# Eligible for Personal Injury Claim?



## Ara585 (22 May 2019)

I am UK citizen working in Dublin. 2 months ago I slipped down the stairs of a restaurant in Dublin, I fell onto my back causing injuries to spine and hip. I was off work for 3 weeks and I am still unable to sit in the car for long periods, go to the gym or do any physical activity’s that I used to. I also have trouble sleeping due to the injuries. I was taken to hospital at the time by ambulance and given X-rays.

The steps I fell down were polished wood. They did have small black tread about half an inch? from the edge of the step but there wasn’t any nosing covering the edges, this was the part my foot slipped off. I was wearing thick soles military boot type at the time.

I am considering making a personal injury claim through the injuries board if my injuries have not improved within 6 months. I would like to know if A) being a UK not Irish citizens I can do this and B) If I stand a chance of holding the restaurant liable?

Photo of stairs


----------



## Bronte (22 May 2019)

I recommend the family firm of Minister Josepha Madigan. Should be worth 100K +.  And yes of course you can sue.  Everybody else is.  Ideally restaurant shouldn't have stairs. In fact nowhere should have stairs. And in Ireland having stairs means your insurance premium is higher.


----------



## Palerider (22 May 2019)

Best visit a Solicitor, the fact you are from the uk is not relevant at all.

The stairs look fit for purpose, you may be negligent if you had been drinking or carrying anything or not using the handrail.

Expect this to be defended as it should be, robustly,  as a business like you describe cannot afford higher premiums following a claim so they will defend.


----------



## MangoJoe (22 May 2019)

Sorry to hear of your accident - I hope you are making progress and your treatment is successful.

I'm a little uncertain here however ..... It seems as though you left out the part where you could have taken the opportunity to clearly outline for us exactly how you feel that this establishment acted negligently and put your safety at risk?

Everybody on this earth has a slight misstep on occasion, about 6 months ago I was going down a set of galvanised steel stairs at work, was preoccupied with something, marginally over-stepped the stair tread, stumbled and nearly broke my neck in what would have been a very nasty fall, a fall which would have been completely and utterly my own fault as an adult who should have known the process, required attention to due care and blatantly obvious risks involved.

I can't even contemplate to begin to list the amount of times I stumbled, tripped, skated or fell when alcohol was involved..... I'm not at all suggesting this was likely a contributing factor in your case....

You may or may not be aware but this topic is actually quite topical as businesses across the Country are increasingly finding it very difficult or impossible to meet outlandish hikes in their public liability insurance premiums. Hikes that are in large part directly due to the public making inflated, unworthy or fraudulent claims - these costs are either passed on to the consumer or else the business closes.


----------



## Ara585 (22 May 2019)

MangoJoe said:


> I'm a little uncertain here however ..... It seems as though you left out the part where you could have taken the opportunity to clearly outline for us exactly how you feel that this establishment acted negligently and put your safety at risk?
> 
> Everybody on this earth has a slight misstep on occasion, about 6 months ago I was going down a set of galvanised steel stairs at work, was preoccupied with something, marginally over-stepped the stair tread, stumbled and nearly broke my neck in what would have been a very nasty fall, a fall which would have been completely and utterly my own fault as an adult who should have known the process, required attention to due care and blatantly obvious risks involved.
> 
> I can't even contemplate to begin to list the amount of times I stumbled, tripped, skated or fell when alcohol was involved..... I'm not at all suggesting this was likely a contributing factor in your case....





Ara585 said:


> The steps I fell down were polished wood. They did have small black tread about half an inch? from the edge of the step but there wasn’t any nosing covering the edges, this was the part my foot slipped off. I was wearing thick soles military boot type at the time.





Palerider said:


> Best visit a Solicitor, the fact you are from the uk is not relevant at all.
> 
> The stairs look fit for purpose, you may be negligent if you had been drinking or carrying anything or not using the handrail.
> 
> Expect this to be defended as it should be, robustly,  as a business like you describe cannot afford higher premiums following a claim so they will defend.



