# Personal Injury Claim - help



## LaurenGalway (21 Aug 2020)

One of our children recently had a bad fall in a forest and ended up with a very nasty injury to her leg - required hospital visit, 35 stitches and will be scarred 

He/she fell off a tree that had been cut down, no notice anywhere about the tree felling and it was right beside the trail.

scary experience to be fair.

A number of friends have since suggested that we should take a personal injury claim against the county council. Quite robustly actually.

So in your legal opinions
(1) do we have a case? 
(2) should we pursue it?

appreciate any educated feedback..

thanks in advance


----------



## Jazz01 (21 Aug 2020)

LaurenGalway said:


> A number of friends have since suggested that we should take a personal injury claim



Were you with your child when they climbed the fallen / cut down tree? Was there an adult present? Did you/another person tell him/her not to climb up on it? If not, was there not an onus on you to protect the child from such things happening ?

I understand it was scary - such things always are when a child is injured, but why is the fault of the council? Even if there was a sign up about "felled trees", would it have stopped the child from climbing ?


----------



## deanpark (21 Aug 2020)

Worth speaking to a PI solicitor to get their opinion - you'll always wonder what might have been if you don't.  My daughter fell over some years ago on walking boards on a rural council-run walkway and needed some stitches - we didn't pursue a case but in retrospect we should have.


----------



## fidelcastro (21 Aug 2020)

How do you fall off a tree which is already cut down?. And you were in a Forest?
Seems your child had an accident , compo cases   prevent today's children from enjoying & exploring nature  as children should, climbing walking running exploring  without worry. This time will go soon enough when they become adults.

Looking for monetary compensation won't heal the injury any faster, so please consider your actions & impacts they have on communities, and your child's environment.


----------



## mathepac (21 Aug 2020)

Sorry to hear your child was injured, always traumatic, not least for the parents.  Was this on public or private land? Any notices posted about ownership or trespass? Forests by their nature are wild places with inherent dangers from fallen or falling objects, burrows, thorns, briars and other nasty undergrowth, wasps, bees, ants, horseflies, nettles, thistles and other potentially stinging and biting flora and fauna.

Why does someone need to be sued when a member of a rambling group gets injured by the stuff that's in there naturally?  Did you deliver the "Things to watch out for and things not to do" lecture? Did they get the "Take nothing but photographs, leave nothing but footprints" speech? No?

People wonder why insurance is so expensive and difficult to get in this benighted little country of ours.  I suspect people like your friends are part of the reason. No you don't have a case, but IMO maybe your unfortunate child has a case against you.


----------



## LaurenGalway (21 Aug 2020)

deanpark said:


> Worth speaking to a PI solicitor to get their opinion - you'll always wonder what might have been if you don't.  My daughter





deanpark said:


> Worth speaking to a PI solicitor to get their opinion - you'll always wonder what might have been if you don't.  My daughter fell over some years ago on walking boards on a rural council-run walkway and needed some stitches - we didn't pursue a case but in retrospect we should have.



Appreciate the feedback - never sued for anything in our life but when I see that injury I really think there is a case to answer.
Looking for a legal view here


----------



## LaurenGalway (21 Aug 2020)

fidelcastro said:


> How do you fall off a tree which is already cut down?. And you were in a Forest?
> Seems your child had an accident , compo cases   prevent today's children from enjoying & exploring nature  as children should, climbing walking running exploring  without worry. This time will go soon enough when they become adults.
> 
> Looking for monetary compensation won't heal the injury any faster, so please consider your actions & impacts they have on communities, and your child's environment.



Fidel I’m not looking for a moral verdict thank you very much - I’m perfectly happy with my/our morals - I’m asking a legal question - is there a case or not from a legal perspective.


----------



## mathepac (21 Aug 2020)

fidelcastro said:


> Seems your child had an accident ,


I think the unfortunate child had a stupid. There are far more stupids than accidents in Ireland as I told the lady from ESB Networks when we lost our electricity supply AGAIN one week-end earlier this year. Some eejit cut a tree down, taking supply lines with it. Having informed me we should be grateful the eejit wasn't injured in the accident, I said I wasn't the least bit interested in his state of health but wanted assurance he wouldn't be involved in another "stupid" close to our ESB supply network.  Lead balloon time.


