D
Deleted member 634
Guest
Apparently Spoons did want to change the bannister as it didn't meet modern regulations as too low but Heritage England told them they couldn't. I find that f***ing ridiculous to be fair
The Union Rooms
- Thread starter Dave Herbal
- Start date
Jonny Ringo
Central Defender
Yeah, sadly she has very little use of her arms or legs. I think she can raise her arm slightly but no use of hands.
mux
Striker
No but it might have done if it got unfairly sued and had to pay out a six figure sum.
Goat Eyes
Striker
You’re going on a bit silly now mind Mux.
I’m sure if the fact I was confined to a wheelchair for the rest of my life with no prospect of working again, not being able to do the things I had dreamt of, having no husband, the associated mental health issues that come as a result etc. etc. meant I had to resort to trying to get a payout I couldn’t categorically say that I wouldn’t go that route. Regardless of blame, adequate safeguards should be in place and if there is any possibility that they weren’t, I think most of us would take a punt.
You work in a high risk job, if one of your lads was sent into a situation on top of a building and happened to lean on the edge for a breather and subsequently misplaced his hand and went over the edge, do you think he should get a payout? Or just tough luck, he knew the risk.
mux
Striker
Oh well that's okay then. Next time I go I'll leave without paying, fuck them they're a massive company. I'll take whatever I can get and I don't care if it is morally right or not. They're probably insured. In fact by me unfairly taking from them I am creating jobs at the insurance company so everyone wins really.
I liked that pub. Seemed decent when I was in it a couple of weeks back.
mux
Striker
There is nothing silly at all about it. I am talking about taking responsibility for your own actions and not chasing someone for money when you are at fault.
You do a lot of driving in your job. Imagine someone smashed their mobility scooter into your car, totally their fault as they were drunk and dicking about on a busy road, and they ended up severely injured. Imagine if they tried to chase you down for damages and tried to make you responsible. Is that fair? Would you be happy about it? Remember, you have insurance so it's a "massive company" so it shouldn't matter should it? But is it right?
As @chunkylover53 said, taking the piss out of insurance isn't victimless, someone pays for everything eventually.
Goat Eyes
Striker
mux
Striker
Ah mate you're a decent poster and we are just going to have to differ. I can't respect your opinion though as I think it's immoral.
Of course you can blame someone for trying. How much did it cost to go through all of the litigation? Everyone lost other than the lawyers who will have made their fees. Wetherspoons will have spent a fortune to defend itself I've no doubt at all. Will they be recompensed? No. Her poor decision has cost her mobility for the rest of her life and it's cost Wetherspoons a fortune in defending itself against her claim. All in all a sorry state of affairs all caused by one person.
EDIT: I'll dip my cock in your pint later.
Last edited:
Jonny Ringo
Central Defender
Wetherspoons will have paid the excess on their policy. The claim will have been defended by their PL insurer. Admittedly, it is money out of the insurer's shareholders' pockets but that's what the insurance game is all about - avoiding and adjusting claims. I won't lose too much sleep over the profits of insurance companies being reduced given the number of legitimate claims they do their utmost to dodge.
It's no surprise her solicitors thought she had a claim given the number of accidents that had been caused in the same way previously. It's just a shame Wetherspoon didn't work out a method of stopping people sliding down them that was acceptable to English Heritage until it was too late.
Last edited:
Or it’s money on everyone else’s insurance premiums?
Why on earth should you or I pay for someone else getting pissed and doing something stupid?
Jonny Ringo
Central Defender
Why should we pay because someone isn't paying attention when driving and crashes their car? Or leaves the chip pan on and causes a fire at home? Or floods next door because they haven't maintained their plumbing system? That's the nature of insurance.
And they’ve paid the premium for that themselves
Not using someone else insurance because they fucked up
There is not always a claim
If I go and drive pissed, my insurance is invalid. Right?
D
Deleted member 30853
Guest
It's main problem to me is it was a non-music playing bar right at the heart of Newcastle's party area. When the Mile Castle opened virtually next door, my friends said if they were going into either, then it was the Mile Castle as the music gave it a bit of atmosphere.
I had heard it had closed and am surprised to hear it's still limping on.
Another recent problem is with the student digs being built next door, direct access was impeded and people were forced around the entrance rather than walking past it. Temptation to go in was removed and it's situation will not improve until the student digs are finished.
I had heard it had closed and am surprised to hear it's still limping on.
Another recent problem is with the student digs being built next door, direct access was impeded and people were forced around the entrance rather than walking past it. Temptation to go in was removed and it's situation will not improve until the student digs are finished.
Jonny Ringo
Central Defender
If I turn the tap on and forget about it and this causes a flood in the building that is my fuck up. The money that is being spent on the claim is likely to far exceed the premiums I have paid. Other people's money is still being used to resolve my mistake.
In terms of the driving while pissed, not quite. Although you wouldn't be able to recover damage to your own vehicle, the insurer is legally obliged to pay out on any third party claim, for instance if you knocked someone over. It may then have a go at recouping its loss from you mind.
This claim we are talking about was not one totally devoid of merit, however much you don't like the fact it was brought. If it was a hopeless case it would have been dismissed earlier in proceedings. The link @foolzy provided states that the banister did not meet legal requirements and there had been three previous recorded accidents from people sliding down it, two of them in the few months immediately before. After a further, fifth, accident caused within a two year period Wetherspoon finally took action to stop anyone else doing it. I fully agree that there has to be an acceptance of personal responsibility for your own fuck ups but this banister was clearly a temptation to pissed people - if five people have been injured on it an awful lot more must have done the same thing without hurting themselves. Wetherspoon were well aware that there was an issue here but took a long time to sort it out.
I think you’re blinded by the fact you know the person
Wrong.
They knew what it would cost to go to litigation and tried to lessen those costs/ by making an offer. If their lawyers were going to cost £20k for 2 days even if they won, it's still worth offering £10k (no admittance) to prevent going to court