I was holding the handrail and nothing in hand. I also wasn’t drinking and have the receipt from that evening, no alcohol was consumed by anyone on our table.


----------



## MangoJoe (22 May 2019)

I had read that text in full the first time thank you. …… If you're old enough to wear thick soled military boots out and about you're old enough to understand how stairs work - You shouldn't have been stepping on the very edges at any point...… Any other detail regarding 'nosing' or anything else is of no relevance whatsoever in my opinion.

I'd bet €954 and a Swiss cuckoo clock that everybody else that used those stairs in the past number of years managed to do so without paramedic intervention.

Personally I'd like to see people taking responsibility for their own actions.


----------



## Ara585 (22 May 2019)

Fortunately I know how to use stairs properly hence why I was holding the handrail concentrating on where I was going. 

Here’s hoping you don’t slip down those stairs at work again because you were preoccupied with something else


----------



## Ceist Beag (22 May 2019)

Maybe the restaurant should have employed someone to supervise the use of the stairs to ensure they were being used correctly - or at least that is what a certain FG TD would probably suggest!


----------



## Bronte (22 May 2019)

Palerider said:


> Expect this to be defended as it should be, robustly,  as a business like you describe cannot afford higher premiums following a claim so they will defend.



That's not how decisions are made. The insurance company will decide.  They'll do so on the basis of the injuries and the likely hood of success. As nobody was supervising the stairs to see the OP was descending them propertly he can put that in his statement of claim.  He can also claim there was no sign saying 'mind the stairs' or 'be careful on the 'stairs' or 'stairs, tread carefully or you may fall' or 'stairs, use the handrail at all times'.


----------



## mathepac (22 May 2019)

Polished (or varnished) treads are a very poor choice for a stair-case in a public area. Take your case to the PIAB/IAB, they will decide if there is a case to answer. IMO there is, but I'm a lay-man.

I hope you recover fully and soon.


----------



## Tenente (22 May 2019)

As others have commented the fact that you are from the UK will not prevent you from bringing a case. 

If you are considering doing so you should get a solicitor on board at the early stage in particular to ensure the correct legal entity is identified from the start. The stairs look in good shape but, in my view, it is not possible to tell from a photograph whether the steps are in compliance or safe. An engineering inspection would have to be carried out in this regard. There is a slip resistance test that engineers can carry out to see if the steps are slippery or slippery to an unsafe level as to become a hazard. They will also deal with other issues such as the uniformity and condition of the steps, the riser and thread, lighting in place at time and whether the stairs were wet etc.  and will also take a close look at that black strip. 
It is a case that is unlikely to be dealt within the Injuries Board process as more than likely the other side will contest liability but you have to go through that Injuries Board process first in any event.  If the matter is not dealt within the Injuries Board then you will have to go to court and ultimately it will be up to a Judge to decide whether the restaurant are responsible for the accident or they are partly at fault for same and you partly at fault for it or they are not at fault at all based on all the evidence from both sides.


----------



## Palerider (22 May 2019)

Bronte said:


> That's not how decisions are made. The insurance company will decide.  They'll do so on the basis of the injuries and the likely hood of success.



Well a Judge will decide but that was not my point.

My point lest it be lost was that business people that have the public on their premises are defending these types of claims robustly. More are going through the Court system, few are settled in advance, let’s follow the TD case in the papers versus the Dean Hotel as a current example and see where it goes.

The Supermac cases are probably the best known, they defend these cases by working closely with their insurance carrier and assist the process by provision of cctv and generally sitting on their carrier to ensure only the most obviously genuine cases might get settled under their subregation clauses.

The carrier employs various methods of enquiry to ensure the claim is genuine, these can as we know include covert observations.


----------



## Bronte (23 May 2019)

Ara585 said:


> I was holding the handrail and nothing in hand. I also wasn’t drinking and have the receipt from that evening, no alcohol was consumed by anyone on our table.


