Judge highlights injustice of defendants having to pay legal costs in failed personal injury cases

[Purple]

Against that in my parent's estate in Dublin the council planted trees on narrow footpaths.
Now, the roots break up the footpaths creating trip hazards.
In autumn, as the leaves and crab apples from the trees fall to the ground, you can't see what you are walking on.
If someone slips in those circumstances I would consider the council negligent.

I wouldn't. If that was the case anyone who trips in a park or forest could make a claim against someone.

 

[odyssey06]

I wouldn't. If that was the case anyone who trips in a park or forest could make a claim against someone.

A footpath isn't a forest. It was a hazard they introduced into what should be a safe surface for walking on.

 

[Purple]

A footpath isn't a forest.

Agreed.
Residents should all keep the area outside their house clear of leaves etc. That way people can see if the path is cracked. Then if someone falls due to leaves they can sue the home owner in question.

 

[Seagull]

Agreed.
Residents should all keep the area outside their house clear of leaves etc. That way people can see if the path is cracked. Then if someone falls due to leaves they can sue the home owner in question.

Except the home owner wasn't responsible for planting the trees, so why should they become liable for maintaining the trees and tidying up around them? If the council decides to plant trees in the pavement, then they need to do the required maintenance

 

[Seagull]

The people who really can't afford litigation are those on a moderate income and with reasonable assets. Lose the case and have costs awarded against you, and your house is on the line. If you have no income and no assets, there's no risk to having costs awarded against you. You can pay it off at €5 a week for the next 50 years.
There needs to be a situation where the judge can award costs against the legal counsel for taking on a ridiculous case.

 

[Nermal]

A footpath isn't a forest. It was a hazard they introduced into what should be a safe surface for walking on.

You know it's autumn, or winter, and so it's wet. You see the trees, you see the path covered in leaves. If you fall, it's your own damned fault.

Trying to pawn off your liability on the council will not result in them cleaning up the leaves; it will just result in the trees being cut down.

Your abrogation of your personal responsibility, and the repulsive whirlpool of greed in the courts that feeds on it, is the reason we can't have nice things.

 

[odyssey06]

You know it's autumn, or winter, and so it's wet. You see the trees, you see the path covered in leaves. If you fall, it's your own damned fault.

Trying to pawn off your liability on the council will not result in them cleaning up the leaves; it will just result in the trees being cut down.

Your abrogation of your personal responsibility, and the repulsive whirlpool of greed in the courts that feeds on it, is the reason we can't have nice things.

It was the council who abrogated their responsibility.
People have a reasonable expectation that a footpath is maintained to the standard of you know a footpath and not a dirt track.
It was the council who put the trees there and caused the hazard, it is their responsibility to follow up on that and their liability when they do not.

There is a whirlpool of greed alright.
There are also legitimate claims when other parties are negligent and need to be held to account.

 

[Purple]

Except the home owner wasn't responsible for planting the trees, so why should they become liable for maintaining the trees and tidying up around them? If the council decides to plant trees in the pavement, then they need to do the required maintenance

As was pointed out the end result will be the council cutting down the trees. If that happens it's 100% the fault of the people who want to enjoy the trees outside their homes which were planted at the tax payers expense but without taking any responsibility for cleaning up a few leaves outside their front gate.

 

[ryaner]

Getting the council to cut down the trees is near impossible at times. In Fingal they even have a right tree in the right place policy these days and I know of more than one household that had to involve solicitors to get a tree removed as it not only destroyed the path but had grown large enough to start impacting the foundation of their house. And these weren't a case of people wanting it done for free, the council refused to let them try to deal with it themselves.

Sadly there are a lot of cases of this where the wrong tree was planted for an area. You can get away with it for 10-20 years in some cases before it starts doing damage but by that time it is no longer just a case of putting some concrete down to repair a footpath.

 

[Marsupial]

I couldn't see any sign of negligence, so I just took it as kids being kids. The manager said I was the first parent who didn't make a claim for an accident like that.
It's crazy that any business should be held liable for that sort of accident.

It's also crazy that a situation has evolved in Ireland where insurance companies will routinely settle such claims out of court - irrespect of their merit - because it's far cheaper for them.

 

[Purple]

It's also crazy that a situation has evolved in Ireland where insurance companies will routinely settle such claims out of court - irrespect of their merit - because it's far cheaper for them.

It is, although it is the insurance company that the claim is against so it is their decision.