000
Ms Kelly of Pearse House, Pearse Street, Dublin, spent a month in the National Rehabilitation Hospital and continues to have problems with her concentration and memory.
When her case came to court her lawyers entered into a mediation process with Veolia. They admitted contributory negligence but argued it was lessened by her young age.
No liability
At the end of the mediation process Veolia agreed to a €550,000 settlement, about 1/7th of what Ms Kelly initially claimed the case was worth. It did not admit liability.
When the settlement was brought to Mr Justice Kevin Cross for High Court approval on Friday he commented there was a strong possibility the case would have been dismissed if it went to trial and Ms Kelly “would have ended up with nothing”.
Garrett Cooney, a barrister specialising in personal injury cases, said companies engage in “very complex” risk assessments when deciding if they will settle and how much to settle for.
These assessments incorporate multiple factors including actuarial assessments of the monetary impact of an injury on a plaintiff as well as legal assessments of what award a particular judge is likely to make if a case went to trial.
Social media abuse
“Experienced practitioners would be able to give advices as to what a judge is likely to do,” Mr Cooney told The Irish Times, speaking generally.
The age of the injured person also plays a significant role in assessing settlements, Mr Cooney said. “A child is not held to the same standard as an adult.”
An initial paper based actuarial assessment of Ms Kelly’s claim said the light rail company could be exposed to up to €10 million in damages if no other factors were taken into account other than her injuries.
On Monday Ms Kelly’s sister Jennifer said her sister is afraid to leave the house because of the abuse received via social media.
“She has a child two weeks old, she deserves that money. She went through eight years of hell and she’ll suffer with this for the rest of her life. It’s bad enough without all these people abusing her,” she told the 98FM radio station.
camroc1 wrote:I'll just leave this, from this mornings IT, here so.anonymous_joe wrote:Generals are usually capped in and around €450k to €500k and that would be for catastrophic paralysis.
Brain injury compensation would be future care and loss of opportunities as put forward by actuarial evidence and occupational therapists.
Woman in ‘Luas surfing’ case initially said claim worth €4m
Rebecca Kelly, who received more than €550,000 for injuries, conceded her own actions played a significant role in the incident
about 7 hours ago
Conor Gallagher
The woman who received more than €550,000 last week for injuries she suffered while “Luas surfing” initially claimed her case was worth up to €4 million.
Lawyers for Rebecca Kelly (20) told Veolia, which operated Dublin’s Luas light rail system at the time, that this claim was based on her injuries, the cost of her medical care and the loss of potential earnings relating to her injuries.
Ms Kelly suffered a subdural haematoma which left her with significant cognitive impairment, her lawyers told the tram operator.
The woman also conceded her own actions played a significant role in the incident and was advised by her lawyers she stood little chance of receiving anything close to the €4 million figure, legal sources said.
Ms Kelly was 13 in 2010 when she and a friend jumped on to the side of a tram as it left the Fatima station. She fell on to the tracks and suffered a serious head injury.
Veolia was aware Luas surfing was an issue and cameras set up in response to the problem were not functioning on the day in question.
Woman injured ‘tram surfing’ on Luas awarded €550,000
Ms Kelly of Pearse House, Pearse Street, Dublin, spent a month in the National Rehabilitation Hospital and continues to have problems with her concentration and memory.
When her case came to court her lawyers entered into a mediation process with Veolia. They admitted contributory negligence but argued it was lessened by her young age.
No liability
At the end of the mediation process Veolia agreed to a €550,000 settlement, about 1/7th of what Ms Kelly initially claimed the case was worth. It did not admit liability.
When the settlement was brought to Mr Justice Kevin Cross for High Court approval on Friday he commented there was a strong possibility the case would have been dismissed if it went to trial and Ms Kelly “would have ended up with nothing”.
Garrett Cooney, a barrister specialising in personal injury cases, said companies engage in “very complex” risk assessments when deciding if they will settle and how much to settle for.
