Should she have been compensated?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....6m-damages-claim.html

What a very sad case, yes one could say that the correct judgement was made, but when one hears of £1000s of pounds of damages awarded to others who have only endured certain amounts of stress for one reason or other, and the large amount of compensation Sharon Shoesmith, stands to be awarded for her dismissal over the baby 'P' case, it makes one feel so sorry for this young girl.

Yes it was through her own fault that this accident happened, but she has still to live the rest of her life paralysed with no cash provided to pay for all the care and extra facilities in which to make her shattered life easier.

Would not the pools owner's insurance pay the compensation if it had been awarded, after all I thought that anyone who injured themselves on a person's property could claim damages?

[bednobs]

what insurance? their household insurance? perhaps they didn't have any. Plus it's pretty pointless suing someone for millions of pounds if they don't have it.
Yes, she is paralysed, but by all accounts the pool was easy to see how deep it was. Plus, i'm sure it's not true that injuring yourself on someones property can be sued for unless THEY have been negligent or somehow caused it, and it's very hard to see how a man that wasn't even there could have cased it!

[rov1100]

Is another case of the compensation culture going ballistic. Its always someone else's fault for their injuries. People should take responsibility for themselves. Thats why motorists don't just rely on third party insurance

[youngmafbog]

totally agree Rov

[pa___ul3]

it is very sad but to sue means you have to pin the blame on someone else and, in this instance, you can't justifiably do that.
It was horrible accident, nothing more. She's not alone, though, in having to adapt to this shattered life.. nor need it be shattered as many many disabled people have gone on to prove... but I'm sure she'll get the kind of support available to others.

[emmie]

No, no more than the fool who got on a kids bouncy castle and bounced off,
leaving him paralysed. Sounds hard hearted perhaps, but surely drink played a part, stone cold sober she probably wouldn't have done it.

[IggyB]

I'm very glad she was unsuccessful - its time as a nation that we all learn to take a bit of responsibility for our own misfortunes and in this case she was a keen swimmer, understood how to do racing dives, understood she was at the shallow end and exactly how deep it was (as she had been in the water for 30 mins) however she still decided to take the chance trying to do a shallow dive... which went wrong. What could the pool owner have done to stop her - would a sign saying STOP have put her off or would it in fact have been necessary for him to be there all the time to discuss the risks with everyone just in case someone decided not to engage their brain.

[Jemisa]

NO.

jem

[netibiza]

No of course not, don't start all that, homeowners will never be free!

It was unfortunate and very unlucky, but no, not the houseowner's fault at all! Obviously if there is a pool, it is common sense that to jump/dive in is at your own risk always.

The state will look after her now doubt!

[netibiza]

No of course not, all I'm saying is that she'll be looked after, don't go looking for things that I am not meaning.

[jd_here]

'They gave me the wrong sort of ladder.....' springs to mind

[netibiza]

Sorry redhelen, it's my typing! there it goes again.