Personal Injury Claim - help

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.. .
 
Last edited:
...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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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 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.
Click to expand...
Obviously, I meant that if she or her child were injured in a car accident that someone else caused.
 

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.
 

Well said , the compo culture in this country is sickening.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Thirsty said:
It still comes down to what medical expenses were incured; are there mobility issues and where on the leg the injury occurred.
Click to expand...

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
 
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......
 
@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.
 

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
A clear example of the backwards thinking we are seeing.

That's the type of claimant that should be vilified.
 
Last edited:
Thirsty said:
though with the villification [sic] going on here,
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ah cmon now theres plenty of villification...you should practice some straight talking yourself mathpac
 
jim said:
Ah cmon now theres plenty of villification...you should practice some straight talking yourself mathpac
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register