Northern Ireland Outdoors Forum - Hiking, camping and more
Information => Outdoor News and Events => Topic started by: admin on April 15, 2016
-
HILL WALKER TERESA Wall, who was injured when she fell on a rotting boardwalk on the Wicklow Way, was today awarded €40,000 damages against the National Parks and Wildlife Service.
In a judgment that will have serious repercussions for all of Ireland’s national parks, Judge Jacqueline Linnane said Ms Wall had been directed by signs to use the boardwalk which, the court held, was a structure placed on the land by the Parks and Wildlife Service.
Judge Linnane said it was clear from photographs produced in evidence that the boardwalk had been made up of second hand wooden railway sleepers that were badly rotted with protruding staples loosely holding down chicken wire.
She told barrister David McParland, counsel for Ms Wall, that reasonable care had not been taken to maintain the boardwalk in a safe condition and this failure was responsible for his client’s injuries, a gash to her right knee which required seven stitches.
Barrister Kevin D’Arcy, who appeared with Erika Fagan for the State Claims Agency, had earlier told the court that although there had been hundreds of falls over the years by walkers in the country’s various national parks – many resulting in broken bones – Ms Wall’s was the first in which the service had been sued for negligence and breach of duty.
The 59-year-old Co Dublin housewife, of Rathingle Cottages, Swords, told the court she had climbed in the Himalayas and to base camp on Mount Everest and could no longer hill climb or run marathons.
She had been walking for 40 years and had walked “all around the world.”
On 6 August, 2013 she and her husband had been coming down the mountain after a 20-mile-plus walk when they had “obeyed the laws of the mountain” by following a sign which directed hikers on to the boardwalk.
She told Mr McParland that she used to run half marathons on a weekly basis as a hobby. She said her foot had snagged in a hole in one of the old railway sleepers that made up an EU ground conservation boardwalk just below the JB Malone memorial on the Sally Gap to Djouce trail near Roundwood.
Read the rest here:
http://www.thejournal.ie/wicklow-way-lawsuit-2717464-Apr2016/
-
OK, let's debate. My opening gambit is that she has started something that is going to wreck it for all of us. If we walk on natural surfaces in the mountains then we have to keep our wits about us so that we don't fall on slippy rock, trip over uneven surfaces, fall off a peat hag etc. How come then when we walk on a surface in the mountains that has been altered in some sense like by a railway sleeper being laid then it's someone else's fault if that surface is not perfect so as to enable us to walk on it without taking responsibility for ourselves. This is the slippy slope to closing the mountains to walkers. I'm disappointed by the ruling.
-
To kick the debate off, I'll disagree with whoRya.
I'm not a fan of the litigious claim culture that has developed in the UK, but that's the reality.
I'll agree with whoRya in that most if not all walkers etc. have an awareness of the terrain being travelled, and each individual with risk assess their own route whatever way they see fit.
But we're not talking about some farmer putting an old pallet up against a tree to use as a gate, and if we decide to use it and fall, then the blame's on us.
This case deals with a government body putting in a specific feature to be used by the public and not taking the reasonable care required to properly maintain it.
Photos showed rotten wooden sleepers, protruding staples and loose chicken wire.
If there were the same issues with the style at Hare's Gap, there would be an outcry from this forum that something be done to fix it, rather than saying to people take responsibility for yourselves.
-
This does have a danger of causing massive harm to the outdoor community, when an organisation knows this kind of thing is a very real possibility they will have to veer on the side of caution. For things like this the only possible way they can protect themselves if by ridiculous health and safety rules for those on their ground including complete areas designated as off limits as the cost to make them totally safe will be too high to recoup. In addition this can only do massive damage to the idea of making Northern Ireland similar to Scotland with their total walkers rights, farmland owners already like using the argument of not wanting to face court action for injuries as a way of keeping folk off land. This just gives them a documented case to fall back on as proof of their fears.
In fact there could be argued a possibility of this having an impact on things like the groups who work in places like the Mournes building the pathways etc. They are heavily made up from volunteers and so may not be fully covered under workplace h&s regulations. If an organisation now has to take into account the risk factor of one of it's volunteers getting a minor injury and suing they could well just scrap the volunteer part of their work force.
All in all some very short sighted ruling and the actions of one greedy woman who had no business being outside of her shoe box has the potential to cause havok to the general outdoor walker community.
