Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Quadriplegic loses $5 million lawsuit

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by Roaster, Feb 28, 2011.

  1. [​IMG]

    I wouldn't wish his injury on anyone, and I definitely send pity to the guy becoming a quadriplegic. But I'm relieved that the council was not held responsible for his actions.

    Should the council have paid out?

  2. NO,

    Why should the council be held responsible,

    You fall over walking down the street, Who's fault is that, your own,

    He dived into a river, Thats full of unseen risks, His fault, entirely.
  3. It's awful thing to happen, but I can't say I'm sad to see that he lost the case.

    Does anyone know anything about the circumstances of his decision to sue? It would be interesting to see if the abmulance chasers offered to represent him on a no win no fee basis, given that the costs of having someone stand up to represent you could be cri... (No, sorry, I won't say it.)
  4. YES,

    But only if you the council was responsible for his education, because he is clearly an idiot.

    What happened sucks, but passing blame onto others for his own lack of judgement.. this is not america!
  5. What a retard. It's people like him that make this a nanny state. If they lost and were deemed at fault for not holding his hand every time he walked out the door, it would only make it worse.
  6. I've _always_ known to check water (particularly outdoors of course) before diving in for water depth and any objects that could be hit if diving/jumping into the water.

    I guess he'd also try to sue someone if he was driving 100km/h in an unsigned 50km/h road, using a mobile phone then looked up to see a dog, swerved and rolled the vehicle several times hurting himself (before or after the injury he has now)???

    As others have said, he seems to be an idiot of sorts.
  7. This guy could not possibly have grown up in rural australia. Would be blame others for twisting his ankle in an animal den? How about snake bites?
  8. I can remember having it drummed into me as a kid not to dive into water without checking first.

    FFS do people expect councils to erect signs every 50 metres or so along rivers warning about diving?
  9. His own fault, plain and simple. What idiot dives into water where both depth is unknown and you can't even see the bottom. Bloody stupid!
  10. Its tragic that he has suffered those injuries, but come on..unless members of the council came down to the river and threw him, or pushed him in, its really his own fault, and as some one said earlier, its the reason we have this nanny state.
  11. I've ended up not doing much in the way of swimming, but I still know that diving into unfamiliar waters is a bad idea.
  12. To be fair, it does look like they'd been at it for a while before he came acroppa. Its not like he just dived in at the get go and cocked himself. So it's genuine misfortune on his part. Doesn't change the fact that he's the only one to blame, but I think the context has to moderate any imputations of unreasonable foolishness.
  13. I do feel for the guy, but I am so glad the judge didn't award him the damages.
    Hopefully he had insurance to help him with medical bills.
  14. Ahh, if the council put the riverbed there are a shallow depth and then put the rope swing there, then sure, the council should cough up. But they didn't. The council will now go there and chop down the rope swing.

    Mind you, how does one fall into the water head first of a rope swing? The guy must have been a bit of a numnut anyway.
  15. I wonder if he'll have to pay the councils court costs as well seeing he lost??
  16. A lot of these cases could be stopped, if the no win no pay lawyers were forced to pay costs themselves if they lose, if they faced having to py the councils legal bills they may have advised him he had little to no chance
  17. stupid people don't deserve payouts.

  18. NO.

    Sorry it happened to him, sad thing, but he did it to himself. The council can not be held responsible for the stupidity of every drunken fool. There is a reasonable expectation that all REASONABLE efforts to make the place safe will be made, but you have to draw the line somewhere - and this case was very much on the wrong side of that line.
  19. But do we know if these were the terms though?

    I actually think the no-win-no-fee thing has its place. There are a lot of people out there who wouldn't never able to fight a case and get the compensation they are rightfully due without them. Usually the places that offer it wont touch you unless they reckon they 90-100% sure the case is winnable. If it did get up on this basis, and then didn't win, it would be in the minority.
  20. Who is he going to sue, Hahahahahahahaha