As a result we end up with all sorts of tedious rules and regulations to protect business owners, employers, schools etc from becoming the victim of ridiculous claims.
It says that costs were awarded against the mother.
This should be the biggest deterrant to these nonsense claims.
This strikes of a case where there is no downside for the solicitors involved and they ploughed on to court knowing that someone will pay them.
True the case was outrageous and she should have to pay the costs.
Or perhaps the legal team that advised her to take this case and not only the initial case but to then appeal it to the high court after it was thrown out of the circuit court. Surely they have to take their share of the blame here. This strikes of a case where there is no downside for the solicitors involved and they ploughed on to court knowing that someone will pay them.
What does "ER" mean?She could have done that and ER sought release to go to court .
Eddie Rockets I would imagine:What does "ER" mean?
...finger stuck in the hole at the top of a sugar dispenser in Eddie Rockets.
I'm not so sure about the central issue in this case. This restaurant is a family restaurant, targeted at families with young kids. Young kids will explore. It sounds like the design of the sugar dispenser created a kind of trap for little fingers. Bad design, bad procurement, bad risk assessment.
No sharp edges, just a hole for the sugar to come out... What sort of risk assessment do you expect the restaurant to make?!
Maybe the core issue is a mother who didn't see anything wrong with her child sticking her finger into a sugar dispenser that everyone else was expected to use... Selfish and dirty. Bad parenting and a lack of consideration for other people seems to be the core issue.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?