-
It's not enough information to say anything positive or negative about the woman, or really any part of it. But it seems it's more "big government" that you're annoyed at (and that any sensible person would be).
I say leave wild places to be wild places. Climbing mountains should be like climbing an old pallet. It shouldn't be unheard of that places exist where visitors are responsible for themselves rather than always having somebody else to blame.
That said,
The path might have actually been badly made and dangerous in a way that would make someone reasonably blameable (note "reasonably blameable" and not "legally blameable"). Not knowing what it is she actually cut herself on, as far as she needed 7 stitches for a cut on her knee, it could have been someone else's artery.
It's good that they tried to preserve the ground in Wicklow, it's maybe not such a good idea that they did it this way, and particularly if they made it mandatory. In doing this they really would only have taken a thin strip of wild out of the wilderness and made themselves responsible for it. Unfortunately this is what happens when you do that. I mean, in an ideal world where lawsuits weren't a problem (or people were sensible with them) and you could walk where you wanted and not just on the board walk (it might be this way still, I don't know enough) if someone fell and hurt themselves because of genuinely shabby work then the workman would still owe the person an apology, a box of chocolates and a promise to fix it.
We don't know if the work was genuinely shabby, the board walk was genuinely to blame, her injury genuinely bad or the choice to sue something genuinely sensible. We all assume that one or more of them aren't, which is really a fault with the law. It should inspire confidence, when it doesn't that's the real shame.
We still owe the woman the benefit of the doubt though. Not wise to say something against her when we really know very little.
-
"one greedy woman who had no business being outside of her shoe box".
What is this suppose to mean Rich?
That's a clueless, crass comment to make. It's without doubt the most sexist and misogynistic nonsense I've read on this site. Are you saying a 59 year old woman who's enjoyed hiking for the last 40 years, has hiked the Himalayas, the base-camp at Everest and ran half marathons every week isn't entitled to enjoy the outdoors? Should the 'greedy woman' be stuck in 'her shoebox' where you think she belongs, and the hills left to the 'serious' male hikers, y'know, like yourself, lol? Cause, male hikers never sustain injuries, jeez.
She sounds like she'd put most of us on this forum to shame with the amount she's done. She's 59, injuries take a lot longer to heal at that age and 7 stitches in your knee is not a minor injury, especially for a hill-walker, never mind her age. She's had the quality of her life ruined from sustaining an injury (through shoddy workman-ship as noted by the Judge) doing an activity she's quite clearly passionate about and yet, you can only pour badly thought out sexist comments on her. Really?
-
When I first read this story I felt like just about everyone else that this will surely open the floodgates for claims which will in turn close the field gates for walkers like ourselves >:( and surely everyone walking the hills does so at their own risk, but when I read more about the story I found this the claim is based on the negligence of the path maintainer, of course we would all expect a reasonable attempt be made to maintain a path that we were expected to use. Now I haven't seen the photos of the said boardwalk but the description sounds like it was some sort of boobytrap! Have a look of this picture taken on Donard a few months ago.
(http://i1222.photobucket.com/albums/dd496/landyliam/2016/P1130215%20Medium_zpstimsdkqi.jpg)
Now if you came over this stile and didn't see the missing step (maybe it was snowing) you could do yourself a serious life changing injury, and if you were then told that it has been missing for months and no one bothered to repair it I suspect you would be rather upset and be keen to seek some compensation. I believe this stile was in fact quickly repaired so fortunatley the situation did not arise. (note: the Hares Gap has the option of stile or gate so one could argue it wasn't essential to use it)
It will of course be interesting to see what the repercussions are, will paths now be reasonably maintained as it will be cheaper than paying claims? (the preferred option), will all these boardwalks be ripped up to prevent future claims? (probaly very costly) or will landowners just prevent access to their land (unlikely I think as the issue was with path maintenance rather than rough terrain).
-
Ok well a gash to the knee that has seven stitches placed on it is hardly something that will render this woman chair bound for months. She likely suffered worse during her life of hill running and got up the next day to carry on. She has taken 40k for her own pocket plus the amount of legal costs (which knowing lawyers wouldn't shock me if it near equalled the payout). So this really can only be one of two things, a selfish money grab for personal gain, or an attempt to force parks to do better with the care of the places they run. If the second is the case then does it really need Einstein to work out that perhaps taking well over 40k out of their pockets will just mean they now have less funding to actually spend on maintenance work. It's like taking a weeks wages off a parent to teach them a lesson on how they do not feed or clothe their child properly.