----------



## LaurenGalway (21 Aug 2020)

mathepac said:


> Sorry to hear your child was injured, always traumatic, not least for the parents.  Was this on public or private land? Any notices posted about ownership or trespass? Forests by their nature are wild places with inherent dangers from fallen or falling objects, burrows, thorns, briars and other nasty undergrowth, wasps, nees, ants, horseflies, nettles, thistles and other stinging and biting flora and fauna.
> 
> Why does someone need to be sued when a member of a rambling group gets injured by the stuff that's in there naturally?  Did you deliver the "Things to watch out for and things not to do" lecture? Did they get the "Take nothing but photographs, leave nothing but footprints" speech? No?
> 
> People wonder why insurance is so expensive and difficult to get in this benighted little country of ours.  I suspect people like your friends are part of the reason. No you don't have a case, but IMO maybe your unfortunate child has a case against you.



it’s public, no notices.
There was tree cutting beside a trail. 
before everyone gives the compo culture lecture again that’s not what we’re looking to do
I’m asking a legal question - is there a case or not? 
don’t need the lectures or how to raise children


----------



## Early Riser (22 Aug 2020)

LaurenGalway said:


> never sued for anything in our life but when I see that injury I really think there is a case to answer.



Another layman viewpoint, I'm afraid.

Clearly there has been an injury. The extent of it is not the point. And the injury is to your child - not you. So any claim you might make would be on behalf of your child.

The child could potentially sue someone who had a duty of care in the circumstance. This could well be the Council - if the Council owns/runs the forest where the injury occurred. Was it a maintained walkway? You as parents also have a duty of care to the child, so the argument could be made that any action should be against yourselves, or against the Council and yourselves jointly. An action against your selves is unlikely (unless taken by another relation on the child's behalf - very unlikely), but a defence of contributory negligence against any claim you might make is likely enough.

Which leads to another point. Whichever party had the duty of care (or if both had) - was there negligence on their behalf? Bear in mind it was a forest walk, so the standard would not be the same as for, say, a footpath. Should the Council (if they had a duty of care) have erected a sign ? Would it have made any difference? Or should the child have been better supervised? Etc.

Obviously it is very unlikely that the child is going to sue you. But in the event of an action by you on her behalf, it seems to this layman that a potential defence would relate to your duty of care, and at least partial (or contributory) negligence on your part. There would also likely to be a denial of negligence and that a fallen tree in the context of a forest is not negligence.

In relation to your specific question "is there a case or not?" it would seem to me there is a case. Whether or not the case would succeed is a different thing. You may recall a case that made the news prominently over recent years. It was won in the Circuit Court but lost on appeal. I am not suggesting your case is directly the same or that it would proceed so far, but some of the precedents it set may be relevant.









						High Court overturns €40,000 damages payout to woman who fell on Wicklow Way
					

The judge said the woman was genuine, but had been negligent when she fell.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## Jim2007 (23 Aug 2020)

LaurenGalway said:


> I’m asking a legal question - is there a case or not?
> don’t need the lectures or how to raise children



You’ll  get opinions on both sides from lay people and legal eagles alike, but you won’t know the answer to that one until you have your day in court.  But what you can expect for sure is that your parenting skills will feature very much in the defense case


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (23 Aug 2020)

Was it a Coillte-owned forest?

In managed forests owned by Coillte tree felling is common, inevitable even.

Felled areas can be right beside forest paths and quite hazardous. I wouldn't even take a short cut through one and I've spent a lot of time outdoors.

In any case a fallen tree is impossible to avoid once you're in a forest. It can be often _more_ hazardous to leave a damaged tree up.

In my (casual) knowledge there aren't many successful claims for personal injury in forest settings in Ireland.

Personally I would leave it be.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (23 Aug 2020)

Early Riser said:


> Clearly there has been an injury. The extent of it is not the point. And the injury is to your child - not you. So any claim you might make would be on behalf of your child.



Also, claims involving children are approved by a judge, and details are read out in open court.

Are you happy to have you and your child's details reported in the media? Even in an unsuccessful case?


----------



## evil_g (23 Aug 2020)

LaurenGalway said:


> Fidel I’m not looking for a moral verdict thank you very much - I’m perfectly happy with my/our morals - I’m asking a legal question - is there a case or not from a legal perspective.




