J
Sponsored Links
It makes me seethe with rage 
It's a pity that self-inflicted injuries like this are allowed to go to court in the first place.
It ends up costing us all more in the form of premiums.
It's a pity that self-inflicted injuries like this are allowed to go to court in the first place.
It ends up costing us all more in the form of premiums.
In loco parentis
Sponsored Links
J
Johnmelad502
WDIK";p="1249983 said:In loco parentis
Had she fallen out of a window at home would she be suing her parents? No.
Parents and those In Loco Parentis have responsibilities but are not to blame for the drunken behaviour of individuals.
This young lady should think of herself as a survivor, not as a victim.
As victims go, she is a victim of her own irresponsible and stupid behaviour.
Who is this Sue?
hope they counter sue for damage to the pavement, cleaning of the pavement and emotional trauma caused to the staff...
well the law is the law if it had of only opened 4inches she wouldnt of fallen out of it so i think they are liable.
If instead, she had been burnt in a fire, would she then sue if the windows only opened 4".
It beggars belief, that drunks think they should be someone elses responsibility.
G
Goldspoon
The time to start getting angry is when cases are won/lost. Many times the press get hold of these things... then when they are thrown out of court this is NOT reported.
problem is,
insurance company, fearful of mega-payout, settles out-of-court....
The rest of the people paying inflated premiums are the losers.
insurance company, fearful of mega-payout, settles out-of-court....
The rest of the people paying inflated premiums are the losers.
The issue comes down to the duty of care of the school.
The claimant being drunk may not be a significant factor, if the window was faulty, unsafe or not to any applicable regulations, then the school has breached their duty of care.
If a sober person had sat on the cill, or a younger child, or a visiting person etc, then the result may have been the same.
If the claimant's drunkenness contributed, then damages will be reduced accordingly, but the liability of the school would still remain.
Not all these claimants are gold-diggers ... some are genuine
The claimant being drunk may not be a significant factor, if the window was faulty, unsafe or not to any applicable regulations, then the school has breached their duty of care.
If a sober person had sat on the cill, or a younger child, or a visiting person etc, then the result may have been the same.
If the claimant's drunkenness contributed, then damages will be reduced accordingly, but the liability of the school would still remain.
Not all these claimants are gold-diggers ... some are genuine
It's already been said, but you REALLY have to work at accidentally falling out of a window that only opens 12 inches!! I'd have real difficulty wriggling through a gap that small.
Isn't it more likely that, p*ssed as she was, she was trying to climb out of the window to go and rejoin the party she'd just been dragged out of by staff.
Isn't it more likely that, p*ssed as she was, she was trying to climb out of the window to go and rejoin the party she'd just been dragged out of by staff.
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