I wouldn't worry at all about holding anything. Nobody directed you not to go down the stairs so it wouldn't have mattered if you had something in both hands. 

The fact you'd zero alcohol makes your claim worth more as then that wipes out contributory negligence.


----------



## Bronte (23 May 2019)

Palerider said:


> The Supermac cases are probably the best known, they defend these cases by working closely with their insurance carrier and assist the process by provision of cctv and generally sitting on their carrier to ensure only the most obviously genuine cases might get settled under their subregation clauses.
> 
> The carrier employs various methods of enquiry to ensure the claim is genuine, these can as we know include covert observations.



As far as I know Pat McDonagh did away with insurance companies all together. He then installed CCTV everywhere, especially the toilets and vigurously defended every claim.  The bathrooms were a really good one, you go in their, throw your coke all over the floor and skate up and down until you fall over and do yourself some damage.  The lads and lassies doing that have now moved to McDonalds or your local pub.  And your local pub and restaurant gets charged more if their bathrooms are upstairs.


----------



## Bronte (23 May 2019)

Palerider said:


> My point lest it be lost was that business people that have the public on their premises are defending these types of claims robustly. More are going through the Court system, few are settled in advance, let’s follow the TD case in the papers versus the Dean Hotel as a current example and see where it goes.



It's the insurance companises who decide to 'settle' or 'defend'. In my own landlord case, the insurance company defended and won.  Teh tenant who claimed he fell off a bad chair lost as he came into court from one jail and his evidence was contrdicted by his girlfriend who came from a different jail too late to hear what her boyfriend had said.  Total chancers.  Despite wrecking my place I gave them the deposit back.


----------



## DirectDevil (25 May 2019)

Just a few points on the general issues.

OP has to prove that the premises were defective.
Specifically, it needs to be established if the staircase was defective.
This is primarily an engineering question. First thing a solicitor will do is to have the premises inspected by a consulting engineer.
If engineer opines that there is a defect a viable case is made out.
Otherwise, no defect = no valid claim.

Standard of proof is the balance of probabilities i.e. 51% more likely than not that the evidence is correct.

OP's nationality is irrelevant to their entitlement to take proceedings.
That said because OP lives outside the jurisdiction they might face an application to a court for an order for *security for costs.*
This means that OP might be required to lodge a certain sum of money in court against the contingency that they might lose the action and the defendant may be awarded costs. As OP is outside the jurisdiction enforcement of a costs order would be problematical otherwise.

It is not the insurance company that decides the case. The case is decided by a trial judge.
The insurance company decides to either defend the case or settle it. If the latter, the insurance company can always negotiate settlement without the need to involve the PIAB.

BTW OP all of this may mean expending heavy outlays initially to even establish if you have a reasonable cause of action.

Hope this helps at a practical level.


----------



## peemac (25 May 2019)

Too many "can I blame someone else and win money" cases. 

Also too many situations where costs are not pursued when a false/exaggerated claim is made. 

This leads to queries like the op. 

Can the op show where on earth is the negligence of the restaurant in the fall? 

Was the stairs wet? 
Was it damaged? 
What was it that they neglected to do that should have been done that would have prevented you falling. 


Or did you just mis-judge a step. 


This ridiculous gravy train has to stop sometime and the sooner the better and the sooner every exaggerated, false and malicious claim has the full costs applied to the claimant and enforced fully, the better too. 

Doesn't matter if you are an English national (they have stairs there too) or a politician, these "blame someone else rather than myself" cases have to stop.


----------



## Palerider (25 May 2019)

Reference my previous contribution above, RTE news report that the well known and now infamous for the worst reasons FG TD has withdrawn her claim against the Dean Hotel.

An amazing recovery from her injuries worthy of miracle status, her time achieved in a 10k race three weeks after the fall was equally impressive.


----------



## MangoJoe (27 May 2019)

Not referring to anyone in particular..... But I've often wondered about all of these fabricated/exaggerated/dishonest cases that are thrown out of court.