You haven't given enough information for anyone to answer a legal question. Certainly not enough for anyone to confirm that you have a valid claim for damages.

It's not enough that you see an injury and assume that someone must owe you money.

Your child "fell off a tree that had been cut down". In this context, what does "fell off" mean? Was your child climbing the tree?

When you say there was no notice about the tree felling, what type of behaviour did you permit your child to engage in, that you would not have permitted had you seen a notice informing you of something so out of the ordinary as a tree falling in a wood?

Clearly you're not looking for a moral verdict. You're looking for money.

All Fidel is doing is asking you to consider the effect of your actions on those who pay taxes, insurance both directly and indirectly, and who may now or in the future like to bring their kids to a public amenity. 

That you see this gentle request as a moral verdict isn't all that surprising. You want money, and have convinced yourself that you deserve money. Being asked to think about the person you will effectively be taking the money from must be jarring. 

If you could provide a little more detail as requested above, we might be able to answer your legal question. The vagueness of the information you've provided to this point suggests that there might be more to the story that wouldn't reflect well on you.


----------



## Vanessa (23 Aug 2020)

You went for a walk in a forest. Surprise surprise there was a tree on the ground after being cut down. Is this a likely occurrence in a forested area?  Yes. Would it be a reasonable expectation that the forest owners would have signs stating. Danger Trees cut down.  I dont think that it would be reasonable. If a tree was in a dangerous state and at risk of falling there would be some level of duty of care.
Your questions. 1. Do we have  case. There is always a case. The question to be asked should be "Is there a winnable case on the balance of probabilities?"
I'm not so sure. It could be a gamble. You could win the case but on a percentage liability which mightnt be great financially.

2. Should we pursue it?  With the exception of scarring the child will make a full recovery. However the child is a female and the scarring might be embarassing in later life. You will need expert medical advice to be able to give the court an idea of the possible level of visible scarring into adulthood.
There wont be a big payout in any event. I dont think it would be a High Court case and if it is a State forest they wont settle as it would create precedents.
Some shyster solicitor might recommend taking a case but there would be a certain amount of costs incurred with no guarantee of an awarda


----------



## Feemar5 (23 Aug 2020)

Forget it and move on - your child has recovered which is the most important thing.


----------



## sharkattack (24 Aug 2020)

Not going to comment on the merits of your case as don't know the full story (as you failed to provide it) but if its the council you intend to pursue you should know that they defend these actions rigorously as they should.  They will have experts at their disposal who will counteract facts you present.  So be prepared for the long road ahead and the very large costs involved in taking a case where you will have to present your own expert reports and witnesses (if they were any).  And if you fail you will be landed with a sizeable council bill along with your own.  35 stitches is a hell of stitches to receive from falling off a tree that was on the ground so could only be a few feet high....I'd expect a broken bone or two but 35 stitches is open heart surgery territory stitching.


----------



## David_Dublin (24 Aug 2020)

These things happen, they are called accidents. I hate the idea of people looking for someone to blame. Get on with your life, take more care the next time. If the tree was felled while your child was underneath it then fair enough, but this kind of thing turns my stomach. You may not want the compensation claim culture lecture, but you deserve it. And yes, some solicitor will take the case, and be delighted to charge you lots of money. Doesn't make it the right thing to do.


----------



## Thirsty (24 Aug 2020)

Where on the leg was the injury? 

Is your child unable to walk / has a limp and is that likely to improve?

What medical expenses did you have?


----------



## Saavy99 (24 Aug 2020)

Be thankful your child is ok and not left with long term brain damage as many are after sustaining falls.


----------



## nad (24 Aug 2020)

This might be a simplistic way  of looking at it but if the child had fell from a tree with the same injury  in your garden or in her grandparents  garden would you be considering making a claim on either insurance....I think common sense should play a big part  in you decision making...and even if you might think  there is a case why would you think the council is responsible for your child falling off a tree while out walking in the care of yourself.. .


----------



## Thirsty (24 Aug 2020)

> ...if the child had fell [sic] from a tree with the same injury in your garden or in her grandparents garden would you be considering making a claim on either insurance


This has been done in the past; where there are significant medical costs and / or ongoing mobility or other issues, it's not necessarily a "bad" thing to do.