Yes there may well be a sharp kick in the rear to some lazy directors and park management, but overall all this can do is mean the people who get the most enjoyment out of these places will pay for it.
-
So, pure cynical speculation yet again on your part Rich, backed up by, well, nothing but utter fantasy on your part, well done. It certainly doesn't take Einstein to understand the sexist, misogynistic nature of your statement and the appalling stupidity behind it.
Please explain to me the sexist nature of your quote.
-
So, pure cynical speculation yet again on your part Rich, backed up by, well, nothing but utter fantasy on your part, well done. It certainly doesn't take Einstein to understand the sexist, misogynistic nature of your statement and the appalling stupidity behind it.
Please explain to me the sexist nature of your quote.
How is any of it sexist? The reality is a woman got a boo boo and took vast sums of money from an organisation that has little, thus I slander her. Had it been a guy I would slander him gender has nothing to do with it other than the insult being tailored to the person in question. None of that changes the simple fact that she did go to court to obtain a monetary settlement, and that she has made no statement of any kind saying how this money is to be used for the betterment of others in the outdoor community, like perhaps young kids who are now going to be finding it harder to enjoy the same outdoor privileges she has had for 40 years.
-
So, pure cynical speculation yet again on your part Rich, backed up by, well, nothing but utter fantasy on your part, well done. It certainly doesn't take Einstein to understand the sexist, misogynistic nature of your statement and the appalling stupidity behind it.
Please explain to me the sexist nature of your quote.
How is any of it sexist? The reality is a woman got a boo boo and took vast sums of money from an organisation that has little, thus I slander her. Had it been a guy I would slander him gender has nothing to do with it other than the insult being tailored to the person in question. None of that changes the simple fact that she did go to court to obtain a monetary settlement, and that she has made no statement of any kind saying how this money is to be used for the betterment of others in the outdoor community, like perhaps young kids who are now going to be finding it harder to enjoy the same outdoor privileges she has had for 40 years.
Are you really this stupid? 'a woman got a boo boo', seriously!
What does "one greedy woman who had no business being outside of her shoe box" mean. What do you mean by 'out of her shoe box'? Are you still living in the 1950s?
Why should she 'make a statement of any kind saying how this money is to be used for the betterment of others in the outdoor community'. I'd assume she'll use the compensation anyway she wants, she doesn't need to make any statement at all.
I'll leave you to dig your own hole with your sexist comments, but try to understand not all of us are as back-wards thinking as yourself Rich.
-
Well since both woman and men get "boo boos" again I fail to see the light on sexism there, it's simply me being derogatory towards someone who picked up a minor injury, call it colloquial slang if you like. The exact same applies to the shoe box, since a shoe box is a small confined space with no windows, thus a person living in one has no idea of there actions on a wider world. This woman I hope is in that group as I have said before more than once, she has taken money that outdoor companies are in need of. If they had plenty of it to splash around then they would not tend to be made up of a majority of volunteers. By simple process of logical elimination if this woman is not totally blind to her actions consequences then that only leaves selfless greed.
If this had no happened to be a woman in the article but a man and the same words were used with a simple gender change would you also be arguing I am a misandrist?
-
Again, you're speculating about this so called 'minor injury' (sorry, boo boos, jeez), how do you know it's a 'minor injury'? Have you seen any photos or information the rest of us haven't? I can only give the poor woman the benefit of the doubt, not judge and criticise her for being female and living in 'a shoebox', which could easily describe your own viewpoint Rich. You assume time and time again that this woman took money from an organisation that can ill afford it purely for greed, not the fact that even the Judge ruled that the walk-way was in poor standing and she was awarded the compensation for it. How do you know she hasn't made a quiet donation to some outdoors organisation. I don't and don't particularly care if she does or doesn't.
If you're so concerned about the lack of money in outdoor organisations and that they require volunteers to do the work then why don't you volunteer for one of these organisations?
'By simple process of logical elimination if this woman is not totally blind to her actions consequences then that only leaves selfless greed.' - Well that's purely illogical because your starting point is one of pure cynicism and denigrating her character to begin with, so there's no logic in your argument to begin with.