If one was to steal a chocolate bar from a shop you might face sanction - Yet if you begin legal proceedings against a person or business etc. lying and exaggerating your claims in the hope of making a quick €50,000 & are found out you simply walk away scott free???

Is this always the case? Surely lying in court would be enough to warrant action against these people.

Also is it not the case that if the legal system did go after these people who are caught in the act of very clearly making inflated/vexatious or false claim then it would discourage others in future.

I wonder is a factor here that the legal profession makes so much hay in this arena they don't want to disrupt the status quo.....


----------



## galway_blow_in (27 May 2019)

While undoubtedly there are many who make false injury claims, the narative recently implies that all of them are fake


----------



## RedOnion (27 May 2019)

MangoJoe said:


> Is this always the case? Surely lying in court would be enough to warrant action against these people.


Perjury isn't an offence here. Some discussion on the topic here:






						Is there any sanction on people making unsuccessful personal injuries claims?
					

There have been a few cases in courts recently which the judge rejected   'You're lying through your teeth' - couple's €60k taxi injury claims hit dead end  Mr English, who appeared for Allianz Insurance, told Ms Lawrence before she left the witness box that he would present proof she was not...



					www.askaboutmoney.com


----------



## DirectDevil (28 May 2019)

There is a difference between making a personal injuries claim th


MangoJoe said:


> Not referring to anyone in particular..... But I've often wondered about all of these fabricated/exaggerated/dishonest cases that are thrown out of court.
> 
> If one was to steal a chocolate bar from a shop you might face sanction - Yet if you begin legal proceedings against a person or business etc. lying and exaggerating your claims in the hope of making a quick €50,000 & are found out you simply walk away scott free???
> 
> ...



Sometimes plaintiffs fail to discharge their obligation to reach the required standard of proof.
The required standard is the balance of probabilities i.e. at least 51% more likely than not. 
In that event the correct procedure is for the judge to dismiss the action.
An application for costs will usually - but not always - follow from the defendant(s).
The judge has absolute discretion in relation to any costs order.

If a claim is grossly inflated / exaggerated and the defendant can establish this the action can be dismissed by the trial judge.

Walking away "Scot free" may well be the actual outcome in some cases. 
If a defendant has an order for costs against a plaintiff it is practically pointless to pursue it if the plaintiff has no means. 
That is the upside for a plaintiff of no means taking a blatantly speculative action.

The issue of "lying in court" is highly problematical. 
Sometimes a plaintiff will tell the truth in accordance with they oath taken before giving evidence but they are simply wrong.
Sometimes a plaintiff will knowingly give deliberately false evidence.
The problem is to distinguish *false* evidence from *erroneous* evidence. 

For the preceding reason it almost never happens that anyone is prosecuted for perjury in this context.
Remember that a prosecutor would have to prove perjury *beyond reasonable doubt.*
Perjury is still a common law offence and there seems to be no enthusiasm to prosecute it.
I think that perjury is going to be placed on a statutory footing which might bring clarity and prosecutions.

For clarity, I am making absolutely no reference to a recent and prominent case. 
There have been many utterly uninformed, unfair and unreasonable assertions on social media about that matter and I will not join that circus.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (28 May 2019)

mathepac said:


> Take your case to the PIAB/IAB, they will decide if there is a case to answer. IMO there is, but I'm a lay-man.



Does PIAB decide if there is a case to answer? 

I don't think so.

They just assess the damages and the parties have to decide if the company is liable for those damages. 

I have just checked their website and I can't find whether they do or not.

Brendan


----------



## Tenente (28 May 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Does PIAB decide if there is a case to answer?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> ...



PIAB don’t decide if there is a case to answer or not and have no role in deciding liability. If there is any liability issue it must be decided in court.  
Essentially a Claim is submitted to PIAB by the Claimant. PIAB then send a copy of it to the Respondent and their insurers ,if any. The Respondent or their insurers respond to PIAB indicating whether they consent to PIAB making an Assessment of Damages or not. If they consent PIAB then make an Assessment. If they do not consent PIAB inform the Claimant and issue him/her with an Authorisation to issue Court Proceedings to have their case heard in court if they wish to do so. 

