Compo culture

Status
Not open for further replies.
The tram surfer who received €550,000 for her injury, despite admitting the accident was her own fault, takes some beating ! She does sound lovely though and perhaps endeared herself to the judge.
 
We can blame the Legal profession. We can blame the false claimers. We can blame greed. We can blame anything or anybody we wish. But, until our government introduces a law proclaiming personal responsibility against stupid accidents we might as well get used to paying higher premia forever.
 
Where costs are found against the plaintiff, I wonder if the solicitor who brought the case had to pay the fine initially and get the funds from the plaintiff themselves would it help???
 
demoivre said:
The tram surfer who received €550,000 for her injury, despite admitting the accident was her own fault, takes some beating ! She does sound lovely though and perhaps endeared herself to the judge.
Click to expand...

Its wrong to target the plaintiff here. She didn't make the award.
Regardless of her irresponsibility (even as 13yr old) the case does appear to have identified a genuine flaw in safety standards of operating the trams.
This time it was an award made by a judge, not the plantiff, for actions that amounted to wreckless behaviour by a 13yr old child.
Fortunately we weren't dealing with accidental and tragic consequences of someone else who may have suffered injuries as a consequence of this flaw in safety standards.
It sends a message to operators of such vehicles that there is no room for a drop in any standards.
A payout like this will drive safety standards.
I do think payouts, particularly where guilt is admitted, should be costed for the medical treatment provided.
 
What specific flaw in safety standards are you talking about?
 
Purple said:
What specific flaw in safety standards are you talking about?
Click to expand...

I assume the claim that there were inadequate visual systems in operation was upheld? That that was a factor in determining liability for the injuries sustained?
Otherwise, on what basis was the award made?
 
WolfeTone said:
I assume the claim that there were inadequate visual systems in operation was upheld? That that was a factor in determining liability for the injuries sustained?
Otherwise, on what basis was the award made?
Click to expand...
So not being able to check if there are people hanging in to the outside of the Tram is a safety flaw?
What if she had climbed onto the roof? Should the driver have to check that before they pull off from each stop too?
This is the usual case of a well heeled judge throwing around other people's money like a king in his court. I remember the case of a man who came home drunk to the council house he had lived in for decades and falling on the tiled floor in his hall and getting over a hundred thousand from the judge when he sued the Corpo. The judge was "looking after the poor chap".
 
Purple said:
So not being able to check if there are people hanging in to the outside of the Tram is a safety flaw?
Click to expand...

I haven't read the full judgement, I can only go on what was reported in the article.

"Veolia Transport's failure to have any adequate visual systems employed and activated on the tram meant the driver was unable in the circumstances to see the non platform side of the tram before leaving the station.
It was claimed the tram pulled off from the station without first observing the non platform side of the tram."

Sounds pretty alarming to me if a driver of a tram is unable to see out on one side of the vehicle.
 
WolfeTone said:
Sounds pretty alarming to me if a driver of a tram is unable to see out on one side of the vehicle.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget that these very same trams, with the lack of idiot detection are working perfectly well in other countries where people who endanger themselves are not receiving massive payouts for their stupidity.
 
Nothing to do with stupidity, all to do with public safety.

It doesn't take long to search horror stories of trams and trams and passengers across Europe caught in life threatening situations.
The point being, if the driver was able to see both sides of the vehicle (I would have thought a routine safety procedure using cutting edge technology such as a mirror) then the driver would have seen a child acting irresponsibly by 'tram surfing'.
 
WolfeTone said:
Nothing to do with stupidity, all to do with public safety.
Click to expand...

So what is it about these trams that make them perfectly safe everywhere else but not here?

Putting in place controls to prevent people from doing extraordinarily stupid things isn't a public safety issue. A lot more people are injured in falls from bicycles, perhaps stabilisers should be mandatory for all??
 
So if a driver can't see someone doing something criminal and dangerous he/his company is liable.
 
If the end of the tram is on a bend what use is a mirror.
 
Leo said:
So what is it about these trams that make them perfectly safe everywhere else but not here?
Click to expand...

Im not sure how you have concluded that these trams are 'perfectly safe everywhere else'?
Leo said:
Putting in place controls to prevent people from doing extraordinarily stupid things isn't a public safety issue.
Click to expand...