'If this had no happened to be a woman in the article but a man and the same words were used with a simple gender change would you also be arguing I am a misandrist?' - No, i'd be calling you an uncaring, unempathetic idiot.
-
Let me float this idea.........
If the injury was very serious - head injury, broken leg, severed artery, take your pick, would your position on the amount awarded be any different?
Sometimes the compensation awarded has more to do with the potential harm highlighted, rather than actual harm inflicted.
Government bodies have a duty of care to maintain these things and in this case, it wasn't.
People can debate about the amount awarded 'til the cows come home, but sometimes it is about affecting the change required within the ethos of the government department. That doesn't tend to happen unless the fine is large enough to make them take notice.
What's the difference in this case and someone getting knocked down by a bin lorry with poorly maintained brakes?
-
I've put a bit more thought to my earlier post, and then dug through some old photos and found one that may well be of the actual boardwalk in question.
(http://i1222.photobucket.com/albums/dd496/landyliam/2016/boardwalk_zpseosougz0.jpg)
As you can see it certainly is rotten in places, therefore whoever was to walk on that should surely know the risks (no need for signs to state the blatently obvious) , and unless they were forced to walk on it then I would suggest that they knew the risks and decided it was worth taking. The stile scenario above would be a different matter imho.
-
Yes Liam, that's pretty much how I feel about it. There was reference earlier in the thread about the quality some of the stiles in the Mournes and a suggestion that we may be unhappy if they were not maintained in a very good condition. Whilst the high quality of some of the stiles is of great value to the walker in the Mournes this is not by any means evident throughout the whole of the Mournes, and certainly not so in many areas outside of the Mournes. Take the stone stile at the top of the Carrick Little track, it has a massive drop on one side. Does that present a risk? Of course it does, but you can use it at your own risk. There is a gate to choose of course.
My worry would be in the extension of this award of damages to other cases. What about pitched sections of upland paths such as the track to the top of Slieve Binnian from the Lamagan col, or the 'staircases' up to Donard from the Saddle or Bearnagh from Hare's Gap? Once you put someone on one of these is it unreasonable for them to expect steps to be of equal height and spacing? Obviously I'd argue it was unreasonable and I'd be disappointed if things went that way. But there are some people out there who may disagree.
Outside of the Mournes, in the Antrim Hills for instance there are some fairly rickety excuses for stiles. I've crossed fences where there is nothing but a couple of upturned buckets and a bit of sack wrapped round the barbed wire. That is still a welcome assistance for the walker. The walker should know to exercise caution when using a crossing like this, we all know what it is like to cross a fence without a bit of help! How might the owner of this land react to this ruling? I know what the easiest and least risky response would be - a big 'private land' sign.
To me the extent of the injury in this case should have been irrelevant in determining what risk the walker had accepted in being there.
-
That's interesting Liam, but whether it's the actual section of the walk-way she fell on is another matter, it could go on for miles, it only needs one poorly maintained part to cause an accident. It did state in the article, and others I've looked at, that she followed the sign posts to the walk-way, and trusted their guidance. That's the dilemma, should she follow the guided sign-posts or use her own intuition and take another unguided route, because either way she's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't ie. if she hadn't followed the walk-way and fell, she'd be condemned as a fool for not using the guided path, but she did and fell anyway because of the poor maintenance of the walk-way, so what should she of done? She is an experienced hiker after all, and I'm sure she was aware of the risks either way, but just tried to do the right thing, ie. follow the arrows.
Structures in the outdoors have their own laws and are held to a higher degree of maintenance under UK law. That's the problem at hand (personally, I'd rather see none of these walk-ways in the hills), but if hikers are told this is the only proposed route you should follow, then they need to be fit for purpose and maintained properly.
Apparently, the case is going to the high courts for appeal so she may not get the amount specified, which in fact is a good thing as it only hi-lights how badly this has been reported in the media with click-bait titles and a witch-hunt mentality. Everyone's innocent until proven other-wise.
-
Take the stone stile at the top of the Carrick Little track, it has a massive drop on one side. Does that present a risk? Of course it does, but you can use it at your own risk. There is a gate to choose of course.
The stone stile was blocked off a year or so ago ;-)
It did state in the article, and others I've looked at, that she followed the sign posts to the walk-way, and trusted their guidance.
I had thought that the signs told her she had to follow the walkway, but if they were merely a guideline, then one would assume once they were deemed dangerous then one would walk another route or turn back.