If the Respondent consents to PIAB making an assessment, PIAB will send the Claimant to a doctor of their own choosing or perhaps more than one doctor if injuries relate to a number of medical issues. They also request a list of out of pocket expenses for consideration. Once they have these items, they will an Assessment of Damages based on the medical reports and paperwork. The Assessment of Damages is then sent to both Claimant and Respondent for consideration. If both parties agree to the Assessment the matter settles for that amount. If either party disagrees with the Assessment and rejects it (e.g. a Claimant might think it is too low or a Respondent think it is too high or may have a rethink and wish to fight the case on liability grounds) then an Authorisation issues for the Claimant to issue Court Proceedings if they wish to do so.


----------



## galway_blow_in (28 May 2019)

Tenente said:


> PIAB don’t decide if there is a case to answer or not and have no role in deciding liability. If there is any liability issue it must be decided in court.
> Essentially a Claim is submitted to PIAB by the Claimant. PIAB then send a copy of it to the Respondent and their insurers ,if any. The Respondent or their insurers respond to PIAB indicating whether they consent to PIAB making an Assessment of Damages or not. If they consent PIAB then make an Assessment. If they do not consent PIAB inform the Claimant and issue him/her with an Authorisation to issue Court Proceedings to have their case heard in court if they wish to do so.
> 
> If the Respondent consents to PIAB making an assessment, PIAB will send the Claimant to a doctor of their own choosing or perhaps more than one doctor if injuries relate to a number of medical issues. They also request a list of out of pocket expenses for consideration. Once they have these items, they will an Assessment of Damages based on the medical reports and paperwork. The Assessment of Damages is then sent to both Claimant and Respondent for consideration. If both parties agree to the Assessment the matter settles for that amount. If either party disagrees with the Assessment and rejects it (e.g. a Claimant might think it is too low or a Respondent think it is too high or may have a rethink and wish to fight the case on liability grounds) then an Authorisation issues for the Claimant to issue Court Proceedings if they wish to do so.



Going through this myself at the moment, PIAB application submitted in March, fully expect the other side to not support assessment but I thought that even this happens, you need to await a PIAB assessment before pursuing matters through the courts and that this assessment process takes a year 

Hope I'm wrong as I've little interest in waiting until next year to begin court proceedings


----------



## DirectDevil (29 May 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Does PIAB decide if there is a case to answer?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> ...



That is correct.

PIAB only assess the quantum of damages.

PIAB have no jurisdiction in determining liability as that is a function of the courts.


----------



## Purple (6 Jun 2019)

Back to the OP. The stairs are wooden and varnished but not polished. The description in the OP is erroneous.

If nobody else fell down the stairs over the last 12 months then the Restaurant should not be held as liable. 

I walked into one of those two step ladders that looks like a footstool in Supervalu on Tuesday. I hurt my back and have a bad cut on my shin (steri-strips but no stitched). Why should Supervalu be liable because I was an egit and not paying attention to what was in front of me? 

This sort of case is crazy. The OP slipped and fell down a stairs. It was an unfortunate accident. Could happen to anyone. Sometimes bad things happen. 
It was not the fault of the restaurant, the stairs, the people who made the stairs, the person who designed the stairs or the architect who specified the stairs. 

End of story.


----------



## mathepac (6 Jun 2019)

DirectDevil said:


> That said because OP lives outside the jurisdiction they might face an application to a court for an order for *security for costs.*
> This means that OP might be required to lodge a certain sum of money in court against the contingency that they might lose the action and the defendant may be awarded costs. As OP is outside the jurisdiction enforcement of a costs order would be problematical otherwise.


Where did you get that information from and why the inappropriate mention of "security for costs"?

The OP states clearly in the first post "I am UK citizen working in Dublin."

