[Closed] Why can't some folk take responsibility for their own actions....

Toys19 - do you realise that insurance claims are not 'free money' and that such claims are responsible for the constant premium increases we all experience.

Yes this is the same as it'll cost the taxpayer for her foolish actions. So I'll ask the question again, do you personally find these insurance costs crippling?

Toys19

What did the home owner do wrong, that they should be compensating her for? How is it their fault that an adult saw a swimming pool, assumed it was deep enough to dive in to and then hurt herself?

Should local councils be sued when people go 'tomb stoning' and injure themselves in a similar way?

Can I sue the Hurtwood Estate next time I wash out on a wet tree root, for not putting the trails out of bounds after the rain?

Don't get me wrong, I feel very sorry for her, but she made a bad decision. Not the home owner

toys19 if someone came into your house drunk and decided to slide down your banister ending up with them breaking their leg. Do you think it'd be right for them to sue you?

Perhaps you can think of a better comparable example, as this isn't exactly tragic like being paralysed is it.

Its someone not in full control of themselves acting irresponsibly?

The only claim that she had in my eyes was the fact that she was invited into the house (albeit not by the home owner).

toys19 if someone came into your house drunk and decided to slide down your banister ending up with them breaking their leg. Do you think it'd be right for them to sue you?

Perhaps you can think of a better comparable example, as this isn't exactly tragic like being paralysed is it.

The fact that she is paralysed is terrible. But the point of fault/blame is the same regardless of the severity of the consequences

Like I said previously you have all persuaded me now, thanks, Chapeau. I was wrong.

"Perhaps you can think of a better comparable example, as this isn't exactly tragic like being paralysed is it."

Come on you cant have double standards! You could certainly end up paralysed and without working tackle if theres a nob on the end of the bannister!

I'll ask the question again, do you personally find these insurance costs crippling?

is that crippling literally or figuratively?

The fact that she is paralysed is terrible. But the point of fault/blame is the same regardless of the severity of the consequences

I agree totally.

We've all done some pretty daft things when we were younger. Sadly this young lady didn't 🙁

phil.w - Member
I'll ask the question again, do you personally find these insurance costs crippling?
is that crippling literally or figuratively?

Well this is my point, I would ask you to compare yours/converts outrage at having to pay more tax/insurance versus being crippled. Which is what you all seem to have a problem with.

I don't think the owner should have to pay out personally, and I don't agree with insurance fraud but I don't object to her trying to claim on his insurance. (which is what the court case would really have been about) if he didn't have insurance than I'll put money on it that her solicitor would have advised her not to continue.

LOL convert I had to copy toys' post to see if he'd said Al or AI...anyway experimenting on you might be fun! [s]are you hot? pics? [/s]

Here's what I am taking from this thread:

1. NO ONE here knows whether the hospital has any blame for her condition.
2. yet MOST here have already formed strong opinions about it...
3. ...giving more oxygen the "ambulance chaser" BS pedalled by the tabloids.
4. NO ONE here has been in a similar situation and I'd bet money any of them who had would have different views.

I'm presuming that was an Ai experiment, not an aL experiment. The thought of being a mutant Cyinic-al creation is slightly unnerving!

Only just seen that edit myself. Sort of a carbon spoon wielding, mouth frothing nutter.

4. NO ONE here has been in a similar situation and I'd bet money any of them who had would have different views.

Except for me, as my empathic, moral and political compass is already going in the right direction.

Well this is my point, I would ask you to compare yours/converts outrage at having to pay more tax/insurance versus being crippled. Which is what you all seem to have a problem with

Where did ever say I was outraged by this. I asked you to explain why you think she is entitled to the money considering it was her actions that led to the situation that she is in.

And how much more tax/insurance would we have to pay if everyone who goes through something like this was able to claim?

Except for me, as my empathic, moral and political compass is already going in the right direction.

On an purely empathetic level of-cause she should have the money. I doubt anyone would deny that.

But to continue to hold that view back in reality where all other factors are considered is, at the very least, naive.

Well this is my point, I would ask you to compare yours/[b]converts[/b] [b]outrage at having to pay more tax/insurance[/b] versus being crippled. Which is what you all seem to have a problem with.

Show me my "outrage" at having to pay more tax please. I want to pay more tax, and I want this lady to be able to rely on state support (if she actually needs it) rather than throwing out spurious chancer claims.

But you have completely (and this does not really surprise me) missed the point of my original post - I would like to live in a world where people take responsibility for their own actions.

Just an aside, based on the very limited knowledge of the case (Cynic-al has a very good point here - blimey I am his horrendous creation!) what would YOU have decided if you were the judge in this case? And what would have been your been your reason for your decision?

Where did ever say I was outraged by this. I asked you to explain why you think she is entitled to the money considering it was her actions that led to the situation that she is in.

