Stupid legal case: Eddie Rockets, child gets finger caught in retro sugar dispenser.

P

Purple

Registered User
Messages
13,996
It's nice to see a judge being reasonable and rational and throwing out a crazy case where a woman looked for damages because her small child got her finger stuck in the hole at the top of a sugar dispenser in Eddie Rockets.
What a waste of the courts time and the restaurants money.
 
It says that costs were awarded against the mother.

This should be the biggest deterrant to these nonsense claims.
 
Good for him. I'm sick of hearing about people whose first reaction to any incident is who they can sue. Not to mention the way that the legal system seems to support these grabby chancers.
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.
 
liaconn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Plus the cost of the inevitable insurance increase is passed on to the customer. When rising costs like this force some business's to close, who is pictured on the front of the local paper looking forlorn? Women and children "outraged" and angered by closing of local amenities and services. "It's a sad day for the community" blah blah blah
 
callybags said:
It says that costs were awarded against the mother.

This should be the biggest deterrant to these nonsense claims.
Click to expand...

Well the judge had something to say on this. He mentioned they should come to an arrangment:

suggested the parties may be able to come to some private arrangement whereby only costs from only one hearing might have to be paid.

I don't see any reason for him suggesting this. Only reason would be the mother has no money and cannot afford any fees. My personal opinion is that most of these cases are settled in advance or the insurance company ends up losing because nobody in the legal profession will get paid otherwise. But this case was so outrageous even the judge couldn't rule for the mother.
 
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.
 
peno said:
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.
Click to expand...

There's never a downside.

They have defined the legal system in such a way that they can say justice cannot be served if solicitors shy away from cases for fear of not being paid.

They make similar cases for judges not being allowed go broke as it would leave them open to bribery.

I'm sure a lot of the argument is valid but it's really just setting up the system to suit yourself kind of stuff.
 
I think that came accross slightly wrong - yes someone should always pay the solicitor to ensure everyone gets a fair trial and hearing.

However if seems this case and many others should not be brought to court as there is no justification for them. Here the morals of the legal profesion are challenged. They should clearly tell the client that the case is not winnable rather then going down the road or fighting a case knowing there is no hope of a victory. It seems they take any case and fight it no matter how remote the chances of success are - leaving the client to pick up the costs of something they were never likely to win.
 
Just because they lost doesn't mean the case wasn't winnable. A different judge might have made a different ruling. It was a ridiculous case and I do agree with what you saying but I would be wary of the putting the onus on the legal profession deciding what cases are winnable or not. All they can do is advise their client. Maybe the advice given to the client should be examined in cases like this when it comes to costs.
 
peno said:
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.
Click to expand...

We don't know how the system worked, but I doubt a legal time advised her to take a case, I would suspect she approached them to initiate legal action.

The legal costs is very important, but its rarely applied in cases where business successfully defend a case. But with all the benefits of the injuries board, one consequence is that its too easy and inexpensive to initiate a claim for stupid stuff like this.

She could have done that and ER sought release to go to court . The problem is similar to the issues in the UK with Defamation and the US with Patent "trolling". Even if you've a good defence, it isn't the issue of which way a judge may decide, it's the issue of even if you win, the legal costs could be as much or more than the compensation being claimed as judges don't always award costs when dismissing a case.

There's no incentive not to claim for stuff like this as you're unlikely to get costs awarded against you if you do lose and too many businesses will settle to get rid of a claim rather than defend and still end up significantly out pocket, even if they win.
 
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.
 
RainyDay said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Purple said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I can't stand it when parents in restaurants let their kids play with the sugar bowl, salt and pepper shakers etc. They're not toys and other customers have to use them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top