These assessments incorporate multiple factors including actuarial assessments of the monetary impact of an injury on a plaintiff as well as legal assessments of what award a particular judge is likely to make if a case went to trial.
Social media abuse
“Experienced practitioners would be able to give advices as to what a judge is likely to do,” Mr Cooney told The Irish Times, speaking generally.
The age of the injured person also plays a significant role in assessing settlements, Mr Cooney said. “A child is not held to the same standard as an adult.”
An initial paper based actuarial assessment of Ms Kelly’s claim said the light rail company could be exposed to up to €10 million in damages if no other factors were taken into account other than her injuries.
On Monday Ms Kelly’s sister Jennifer said her sister is afraid to leave the house because of the abuse received via social media.
“She has a child two weeks old, she deserves that money. She went through eight years of hell and she’ll suffer with this for the rest of her life. It’s bad enough without all these people abusing her,” she told the 98FM radio station.
But she deserves the money, Duff. Because she has a two week old child, and went through eight years of hell as a result of her own stupidity. She deserves the money. You may as well go to court and say "it's because I'm worth it".Duff Paddy wrote:camroc1 wrote:I'll just leave this, from this mornings IT, here so.anonymous_joe wrote:Generals are usually capped in and around €450k to €500k and that would be for catastrophic paralysis.
Brain injury compensation would be future care and loss of opportunities as put forward by actuarial evidence and occupational therapists.
Woman in ‘Luas surfing’ case initially said claim worth €4m
Rebecca Kelly, who received more than €550,000 for injuries, conceded her own actions played a significant role in the incident
about 7 hours ago
Conor Gallagher
The woman who received more than €550,000 last week for injuries she suffered while “Luas surfing” initially claimed her case was worth up to €4 million.
Lawyers for Rebecca Kelly (20) told Veolia, which operated Dublin’s Luas light rail system at the time, that this claim was based on her injuries, the cost of her medical care and the loss of potential earnings relating to her injuries.
Ms Kelly suffered a subdural haematoma which left her with significant cognitive impairment, her lawyers told the tram operator.
The woman also conceded her own actions played a significant role in the incident and was advised by her lawyers she stood little chance of receiving anything close to the €4 million figure, legal sources said.
Ms Kelly was 13 in 2010 when she and a friend jumped on to the side of a tram as it left the Fatima station. She fell on to the tracks and suffered a serious head injury.
Veolia was aware Luas surfing was an issue and cameras set up in response to the problem were not functioning on the day in question.
Woman injured ‘tram surfing’ on Luas awarded €550,000
Ms Kelly of Pearse House, Pearse Street, Dublin, spent a month in the National Rehabilitation Hospital and continues to have problems with her concentration and memory.
When her case came to court her lawyers entered into a mediation process with Veolia. They admitted contributory negligence but argued it was lessened by her young age.
No liability
At the end of the mediation process Veolia agreed to a €550,000 settlement, about 1/7th of what Ms Kelly initially claimed the case was worth. It did not admit liability.
When the settlement was brought to Mr Justice Kevin Cross for High Court approval on Friday he commented there was a strong possibility the case would have been dismissed if it went to trial and Ms Kelly “would have ended up with nothing”.
Garrett Cooney, a barrister specialising in personal injury cases, said companies engage in “very complex” risk assessments when deciding if they will settle and how much to settle for.
These assessments incorporate multiple factors including actuarial assessments of the monetary impact of an injury on a plaintiff as well as legal assessments of what award a particular judge is likely to make if a case went to trial.
Social media abuse
“Experienced practitioners would be able to give advices as to what a judge is likely to do,” Mr Cooney told The Irish Times, speaking generally.
The age of the injured person also plays a significant role in assessing settlements, Mr Cooney said. “A child is not held to the same standard as an adult.”
An initial paper based actuarial assessment of Ms Kelly’s claim said the light rail company could be exposed to up to €10 million in damages if no other factors were taken into account other than her injuries.
