Responsibility

[markeee]

Couldn't find the news thread..could've sworn I'd seen one before

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383927/Teenage-girl-left-paralysed-diving-friends-pool-drunken-party-suing-father-6m-displaying-warning-signs.html

Just read that..surely part of it has to be the girls responsibility?! She was 18 at the time so legally an adault,people want to be treated like an adult as early as possible, she was of the legal age to be treated as such but when she made a stupid decision she now blames the girls father whos house it was?!

[Kyelo]

All for I feel for the girl being in a wheel chair she can f*ck off in my view. No chance she deserves anything.

[brighteyes]

Would be shocked and appalled if she won any money at all.

I hate imagining the thought process people must go through to do things like this. Fair play it's incredibly hard getting your life back on track after such trauma, but all the while you must know it's your fault. Yet somehow you decide you deserve £6m from a completely innocent man, because your lawyer says you might be able to get it. Sick.

[spwan-of-the-devil]

Her own fault should get no cash at all!

Lawyer just wants to make cash, American style of sueing people at every chance comes into it again!

Edited May 5, 2011 by spwan-of-the-devil

[OneLittleFish]

I'd like to hear the facts of this story from a source other than the Daily Mail before making judgement on this tbf.

[markeee]

Would be shocked and appalled if she won any money at all.

I hate imagining the thought process people must go through to do things like this. Fair play it's incredibly hard getting your life back on track after such trauma, but all the while you must know it's your fault. Yet somehow you decide you deserve £6m from a completely innocent man, because your lawyer says you might be able to get it. Sick.

[philipsteak]

I'd like to hear the facts of this story from a source other than the Daily Mail before making judgement on this tbf.

[brighteyes]

I read this before judging her (well, just after judging her)... not much difference except this says she is also suing the NHS Trust managers. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8168857/Teenager-suing-friends-family-for-6m-after-pool-party-injury-leaves-her-paralysed.html

Edited May 5, 2011 by brighteyes

[Banana Co]

That's f**king ridiculous! Warning Signs! She just couldn't hack the f**king drink. Lastly; I hate Daily Mail.

[markeee]

Why the daily mail weren't saying she's right to be suing anyone?!

[kingjamma]

So basically if I was to go round a friends house that has a swimming pool, get drunk and do something stupid like diving in and screw myself up I can sue for millions? Hmmm

[markeee]

So basically if I was to go round a friends house that has a swimming pool, get drunk and do something stupid like diving in and screw myself up I can sue for millions? Hmmm

[Kyelo]

So basically if I was to go round a friends house that has a swimming pool, get drunk and do something stupid like diving in and screw myself up I can sue for millions? Hmmm

[worm]

It says nothing. There are no details other than of an accident and their being a case. It says that the prosecution are suggesting that there should have been signs and information regarding the depth, but doesn't tell us why. So it's leading people to assume that it's baseless, when in fact we have no idea of the facts pertaining to the situation.

I did find the reporting of the public speech made by the defense funny though:

'Describing the tragic case as a "no win situation", Mr Burton added: "It's not good for anyone - If Miss Grimes wins her case then the homeowner will be made bankrupt. But if she loses, then she gets nothing."

So it's an entirely 'typical' situation then.

Sport is terrible. If one team wins, the other loses. And if the other team wins, then the other loses. No win situation that.

Edited May 6, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

It says that the prosecution are suggesting that there should have been signs and information regarding the depth, but doesn't tell us why.

It does in essence tell us why, as the whole basis of the claim. The suggestion is that it's every householder's responsibility to inform any visitors to their premises of any potential danger that an adult might get themselves into.

But just as believing that there should be a sign to tell your adult visitors that the cup of tea you've given them is hot would be considered ridiculous, then so is this. A cup of tea by definition is served hot, just as a swimming pool by definition holds various dangers.

Any competent adult does not need telling to take care with drinking a cup of tea, and so similarly they do not need telling of the dangers that swimming pool can represent. If they choose to not properly consider those dangers then that should be their fault alone.

If this case were to be successful, then every council is open to being sued for any accident on any road, for not putting up signs saying 'danger' every five yards - which is of course patently ridiculous, yet road accidents are possible for more than just adults.

Sadly, this is one of many instances that have been growing over the (at least) last 30 years, where the idea has been imported from the USA that it's impossible for anyone to hold any culpability for their own actions, and that it's always someone's fault but their own.

While I can understand why someone who has suffered such a serious injury might look for someone to blame to compensate them for the difficulties their changed situation gives them, I'm astounded that this case has even reached court. It doesn't get any more ridiculous.