No where, sorry I assumed you were a hater..
It isn't about "entitlement" its about our society standing up for the values it believes in.

And how much more tax/insurance would we have to pay if everyone who goes through something like this was able to claim?

I dunno. Its worth thinking about.

Oh aye toys, point 4 was not aimed at you.

Sort of a carbon spoon wielding, mouth frothing nutter

🙁

convert - Member
I would like to live in a world where people take responsibility for their own actions.

Such as the pool owner (had he been liable, and on the face of it the decision seems right), or the hospital (who may well have contributed to her paralysis, we have no idea)?

Al - totally agree (I'm making a habit of this). If the hospital is shown in time to have exacerbated her problem through incompetence I would hope they would hold their hands up. If the pool owner had filled it with piranha and put a sign at the side of the pool that said "come on in, the water's lovely" I would hope he would also put his hand up too.

What this lady (or her lawyer) wanted the owner to have done was put a locked fence around the pool just in case she came around late at night to save her from herself.

Al you are the carbon spoon wielder, convert by analogy with the mail is the mouth frothing nutter. I imagined a union..

Why can't some folk take responsibility for their own actions....

This looks like outrage to me.

. Why can't she accept the she is due that same state aid as everyone else in her situation - no more, no less?

You call that outrage - you live in a very mellow world! I'd call that expressing an opinion. By your standards we are all (inc your good self) outraged most of the time. Anyway, the outrage you accused me of was at raising of taxes - show me please. You are also not great at having a discussion without feeling the need for insult, you might like to work on that...or not.

I don't understand where you're coming from Toys, it seems you're being contrary for the sake of it.

The judgement was completely correct, her injuries occurred through no fault of the owner/daughter so how can they be culpable?

I also agree with convert, I would like more money to go to social care for the disabled (regardless of how they were injured), but believe it can be found from sources other than taxation.

Convert, I agree the claim looks ridiculous but I've not seen the pleadings and know very little about OLA, albeit I understand it can put onerous duties on owners...

Toys hvae you any comments on my latest project? My spoon-collection is waiting.

I wonder where the omnipotent-opinionated-oracles sit on this topic?

insults

Because I've read your posts over the last two years and you sound like an AI experiment with your artificial neurons modelled on the Daily Mail.

Do you mean this

Sort of a carbon spoon wielding, mouth frothing nutter

And this?

TBH mouth frothing nutter is exactly the image I have of you, I'm sorry if its insulting but its genuinely how you come across. I don't have any respect for your opinions and I think that you are ignorant of the facts of this case and ignorant of the paralysed girls position and feelings. It appears that you want to casually pass judgement over her without knowing anything about her. Sounds exactly like Daily Mail Think to me.

I don't understand where you're coming from Toys, it seems you're being contrary for the sake of it.

The judgement was completely correct, her injuries occurred through no fault of the owner/daughter so how can they be culpable?

I'm not, but I think you have misunderstood what I am trying to say, my fault for not being explicit enough. I am sure the judge made the correct decision in law. This is not under question by me. What I was questioning was converts apparent need to vilify the claimant for her actions. Esp when he appears to not know much about her apart from some admitted playground gossip.

biscuit anyone?

It's not necessarily as straightforward as the insurance paying out even if she won. M&S home insurance, for example because it's popular on here, only covers up to £2 million. Even Hiscox, which looks like insurance for posh people, only covers up to £5 million. So this chap could still, [i]theoretically[/i], have to find million of pounds.

toys, Fine - now I know where you stand I can happliy ignore most of what you type if I come across it as rantings. Your opinions of me are of no matter but the fact you are unable to express your opinion without resorting to insults does devalue their worth in my eyes (and many others too I'd imagine).

Well I only disagreed with what you said precisely because you come across as the MFN so I thought I should point it out. The fact that you don't value my opinions heartens me.

It's not necessarily as straightforward as the insurance paying out even if she won. M&S home insurance, for example because it's popular on here, only covers up to £2 million. Even Hiscox, which looks like insurance for posh people, only covers up to £5 million. So this chap could still, theoretically, have to find million of pounds.

Unlikely I'll bet my bottom dollar the 6 million was the limit of his insurance.

I'm only saying this aspect of it as I speak from experience of having a claim made against me, where it was all about my insurance. They gave up when they found my parents house insurance didn't cover me, but only after a legal fight to get disclosure of my Dads insurance cert and policy.

It isn't about "entitlement" its about our society standing up for the values it believes in.

And those values are being upheld, aren't they?
- She'll get support for her condition, regardless of the fact that it was her fault.
- Blame won't be appointed to someone who is blameless.

