News: Paralysed swimmer 'smoked joint' 06/09/2002
- Thread starter wazza
- Start date
Pleonastic
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2000
- Messages
- 9,428
Sounds like a slow news day... 
anfalicious
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Messages
- 1,421
I hope he doesn't win, not because of the marijuana thing, but because I fucking hate liability cases. Liability is the scourge of the planet, and I blame Slater and Gordon for bringing it into this country.
DIE SLATER AND GORDON DIE YOU FUCKING SCUM!
Anyways, yeah, he probably deserves medical bills and reasonable expenses to help him through life. But, if he wins, he'll probably get 20 million dollars or some tripe.
Sorry, but, boy gets drunk, breaks into someones house (which happened to part of a pub), gets hurt by the owner of the place whose defending his house and gets $50K. HIS MOTHER GETS $18K FOR FUCKING EMOTIONAL SUFFERING. Also in the paper today, a family is suing because a rabit bit off the tip of the finger of a toddler, meaning he can't hold a texta straight (never mind the fact that most toddlers dont hold textas straight anyways). The amount that his parents believe should compensate him through this horrific injury... $750 000... Sorry but for $750 000 a rabit can bite off the tip of my dick.
anyways
/end rant
DIE SLATER AND GORDON DIE YOU FUCKING SCUM!
Anyways, yeah, he probably deserves medical bills and reasonable expenses to help him through life. But, if he wins, he'll probably get 20 million dollars or some tripe.
Sorry, but, boy gets drunk, breaks into someones house (which happened to part of a pub), gets hurt by the owner of the place whose defending his house and gets $50K. HIS MOTHER GETS $18K FOR FUCKING EMOTIONAL SUFFERING. Also in the paper today, a family is suing because a rabit bit off the tip of the finger of a toddler, meaning he can't hold a texta straight (never mind the fact that most toddlers dont hold textas straight anyways). The amount that his parents believe should compensate him through this horrific injury... $750 000... Sorry but for $750 000 a rabit can bite off the tip of my dick.
anyways
/end rant
Andromeda
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 26, 1999
- Messages
- 591
I couldnt have said it better myself anfalicious.
we have a similar case up here where an american woman is trying to sue the noosa council, because her husband drowned on a part of peregian beach (one of the most notoriously bad and rough stretches of beach on the coast, and everyone knows it) even tho the ppl at the hotel had told them not to go there, and even tho there are signs warning ppl of the risks of swimming on an unpatrolled beach... *i guess some ppl need signs saying dont swim in this particular 100m of unpatrolled beach, and then signs ever 100m after that...* i hope she loses, the stupid trollop!
another one is a lady who is trying to sue the maroochy council for a injuries she suffered as a result of tripping over on a footpath while walking (injuries suffered: a grazed knee)
Utter stupidity! seriously, things like this should not be allowed!
Andromeda
we have a similar case up here where an american woman is trying to sue the noosa council, because her husband drowned on a part of peregian beach (one of the most notoriously bad and rough stretches of beach on the coast, and everyone knows it) even tho the ppl at the hotel had told them not to go there, and even tho there are signs warning ppl of the risks of swimming on an unpatrolled beach... *i guess some ppl need signs saying dont swim in this particular 100m of unpatrolled beach, and then signs ever 100m after that...* i hope she loses, the stupid trollop!
another one is a lady who is trying to sue the maroochy council for a injuries she suffered as a result of tripping over on a footpath while walking (injuries suffered: a grazed knee)
Utter stupidity! seriously, things like this should not be allowed!
Andromeda
Dante
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2001
- Messages
- 1,266
Basically, it comes down to this.
Many people don't take responsibility for their own actions.
For some reason, they believe that they are never at fault for something, and that they can always find someone else to blame...
FFS, everyone keeps going on about how councils are at fault for people hurting themselves because there aren't warning signs telling them of the dangers... HOW FUCKING HARD is it to use some of that grey mushy stuff located in your skull, and check for danger? I mean, you wouldn't just run across the road without checking for traffic... so why would you dive head first into something that you don't the depth of???
I'm sorry, but humanity confuses the fuck out of me sometimes...
Many people don't take responsibility for their own actions.
For some reason, they believe that they are never at fault for something, and that they can always find someone else to blame...
FFS, everyone keeps going on about how councils are at fault for people hurting themselves because there aren't warning signs telling them of the dangers... HOW FUCKING HARD is it to use some of that grey mushy stuff located in your skull, and check for danger? I mean, you wouldn't just run across the road without checking for traffic... so why would you dive head first into something that you don't the depth of???
I'm sorry, but humanity confuses the fuck out of me sometimes...
lol ahh another stupid public liability case. I hope he loses it. but then they awarded that guy $50k when he was in the wrong, underage and drunk and breaking into someones home.
I mean if someone broke into my home Id kill the bastard. I dont think Im the only one who would either.
wot about that chick who took ecstasy, got on a podium and started dancing, then someone pushed her off so they could have a turn. So shes suing the club (on oxford st) for ruining her dancing career.
I mean if someone broke into my home Id kill the bastard. I dont think Im the only one who would either.
wot about that chick who took ecstasy, got on a podium and started dancing, then someone pushed her off so they could have a turn. So shes suing the club (on oxford st) for ruining her dancing career.
It'll be interesting to see what type of law reform occurs to limit these types of cases.