But until the OP answers the questions asked, it's impossible to advise.

edit to add: the number of stitches always sounds dramatic and gets quoted, but in truth it's meaningless in terms of the injury.  A jagged laceration (and my guess is that's what happened here) will require far more than a straightforward incision.


----------



## Peanuts20 (24 Aug 2020)

Ok, so parking the morality play for a second

Under the Roads Act, 1993, landowners and occupiers of land are obliged to take all reasonable care to ensure the trees, ditches, hedges and other vegetation on their land are not, or could not become a danger to people using or working on a public road, including pedestrians and cyclists.  So were you on a public road, path or were you trespassing on private land?

Secondly, had the tree fallen or was it cut down?. If it was cut down, did the land owner have a license from the council to fall the tree. If the tree fell, it may be debatable if the landowner has liability, the "reasonable person" test could be argued that it is unreasonable for a landowner to check their land consistantly to ensure no tree was down. Note there are grounds for when no tree felling licence is needed. 

Judges are getting thankfully stricter on dubious claims, the challenge here will be to establish was the land owner negligent and did not take all reasonable care. 

First step should be to establish who owns the land.


----------



## Lettercastle (24 Aug 2020)

LaurenGalway said:


> it’s public, no notices.
> There was tree cutting beside a trail.
> before everyone gives the compo culture lecture again that’s not what we’re looking to do
> I’m asking a legal question - is there a case or not?
> don’t need the lectures or how to raise children


You obviously do need a lecture if you are willing to take a case against for somethings you let your child do, sign or no sign.  This is why our  public parks and forests will all be closed shortly and why farmers are scared witless to let walkers pass through their land.  Its not like someone caused a car accident etc, at the end of the day it was your own fault whether you like to hear it or not.


----------



## mathepac (24 Aug 2020)

Lettercastle said:


> Its not like someone caused a car accident etc


If someone caused it, it's a stupid as I mentioned above, often referred to these days as an "incident", hence an RTI rather than an RTA.


----------



## Lettercastle (24 Aug 2020)

mathepac said:


> If someone caused it, it's a stupid as I mentioned above, often referred to these days as an "incident", hence an RTI rather than an RTA.


Obviously, I meant that if she or her child were injured in a car accident that someone else caused.


----------



## Early Riser (24 Aug 2020)

Peanuts20 said:


> Under the Roads Act, 1993, landowners and occupiers of land are obliged to take all reasonable care to ensure the trees, ditches, hedges and other vegetation on their land are not, or could not become a danger to people using or working on a public road, including pedestrians and cyclists. So were you on a public road, path or were you trespassing on private land?



I don't think it is an either/or between a public road and private property. 

I am quite near a park and forestry area which is open to the public for recreational walking. It is not open for vehicle traffic, though. It includes woodland walks, which are pathways, some surfaced, some not. I doubt it would be classed as a "public road". It would not be unusual to see a fallen tree, whether through natural causes or felled by the Council. Whereas there is no doubt that the Council has a duty of care, as the park is open to the public, I would be reasonably confident that the same standard of care would not apply as on a public road.


----------



## mathepac (24 Aug 2020)

Lettercastle said:


> a car accident that someone else caused.


I repeat if someone caused it, it's not an accident, it's a "stupid" or "incident".


----------



## Saavy99 (24 Aug 2020)

Lettercastle said:


> You obviously do need a lecture if you are willing to take a case against for somethings you let your child do, sign or no sign.  This is why our  public parks and forests will all be closed shortly and why farmers are scared witless to let walkers pass through their land.  Its not like someone caused a car accident etc, at the end of the day it was your own fault whether you like to hear it or not.



Well said , the compo culture in this country is sickening.


----------



## Lettercastle (25 Aug 2020)

mathepac said:


> I repeat if someone caused it, it's not an accident, it's a "stupid" or "incident".


Is stupid a technical term or just your judgement on someone who is the reason for the accident lol.


----------



## Steven Barrett (25 Aug 2020)

Is there negligence by Coillte? 

Is leaving a felled tree in a forest negligent?  I doubt it. 

Is it even Coillte's fault? Should they be watching your kids climbing felled trees? Would your daughter have taken heed of any sign that said there were felled trees in the forest? Did you say anything to your daughter as she climbed the felled tree? 

