Defendant seeks costs from solicitor for plaintiff for "taking case that was bound to fail."

Brendan Burgess

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
54,789
A very interesting case here

www.breakingnews.ie

Spectator hit by ball at Dublin-Mayo game in Croke Park has damages case dismissed | BreakingNews.ie

Bernadette Martin (53) of Montpelier Drive, Montpelier Hill, Dublin 7 was standing in Hill 16 at the semi-final replay between Dublin and Mayo in 2015 when a shot went over the netting and hit her in the head, smashing her glasses.
www.breakingnews.ie www.breakingnews.ie

He said he had been instructed not to ask for costs against Ms Martin, who was injured at the semi-final replay between Dublin and Mayo in 2015, but was asking the court to make a costs order against her solicitors.

Mr Marray said a number of letters had been sent to her solicitors advising them that her case was bound to fail after a number of actions relating to similar Croke Park incidents had been withdrawn when rigorous safety precautions had been pointed out to potential claimants.

Unfortunately, the judge did not make the order against the solicitors.

They should have sought an order against both and if it had been granted against the plaintiff, let her take a case against the solicitor.

Brendan
 
The idea that solicitors who take/encourage hopeless cases in the hope of getting defendants to settle should bear the costs is a good one.

In this case I am not clear why the woman could not win her case, she obviously contributed in no way to her injury, the idea that the netting was 'the highest possible' is meaningless, it clearly wasn't high enough in this particular case.

The real idiocy here is the claim for €60,000 damages. her glasses were broken, no doubt she was upset. If she got the cost of a GP visit plus €500 for her day out being spoiled that would have been more than adequate compensation for the loss she did suffer through no fault of her own.
 
cremeegg said:
the idea that the netting was 'the highest possible' is meaningless
Click to expand...
A brief newspaper report can hardly regurgitate all the details of the expert witness report. Presumably that report explained things in more detail.
 
For me this case demonstrates all that is wrong with the system… by contrast here in Switzerland, which like most of Europe has civil law, the most she would legally be entitled to is the cost of the repairs to her glasses, nothing else. She would not even get past reception at a lawyer’s office with her claim never mind going to court.
 
cremeegg said:
In this case I am not clear why the woman could not win her case, she obviously contributed in no way to her injury, the idea that the netting was 'the highest possible' is meaningless, it clearly wasn't high enough in this particular case.
Click to expand...
Previous cases argued on the same grounds have all failed, they could only have been successful if they introduced something new. The quotes suggest they didn't and so the solicitors would have known this wasn't going to be successful if it ended up in court.

The idea of the netting being the highest possible is very meaningful here, it demonstrates that the GAA took all possible measures to reduce risk.
 
Jim2007 said:
For me this case demonstrates all that is wrong with the system… by contrast here in Switzerland, which like most of Europe has civil law, the most she would legally be entitled to is the cost of the repairs to her glasses, nothing else. She would not even get past reception at a lawyer’s office with her claim never mind going to court.
Click to expand...

What might it take to have that policy here?

Legislation?

Or a referendum?
 
cremeegg said:
In this case I am not clear why the woman could not win her case, she obviously contributed in no way to her injury, the idea that the netting was 'the highest possible' is meaningless, it clearly wasn't high enough in this particular case.
Click to expand...
Just because someone hurts themselves, doesn't mean someone is liable. Accidents happen. The engineer said that the net was the highest possible. The kick that sent the ball was high was a freak event. If people/ organisations have to plan against freak/ unlikely events, we will all have to to be covered in bubble wrap before entering any premises and the costs of everything would sky rocket.
 
To be fair, it was Mayo at Croke Park. No safety precautions would ever be enough to cover all the ways that they have devised to miss the target...

I wish the judge had awarded costs against the solicitor. The fact that the solicitor went to the circuit court and exposed his client to potential costs if awarded less than 15,000 was disgraceful considering everyone can see it had no chance of winning. The woman is very lucky that the GAA didn't look for costs from her. The solicitor should be investigated by the law society.
 
The issue is pretty obvious…if you go to a match, there’s a chance that you might get hit by a stray ball. It’s implied that the risk is there.
 
Sunny said:
The woman is very lucky that the GAA didn't look for costs from her. The solicitor should be investigated by the law society.
Click to expand...

I suspect that the solicitor's defence would be that his client insisted on proceeding with the case. I'm sure that there would be some correspondence on his file where he warned her that she might loose the case.
There may also have been the hope/expectation that the GAA's insurers would have made an offer before the case came to court.
(The cynic in me also wonders whether if a different judge had heard this case might there have been a better outcome for the plaintiff.)
 
Shirazman said:
I suspect that the solicitor's defence would be that his client insisted on proceeding with the case. I'm sure that there would be some correspondence on his file where he warned her that she might loose the case.
Click to expand...

Very good point which reinforces my suggestion that the GAA should have pursued both of them for their costs.

Brendan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top