On Monday Ms Kelly’s sister Jennifer said her sister is afraid to leave the house because of the abuse received via social media.
“She has a child two weeks old, she deserves that money. She went through eight years of hell and she’ll suffer with this for the rest of her life. It’s bad enough without all these people abusing her,” she told the 98FM radio station.
Loss of potential earnings - you have to love that one. Like she was planning to be an executive at google yeah.
Mullet 2 wrote:Lads, I've told you a million times.
Elected judges
When the settlement was brought to Mr Justice Kevin Cross for High Court approval on Friday he commented there was a strong possibility the case would have been dismissed if it went to trial and Ms Kelly “would have ended up with nothing”
For jobseekers allowance(or benefit, it’s the 2nd one when you’ve been long term unemployed) yes. Think first 20k is ignited and you lose a € for every 1k thereafter IIRC.nardol wrote:In the Irish system do you have to use up your own resources before you can claim welfare? If so at least she will be off welfare for a bit.
Rule 1.captainshamrock wrote:https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingn ... 80840.html
A woman who claimed she suffered first degree burns during laser treatment on her face has been awarded €30,000 by the High Court.
Jolanta Skaudvilaite was 10 days off work after she went to a beauty salon to have laser treatment on her cheeks.
Ms Skaudvilaite (37), Pine Grove, Athlumney Wood, Navan, Co Meath had sued Alchemy Beauty Ltd with offices at Trimgate Street, Navan, Co Meath as a result of the injuries she said she suffered during laser treatment at the Alchemy Beauty Clinic, Navan on July 21, 2011.
She claimed she was allegedly exposed to laser treatment that was liable to cause burns and there was an alleged failure to ensure proper laser equipment was provided in her treatment.
She further claimed the standard of laser and or beauty treatment was allegedly allowed to fall below common acceptable practice.
The claims were denied but Mr Justice Cross was told the solicitor for Alchemy Beauty had come off record in the case.
In evidence, the 37-year old woman said after the treatment her cheeks hurt and she rang the beauty salon which was very surprised.
She said she could see something was wrong with her cheeks and she went to a doctor and had to go on antibiotics.
She said the cheeks slowly healed with the right one taking longer.
Answering her barrister Anthony Lowry BL Ms Skaudvilaite said she also had to take tranquilisers for a time because of the upset involved and in the first week had been to see a doctor about three times.
She said that while her cheeks have cleared up they can be sensitive at times.
A report from a plastic surgeon handed into court said there had been subtle changes to the pigmentation in the woman's right cheek and she has been advised to use sunblock when outdoors.
Making the award Mr Justice Kevin Cross said the report of the woman's GP said Ms Skaudvilaite was upset and conscious of the burns and they healed within two weeks without scars but there is a higher pigmentation in the right cheeks.
The woman who is a retail assistant was also out of work for ten days.
The judge who also read a report by a plastic surgeon on the matter said he accepted the injury should not have happened.
The injuries, he said were nasty for Ms Skaudvilaite but she had now made a good recovery.
Mr Justice Cross said Ms Skaudvilaite had not exaggerated her complaints.
All you need to know. A judge thinks 30k is fine for red cheeks, a bit of pain, a few days off work and all back to normal in two weeks.
So she’s a bit mad. Right loss of earnings 10 days say €1,000 for a retail assistant, pain and suffering say €500, medical bills say €600. No long term damage or scars. Where the fudge does this lunatic come up with €30,000Answering her barrister Anthony Lowry BL Ms Skaudvilaite said she also had to take tranquilisers for a time because of the upset involved and in the first week had been to see a doctor about three times.
It's a touch more than sore cheeks for two weeks. Awards will always seem high if you deliberately understate injuries.Duff Paddy wrote:Well when you have judges plucking massive figures out of thin air I suppose I can see how some old fella thinks a woman deserves a years salary for some mild soreness of her cheeks for two weeks