This is really something for a PI lawyer. But as someone who walks in forests all the time, there are felled trees all over the place. I would imagine Coillte have taken legal advice on this already.


----------



## Thirsty (25 Aug 2020)

It still comes down to what medical expenses were incured; are there mobility issues and where on the leg the injury occurred.

OP still hasn't answered that, though with the vilification going on here, I'm not surprised.


----------



## Early Riser (25 Aug 2020)

Thirsty said:


> It still comes down to what medical expenses were incured; are there mobility issues and where on the leg the injury occurred.



I am not so sure. It first depends on responsibility for the injuries. Was there fault on the part of the Council/Coillte? Can it be established that they were negligent? If they were not, then they are not responsible for the injuries. Fallen trees (or cut down trees) in a forest would not in itself appear to be negligent, unless there was more to it. 

_"Ruling on that appeal today* Justice White said Wall was “a genuine person” who had suffered injuries that had greatly affected her “active lifestyle”.*
However he said when considering “the mechanism of her fall” the judge found there was “high degree of negligence on Wall’s part in that she was not looking at the surface of the boardwalk when she fell.”
Justice White added the case raised a number of complex legal issues.* After considering all the points raised he was satisfied that the NWPS was not negligent and said he was allowing the NPWS’s appeal."*_









						High Court overturns €40,000 damages payout to woman who fell on Wicklow Way
					

The judge said the woman was genuine, but had been negligent when she fell.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## Sunny (25 Aug 2020)

So you went for a walk in a forest...Your child went off the path and climbed on top of a tree that had been felled BESIDE the path. Child fell off the tree and unfortunately hurt her leg and now you want to sue Coillte because of.........???

You will always find someone who will tell you that have a case if that's the road you want to go down but it sounds ridiculous to me......


----------



## Thirsty (25 Aug 2020)

@Early Riser

If medical expenses were low, there's no mobility issues and any scar is likely to be covered by day-to-day clothing, then the loss suffered is of a significantly lower order.

In my view that would be the first question.

After that you can consider liability issues.


----------



## Steven Barrett (25 Aug 2020)

Thirsty said:


> @Early Riser
> 
> If medical expenses were low, there's no mobility issues and any scar is likely to be covered by day-to-day clothing, then the loss suffered is of a significantly lower order.
> 
> ...



The first question is liability, injury second. 

I know someone who got a cut above their eyebrow, scarring non existence. They got €10,000 because the shop in question had left something sticking out of the shelf that they tripped over.


----------



## Thirsty (25 Aug 2020)

SBarrett said:


> know someone who got a cut above their eyebrow, scarring non existence[sic]. They got €10,000 because the shop in question had left something sticking out of the shelf that they tripped over.


A clear example of the backwards thinking we are seeing.

That's the type of claimant that should be vilified.


----------



## mathepac (26 Aug 2020)

Thirsty said:


> though with the villification [sic] going on here,


I see no evidence of vilification in the thread, a variety of opinions and some straight talking are evident for sure. The paucity of hard   information is the main contributor to the straight talking.


----------



## jim (26 Aug 2020)

Ah cmon now theres plenty of villification...you should practice some straight talking yourself mathpac


----------



## evil_g (26 Aug 2020)

jim said:


> Ah cmon now theres plenty of villification...you should practice some straight talking yourself mathpac



Usually we only encounter these people on page 4 of the Indo. It's nice to get to respond to one directly. 

If you want to describe my contribution as vilification knock yourself out. I tried to be polite, factual and constructive.

If you're encouraging me to engage in straight talking, I might as well admit that I consider the OP's sense of entitlement, ignorance, and self righteousness to be comparable to the mindset of a common thief. It's arguable that the OP's attitude has a more detrimental impact on Irish society.

Change my mind.


----------



## Thirsty (26 Aug 2020)

@mathepac - many thanks for the proofreading, have corrected.

Based on your last post, you may need to work harder on your efforts at being "polite, factual and constructive."


----------



## DirectDevil (26 Aug 2020)

Consider two of the relevant first principles. 
In brief, claimant has to prove the following;

1. Intended defendants owed her a duty of reasonable care.
2. There was a breach of that duty of care.

2 will be particularly problematical on the bare evidence disclosed thus far.


----------