I'm having difficulty reconciling the levity in some posts with the fact that the OP suffered significant injury in the incident. "Blame" or responsibility for the incident is one thing; respect for the injured poster should be a given.


----------



## MangoJoe (6 Jun 2019)

Ara585 said:


> Fortunately I know how to use stairs properly hence why I was holding the handrail concentrating on where I was going.
> 
> Here’s hoping you don’t slip down those stairs at work again because you were preoccupied with something else





mathepac said:


> Where did you get that information from and why the inappropriate mention of "security for costs"?
> 
> The OP states clearly in the first post "I am UK citizen working in Dublin."
> 
> I'm having difficulty reconciling the levity in some posts with the fact that the OP suffered significant injury in the incident. "Blame" or responsibility for the incident is one thing; respect for the injured poster should be a given.



Mathepac regarding your above post, you're clearly a nice and decent person - All credit to you.

I'd just point out that our aspirationally litigious friend wished a work accident upon me and I would also be of the opinion that sometimes our actions subsequent to an incident can eclipse the gravity of the original event itself thus preventing mass outpourings of sympathy…...


----------



## mathepac (6 Jun 2019)

Thanks for that. I'd hoped we'd gone past the "he said, she said" tit for tat stuff in here; complaining about it to the mods on boards.ie got me banned, "for consistently being a [diminutive of Richard]" to quote the mod. I don't miss them and I'm sure they don't miss me. If you believe a poster has slighted you here, just report the post.


----------



## galway_blow_in (6 Jun 2019)

Purple said:


> Back to the OP. The stairs are wooden and varnished but not polished. The description in the OP is erroneous.
> 
> If nobody else fell down the stairs over the last 12 months then the Restaurant should not be held as liable.
> 
> ...



I'm curious to know how you " hurt your back" walking into a small knee high step ladder?


----------



## galway_blow_in (6 Jun 2019)

mathepac said:


> Where did you get that information from and why the inappropriate mention of "security for costs"?
> 
> The OP states clearly in the first post "I am UK citizen working in Dublin."
> 
> I'm having difficulty reconciling the levity in some posts with the fact that the OP suffered significant injury in the incident. "Blame" or responsibility for the incident is one thing; respect for the injured poster should be a given.


----------



## Purple (6 Jun 2019)

galway_blow_in said:


> I'm curious to know how you " hurt your back" walking into a small knee high step ladder?


Kind of jarred it when I walked into the steps-thingy. Nothing too serious though. Just a little lower back pain. The cut on my leg is worse. I've no idea how I managed to cut it so badly. The bottom line is that it was my own fault. I take it as a lesson to be less careless.


----------



## MangoJoe (6 Jun 2019)

mathepac said:


> Thanks for that. I'd hoped we'd gone past the "he said, she said" tit for tat stuff in here; complaining about it to the mods on boards.ie got me banned, "for consistently being a [diminutive of Richard]" to quote the mod. I don't miss them and I'm sure they don't miss me. If you believe a poster has slighted you here, just report the post.



Oh I remember your Username from your days on boards.ie -_ Your coining of the excellent term "eejit-coloured glasses" was one that stuck in my mind._

And no, I'm actually more bothered that you'd think I'd be that easily upset..... I just wanted to point out that the much maligned OP had form that's all....

FWIW I too left Boards.ie due to their overall horrible moderation style - The impression I get now is that they lost a lot of their solid, established core membership through their own faults and now deeply regret it.

Back on topic I'm entirely in agreement with Purple here, I've no respect whatsoever for these people who would seek to sue the Supermarket, ladder manufacturer and the man that laid the floor the ladder stood on.....

Purple sorry to hear of your injuries, I hope you see daily improvements and are back in full form in the very short term.


----------



## Purple (7 Jun 2019)

MangoJoe said:


> Purple sorry to hear of your injuries, I hope you see daily improvements and are back in full form in the very short term.


Thanks. I've done worse to myself and most certainly will do so again in the not to distant future.


----------