[jump]

I find the friend/daughter the most interesting part of this, at one point she says she thought about telling people not to jump in but decided they wouldn't listen and she put the pool's light on to show the depth of it.

[worm]

It does in essence tell us why, as the whole basis of the claim. The suggestion is that it's every householder's responsibility to inform any visitors to their premises of any potential danger that an adult might get themselves into.

But just as believing that there should be a sign to tell your adult visitors that the cup of tea you've given them is hot would be considered ridiculous, then so is this. A cup of tea by definition is served hot, just as a swimming pool by definition holds various dangers.

Any competent adult does not need telling to take care with drinking a cup of tea, and so similarly they do not need telling of the dangers that swimming pool can represent. If they choose to not properly consider those dangers then that should be their fault alone.

If this case were to be successful, then every council is open to being sued for any accident on any road, for not putting up signs saying 'danger' every five yards - which is of course patently ridiculous, yet road accidents are possible for more than just adults.

Sadly, this is one of many instances that have been growing over the (at least) last 30 years, where the idea has been imported from the USA that it's impossible for anyone to hold any culpability for their own actions, and that it's always someone's fault but their own.

While I can understand why someone who has suffered such a serious injury might look for someone to blame to compensate them for the difficulties their changed situation gives them, I'm astounded that this case has even reached court. It doesn't get any more ridiculous.

[jump]

All assumption. All put into a pre-existing narrative that you have in your head about the prevalence of American sue culture. The British media at work. Well done. Get that anti-American sentiment going.

There may have been a faulty or uneven floor, she may have been duped, she could have been pushed, there could have been oil lying around, they may have told everyone that it was shallow. Anything could have happened. But lacking such details, look at the prejudices and assumptions that it's fed. Illustrated perfectly Neil. Fine job.

[eFestivals]

All assumption.

except the part where there's a law suit going on because the person who got injured thinks that it was the responsibility of the householder to give warnings of danger.

All put into a pre-existing narrative that you have in your head about the prevalence of American sue culture.

a narative based in indisputable fact.

The British media at work. Well done. Get that anti-American sentiment going.

I guess the yanks are doing that anti-yank thing too.

Perhaps you should actually go there, then you'd be able to see for yourself rather than invent untruths.

There may have been a faulty or uneven floor, she may have been duped, she could have been pushed, there could have been oil lying around, they may have told everyone that it was shallow.

except there's no suggestions that any of those might have happened, except perhaps for the last (I can't be bothered to read the article again to check).

Meanwhile, there is a solid suggestion that the householder had a responsibility to warn of the dangers of the pool, given that's what the court case is all about.

Anything could have happened.

yep - you smartening up could have happened, but sadly it's not.

But lacking such details, look at the prejudices and assumptions that it's fed. Illustrated perfectly Neil. Fine job.

No prejudices, no assumptions.

It's beyond doubt that the numbers of court cases on a basis like this ("it's not MY fault I did something, it's yours") has grown hugely in the last 30 years.

It's beyond doubt that this trait was first seen in large numbers in the USA.

All illustrated perfectly. A very fine job.

Try going to the USA, and checking out their newspapers and TV channels thoroughly. Then you'd know more than you currently do.

[RABun]

The law states that you have a responsibility for the health and safety, or duty of care to people visiting your property. This includes trespassers by the way. So yeah if you have someone to visit you at home and they damage themselves it is your responsbility if you have not taken adequate steps to safeguard them. Which includes signs saying not to dive into a pool or at least telling them that its not a safe depth to dive into. I'm sorry but the law will quite possibly say it is his fault.

[eFestivals]

The law states that you have a responsibility for the health and safety, or duty of care to people visiting your property. This includes trespassers by the way. So yeah if you have someone to visit you at home and they damage themselves it is your responsbility if you have not taken adequate steps to safeguard them. Which includes signs saying not to dive into a pool or at least telling them that its not a safe depth to dive into. I'm sorry but the law will quite possibly say it is his fault.

yup, the law quite possibly will do, while ignoring all personal responsibility.

Which only gets to prove that the law is an arse.

[kingjamma]

you can try

are you suggesting that it's worth getting paralysed to get lots of money?

[worm]

except there's no suggestions that any of those might have happened

Edited May 6, 2011 by worm

[worm]

It already says in the article, she turns up at a party she's not invited to, gets drunk and then sees other people jumping in the lit pool so she dives in of her own free will in at the wrong end after spending time in the pool already.

[Banana Co]

I like to think that when I'm drunk my mind is quite sharp. I'm an extremely witty person!!