I agree its not. But employing and activating adequate visual systems for operating a tram would be. I would imagine, for the purposes of minimising injury as a consequence of people's actions (stupid or otherwise).
According to the article, it was claimed that no such adequate visual systems were in place.
I don't have the full judgement, but I will hazard a guess that the judgement in favor of the claimant was based largely on this claim being substantiated and being a primary factor in the resulting injury (combined with the stupidity of the 13yr olds actions).
Admittedly, im only speculating, but I can't imagine the award being given for anything else.

Purple said:
So if a driver can't see someone doing something criminal and dangerous he/his company is liable
Click to expand...

I wouldn't think so.

Purple said:
If the end of the tram is on a bend what use a mirror.
Click to expand...

First, I said "technologies such as a mirror", but not specifically a mirror.
Secondly, was the tram on a bend?
Was this used as a defence?
Was it countered by the plantiff?
Did the judge dismiss it, or did the judge take it into account when making the award? Meaning the award could have been greater if it weren't for this argument.
I don't know, because all we have is a summary of events that propel the irresponsible actions of a thirteen year old into an eye catching headline.
 
So train drivers are now expected to check the non-platform side of their trains to make sure no idiots have climbed onto the tracks and are clinging on to the side of the tram??? Why not make them get them get out of their cab at every stop and walk around both sides of the train and across the roof (they could be there as well). We should do the same with bus drivers. Oh and pilots should be given mirrors so they can make sure no fun loving teenagers have climbed onto a wing for a bit of surfing...…..
 
WolfeTone said:
I wouldn't think so.
Click to expand...
It seems the judge disagrees with you.

WolfeTone said:
First, I said "technologies such as a mirror", but not specifically a mirror.
Click to expand...
So what, practically, should the driver be expected to do? Remember that the LUAS stops at traffic lights, not just at stations.

WolfeTone said:
Secondly, was the tram on a bend?
Click to expand...
No, but there are bends at many points where the LUAS has to come to a halt. Are you suggesting that there should be a protocol for every individual stop and set of traffic lights? Should Transdev do a risk assessment of every place their trams stop and decide to no longer stop at those where the driver won't be able to make sure some gomb hasn't climbed onto the side/back/roof of the tram?
 
WolfeTone said:
Im not sure how you have concluded that these trams are 'perfectly safe everywhere else'?
Click to expand...

The safety certificates and published accident reports confirm they are indeed very safe.

Most of would suggest that an person deliberately climbing onto the outside of a tram for the purposes of getting a thrill or looking cool reflects more on that individual rather than any quality of the tram.
 
Sunny said:
So train drivers are now expected to check the non-platform side of their trains
Click to expand...

With the aid of adequate visual systems employed and activated, I would imagine it to be routine procedure before commencing travel. Wouldn't you?

Sunny said:
Why not make them get them get out of their cab at every stop and walk around both sides of the train and across the roof (they could be there as well).
Click to expand...

With the deployment and activation of adequate visual systems there would be no need for such cumbersome checks.

Purple said:
It seems the judge disagrees with you.
Click to expand...

I dont see how? I dont think the award was made on the basis of criminal and dangerous behaviour of the 13yr old.

Purple said:
So what, practically, should the driver be expected to do? Remember that the LUAS stops at traffic lights, not just at stations.
Click to expand...

Activate and employ adequate visual systems before commencing travel.

Purple said:
No, but there are bends at many points where the LUAS has to come to a halt. Are you suggesting that there should be a protocol for every individual stop and set of traffic lights?
Click to expand...

Not at all. The employment and activation of adequate visual systems would appear to be sufficient for the business to avoid liability in the event of accidents occurring, irresponsible or otherwise.

Leo said:
The safety certificates and published accident reports confirm they are indeed very safe.
Click to expand...

I agree they are very safe, but not perfectly safe. Particularly if deployed with adequate visual systems.
My car is very safe, but if the rear brake lights stop working, it is less safe. In the event of an accident, having no adequate brake lights may be a significant factor in determining liability regardless of anything else including the actions of any other party.

Leo said:
Most of would suggest that an person deliberately climbing onto the outside of a tram for the purposes of getting a thrill or looking cool reflects more on that individual rather than any quality of the tram.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't suggest otherwise.
 
Whats even safer than all the safety measures in the world is 13 year olds don't climb on trams. Don't Surf on the back of buses. Don't walk across train tracks. Don't climb into plane engines. Don't walk on motorways. Don't run across busy roads. My 6 year old is taught about dangerous situations and while nothing can prevent pure accidents, if she decided to surf a tram, I wouldn't be suing the train company.
 
But then you'd be properly purple.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register