A girl who spilled tea on herself, due to her own stupidity, has just been awarded €85,000.
What sort of nonsense is that?
What sort of nonsense is that?
€85,000 for spilling tea on yourself
- Thread starter Purple
- Start date
Carrying the cup under her elbow!?? Good grief, yes she was young and irrespective of age, should have been given a tray so they definitely could be considered negligent, but I wouldn't call a 25/75 responsibility split in her favour fair, I mean who the hell ever carries tea under their elbow? (note to self, carry the Frappuccino there instead, temperature would be lower...)
It's part of The, "I'm not responsible for my actions", that is allowed to permeate through society these days. If the collective legal system could be given a serious route up the proverbial we might be able to get back to a time when responsibility and right and wrong are the prevailing norms.
Even after the maria bailey fiasco there is still no urgency by government in reigning in the compo industry. The judges dont seem to be getting the message either. The government could change the constitution to allow them to legislate on awards, only a few weeks they had a very unimportant and inconsequential change to divorce by referendum, championed by non other than Josepha Madigan, yet they are dragging their feet on the compo industry.
The child should have sued her mother, not the retailer.
Should retailers now refuse to serve children?
Should my local shop stop serving my 8 year old daughter ice creams incase she takes her own eye out with the pointy end of a cornetto?
How can the retailer be responsible for how a customer holds a product after they serve it to them?
Should pubs insist that patrons bring their own trays if they are going to order more than two drinks at a time?
Should pubs with stairs insist that customer only carry one drink as a time in case they are going to use that stairs while carrying their drinks?
Should pubs with stairs refuse to serve people who only have one hand in case they choose to use the stairs?
It was an unfortunate accident due to the stupidity of the child (at 12 I expect everyone to know that you don't carry a paper cup of hot liquid by squeezing it between your arm and your body) with possible contributory negligence by the child's mother.
The decent think for Starbucks to do would be not charge them for the clean-up, but that's about it.
Even carried on trays, accidents can happen and broken glass is of course, very dangerous. Perhaps all beverages should only be sold in suitable non-breakable containers.
A 12yo child in a City Centre Starbucks with her grandmother 4 days before Christmas.
A 16yo young woman with permanent scarring.
OK, let's blame the victim
*confused* If it had happened in a suburban Starbucks with her grandfather 4 days before Easter, would that have made a difference???
I believe the "scar" is rather small and barely noticeable.A 12yo child in a City Centre Starbucks with her grandmother 4 days before Christmas.
A 16yo young woman with permanent scarring.
OK, let's blame the victim
Also if another report is believed that family had no problem going to disney the week after the incident - hardly someone in extreme pain getting copious amounts of plastic surgery.
Surprised this didn't actually go for hearing, but probably got the wrong judge and the costs would have mounted up
So the person behind the counter has to have some "Is the customer a gob-daw" training now and assess their ability to carry a hot drink?A 12yo child in a City Centre Starbucks with her grandmother 4 days before Christmas.
A 16yo young woman with permanent scarring.
OK, let's blame the victim
Is McDonalds liable if a child pours a sachet of salt into their eye?
A victim? There is the person who was injured due to their own stupidity.
Unless someone threw the tea over her or it was magic tea which attacked her is she really a victim, other than being victim of her own carelessness?
When I was a child I fell off my bike and broke my collarbone and fractured my skull.
My parents let me out unsupervised and the road surface was in a shocking state. Which one should I have sued?
Yes, it does indeed. I wonder should I get some sort of disability allowance? After all, I might be entitled to it.Well that explains a few things
It's a pity she wasn't holding 2 cups of tea in her hands on the swing. Then it would have been game on! €85,000 x 2 plus the trauma and pain and post-traumatic fear of swings (would have kept her out of playgrounds and gardens with swings) and, or course, the fear of tea and other hot beverages would have kept her out of restaurants and kitchens. The poor woman might have starved to death as a result!
yes true to an extent, however even if you conclude that the retailer has some liability ( which would be a very liberal interpretation) , the real issue is the astronomical award of 85,000 euro, thats where the irish system is totally at odds with the rest of the world. Its the level of awards that is the central issue and needs to be reined in.
But if rewards, sorry awards, were in line with the rest of the world, only the significantly affected would claim in the first place, now where would that leave my learned friends.
If it was any other country the decimal point would be moved one place left.
The insurers can take some blame for rarely applying for costs against those who lose.
If people realised that they could lose €100,000 in costs, you'd find few going the high court route.
But with Joe public paying, insurers making profits and members of the government both providing advice that other members cannot lose in taking a dubious case, it is unlikely to change.
If fianna fail made it a key point of any election campaign with a promise of reform within 100 days, they'd get a fair wind behind them.
Today is a classic
Obvious exaggeration, settlement of no compo, but likely no costs applied. So he pushed the button, didn't win the jackpot but probably no loss either. No punishment for trying to thieve a fortune
www.independent.ie
The insurers can take some blame for rarely applying for costs against those who lose.
If people realised that they could lose €100,000 in costs, you'd find few going the high court route.
But with Joe public paying, insurers making profits and members of the government both providing advice that other members cannot lose in taking a dubious case, it is unlikely to change.
If fianna fail made it a key point of any election campaign with a promise of reform within 100 days, they'd get a fair wind behind them.
Today is a classic
Obvious exaggeration, settlement of no compo, but likely no costs applied. So he pushed the button, didn't win the jackpot but probably no loss either. No punishment for trying to thieve a fortune
Retired waiter who sued over 'slip and fall' in pub withdraws High Court claim
A retired waiter who sued over a slip and fall on the wet floor of a pub he worked in ten years ago has withdrawn his High Court damages claim.
www.independent.ie