The whole thing is very, very sad. She probably doesn't believe for a moment that it's really the owner's fault, she is likely just facing the future and following up the options open to her.

don't argue on teh internet kids, leave it to the big hitters, you'll just look like this:

[img] [/img]

What I was questioning was converts apparent need to vilify the claimant for her actions. Esp when he appears to not know much about her apart from some admitted playground gossip.

Fair enough, apologies!

It may well be toys, who knows. It was just a thought.

And those values are being upheld, aren't they?
- She'll get support for her condition, regardless of the fact that it was her fault.
- Blame won't be appointed to someone who is blameless.

I don't disagree with the legal aspect, and I don't think the Dad is fault. My point was really about not villifying the girl for precisely the reason you state (quoted below) and cannot stand the "made your bed lie in it " attitude of the OP's original post.

The whole thing is very, very sad. She probably doesn't believe for a moment that it's really the owner's fault, she is likely just facing the future and following up the options open to her.

thegreatape - Member
It may well be toys, who knows. It was just a thought.

And a fair one, I agree that the Dad should not personally have to pay it, but if his insurance rolled over and paid her, regardless of who was to blame, then the world would be a better place. And vilifying her desire to make this happen is shameful in my eyes. Her lawyers must have had an idea that it might work or they wouldn't have pursued it.

Toys19

Her lawyers must have had an idea that it might work or they wouldn't have pursued it.

I don't think the Dad should personally have to pay it, but if his insurance rolled over and paid her, regardless of who was to blame, then the world would be a better place

A better place for who? Her or the other thousands of the insurers customers that have to pay an increased premium because of her actions

Just because a lawyer think he can grab you some money doesn't make it right.

I didn't say it was right or wrong, but I did think it was acceptable for her to try. Lawyers cannot just go to the high court willy nilly you know.

A better place for who? Her or the other thousands of the insurers customers that have to pay an increased premium because of her actions

Well this is my second point isn't it, and I have asked the question twice so I will ask it again.

Is it really so terrible that we have to pay a few quid more insurance so that people crippled by accidents can have a better life? Is that the pain you are suffering from?

Well this is my second point isn't it, and I have asked the question twice so I will ask it again.

Is it really so terrible that we have to pay a few quid more insurance so that people crippled by accidents can have a better life? Is that the pain you are suffering from?

the care she needs is already available to her, so haven't we already paid our few quid each?

michaelbowden - Member
Toys19
Just because a lawyer think he can grab you some money doesn't make it right.

Just because she lost doesn't make it wrong either.

LIke I keep saying, I'd love to see what the sanctimonious on here would be saying if it was them or their loved one in the wheelchair.

the care she needs is already available to her, so haven't we already paid our few quid each?

Why the continual arguing?!

Its an awful event to a young lady and we've all been drunken tits in our time but this poor lady didn't get away with it.

She wasn't due any money as has been proven however its nothing something to argue and argue over.

have you actually tried living on the dole/disability allowance?

No i haven't but plenty of people in similar situations with similar disabilites must do?

It's a tragic accident for sure, but worthy of a 6 million payout, no I honestly don't think so.

"but if his insurance rolled over and paid her, regardless of who was to blame, then the world would be a better place." This bit is simply mad or ill informed the insurance co are not there to insure against her stupidity they have a bargain with the pool owner to help him settle valid claims against him. what you appear to be saying is because something really bad happened to her she should win a lot of money regardless of who caused the harm .

I would happily pay extra taxes to pay for better welfare and health services . I would not happily pay higher insurance premiums to pay "compensation" to those who cannot accept responsibility for there own conduct.

If you understand how insurance works toys "better place" is one that rewards self harm and fraud.

I do fee sorry for the injury she has suffered but i abhor her claim that someone else should pay for it.

something really bad happened to her she [b]should[/b] win a lot of money regardless of who caused the harm .

yeah crankboy you didn't bother to read what I said. I don't think anyone[b] should[/b] do anything apart from all the sanctimounious ((c) cynic al 2011) folk on here [b]should[/b] try walking a mile in another mans shoes before they spout off about other peoples legal actions.

I'm not suggesting fraud.
You are all suggesting that she did this on purpose, it was patently an accident. Insurance is for accidents.

that rewards self harm and fraud

This is frankly a ridiculous thing to say, she didn't break her neck on purpose, and she isn't attempting fraud, saying that is just pure hyperbole.

I'm not suggesting fraud.

Have a quick read back over what you have written?

p.s. don't bother asking me to find it for you, you are a big boy. I've got stuff to do.

Have a quick read back over what you have written?

p.s. don't bother asking me to find it for you, you are a big boy. I've got stuff to do.

It isn't fraud to suggest that someone claims on your insurance.
Imagine that you crash into someone, he doesnt know how to proceed, there is no-one else around, you say.
"Well what we do now is exchange details and you make a claim on my insurance, it will be fine it was my fault."
That is not fraud it's honesty.