Attempting to sue the council for injuries sustained by your own supidity is so indicative of the prevalent mindset of your average joe-blow fuck-up. There was a case decided two years ago [Borland v Makouskis - if you interested] which was based on facts that occurred in the canals on the gold coast. Some twat jumped off the balconey of a residence adjacent to the canals and landed in 3 inches of water on jagged rocks. Needless to say this young man now gets around in a blow wheerchair. The stupid prick had to clear 16ft just to land in waist deep water. To have survived without injury, he would have had to out-jumped Carl Lewis on an olympic record day (from a standing start too), landed perfectly and shallowly and missed any possible submerged objects (which he neglected to check for anyways).
Fortunately the original award of damages was reduced largely by the Court of Appeal and he was found 80% (i think) contributorily negligent. IMHO that's not good enough, how the above facts aren't 100% contributorily negligent is beyond me. Same goes for our weed smoking friend who has an affinity for diving into rock pools without checking for submerged objects or depth, and never stops to think "hmm people get crippled doing this".
I think when people try to sue the council in these circumstances, it's akin to taking drugs, and then attempting to sue the police service or customs when you get addicted or overdose because they didn't effectively prevent or give notice of the dangers of ingesting chemicals. They're both dangerous activities you do voluntarily, with dire consequences if you fuck-up, and you should have the common sense to understand that you're playing with fire, and that danger exists.
Hopefully cases where people attempt to sue councils will soon hugely reduced, as most state parliaments and the federal government are looking at enacting new regulatory torts laws, and cases like Ghantous and Brodie have shown that the High Court leans against finding in favour of a plaintiff unless there was a genuine accident and council negligence rather than stupidity and a "it's not MY fault" attitude.
I think that before these people think to sue someone after random acts of their own stupidity, they should be made to walk through the spinal injuries ward of a hospital and made to see and talk to people whose disability was a birth defect, the result of an degenerative illness or totally not their fault (ie hit by a drunk driver/workplace accident), then maybe they can have an appreciation of where the blame lies for their injuries and who really deserves compensation.
EDIT - as for weed smoker, he IS breaking the law, and i guess that goes to showing he doesn't follow laws very well. It's not something that would become common place -"ie Supaspeed injured when a piano falls on him road-runner style, can't get compo because once upon a time he smoked crack", it goes to this particular guy's attitude to follow rules and common sense, and would be confined as such. I say good on the QC for creativity to prevent this jackass from getting money.
[ 09 September 2002: Message edited by: SupaspeeD ]
Attempting to sue the council for injuries sustained by your own supidity is so indicative of the prevalent mindset of your average joe-blow fuck-up. There was a case decided two years ago [Borland v Makouskis - if you interested] which was based on facts that occurred in the canals on the gold coast. Some twat jumped off the balconey of a residence adjacent to the canals and landed in 3 inches of water on jagged rocks. Needless to say this young man now gets around in a blow wheerchair. The stupid prick had to clear 16ft just to land in waist deep water. To have survived without injury, he would have had to out-jumped Carl Lewis on an olympic record day (from a standing start too), landed perfectly and shallowly and missed any possible submerged objects (which he neglected to check for anyways).
Fortunately the original award of damages was reduced largely by the Court of Appeal and he was found 80% (i think) contributorily negligent. IMHO that's not good enough, how the above facts aren't 100% contributorily negligent is beyond me. Same goes for our weed smoking friend who has an affinity for diving into rock pools without checking for submerged objects or depth, and never stops to think "hmm people get crippled doing this".
I think when people try to sue the council in these circumstances, it's akin to taking drugs, and then attempting to sue the police service or customs when you get addicted or overdose because they didn't effectively prevent or give notice of the dangers of ingesting chemicals. They're both dangerous activities you do voluntarily, with dire consequences if you fuck-up, and you should have the common sense to understand that you're playing with fire, and that danger exists.
Hopefully cases where people attempt to sue councils will soon hugely reduced, as most state parliaments and the federal government are looking at enacting new regulatory torts laws, and cases like Ghantous and Brodie have shown that the High Court leans against finding in favour of a plaintiff unless there was a genuine accident and council negligence rather than stupidity and a "it's not MY fault" attitude.
I think that before these people think to sue someone after random acts of their own stupidity, they should be made to walk through the spinal injuries ward of a hospital and made to see and talk to people whose disability was a birth defect, the result of an degenerative illness or totally not their fault (ie hit by a drunk driver/workplace accident), then maybe they can have an appreciation of where the blame lies for their injuries and who really deserves compensation.
EDIT - as for weed smoker, he IS breaking the law, and i guess that goes to showing he doesn't follow laws very well. It's not something that would become common place -"ie Supaspeed injured when a piano falls on him road-runner style, can't get compo because once upon a time he smoked crack", it goes to this particular guy's attitude to follow rules and common sense, and would be confined as such. I say good on the QC for creativity to prevent this jackass from getting money.
[ 09 September 2002: Message edited by: SupaspeeD ]
*M*o*N*i*E*
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2002
- Messages
- 61
Isnt there new legislation implemented by the commonwealth government, which has stopped compensation in those cases where the victum has hurt themselves while committing a crime.
It may be a human rights issue where (no matter what the person was on) the council has a duty of care to up hold by supplying a sign.
But under this new legislation (i would give you the act but its in questioning so i dont know it) but That dude who was getting 50K and his Mother getting 15K has been rejected.
Monie
It may be a human rights issue where (no matter what the person was on) the council has a duty of care to up hold by supplying a sign.
But under this new legislation (i would give you the act but its in questioning so i dont know it) but That dude who was getting 50K and his Mother getting 15K has been rejected.
Monie