Debate - Should she sue?

[Serene123]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...mily-swimming-pool-dive-leaves-paralysed.html

My first thought when I read that was, "idiot!" Although now I do think it's good that people do hear about it. I hope she loses, but it's good that it's in the paper.

What do you think?

 

[Dopeyjopey]

No way. Some things are just accidents and no one is to blame. I think it's sad that she would consider it tbh.

 

[Nic1107]

I don't know about suing the hospital, since there is no detail on whether her care may have been negligent or not.
But suing the homeowner? Ridiculous, IMO. Everyone with an ounce of common sense knows you don't dive if you don't know the depth of the water. If there was no signage she should have asked, and if the pool's owner didn't know the depth she bloody well shouldn't have risked it!

 

[kiwimama]

If she were a child, sure yes, because an adult should have been there and responsible, but this girl was an adult, 18 years old, she should have had enough common sense to know that you don't dive into a pool/ lake/ river etc without checking the depth first...

 

[cherryglitter]

No she shouldn't sue.
Pure accident, an unfortunate one of course.
I think she's trying to justify her stupidity maybe?!

 

[~RedLily~]

No she shouldn't sue. What difference would a sign make anyway?

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

The pool could have looked deep enough to dive in though? And not everyone would know to check the depth if it looked deep enough? We don't really know enough about it to say she definitely shouldn't sue.

I don't know if I think she should be suing but at the end of the day it wouldn't have happened if there had been a sign (is there not maybe legislation about signs and pools?) Still i'm not sure if that places blame with the parents or not.

If i'm honest though I do think its more just been a terrible accident and one that the poor girl is struggling to come to terms with and perhaps she's just lashing out. I'd say lashing out is normal considering she was only 18 years old and had been left tetraplegic. I think the case should be definitely publicised as much as possible to prevent anything like this happening again.

I feel very very sorry for her.

 

[BlackBerry25]

I think it is sad that if her case does go through, that another family will suffer a huge loss. HOWEVER, I think she has a right to sue. Does she have a right to win? I don't know, I am glad I don't have to decide.

 

[SKATERBUN]

Signs at a domestic residence? wtf, no but her friend should of maybe let her visitors know about the depth of the pool and not to dive maybe, but its all very well saying what if, and its sadly not a mistake she can learn from, bit of a sorry situation really feel sorry for both parties...

 

[Dream.A.Dream]

I don't think she should sue xx

 

[Laura2919]

Im sure she wasnt the only one to jump off the diving board into the water. She was the only one to have hit her head so maybe it was just an accident. Plain and simple.
Its obviously very traumatic but to sue is just a joke.
I definitely dont think she should win.

 

[jennie_78]

No i don't think she should sue.

 

[amygwen]

I don't think she should sue. I'd find it sort of stange tbh. I could understand if it were a public pool that everybody uses and there were no '3 ft deep, NO diving' signs'. But a family pool, noooooo, it's common sense really not to dive, she could've asked or not swam.

 

[Char&Bump-x]

is there anything people won't sue for these days?!

It was an accident. If anyones fault, hers.

 

[Pixxie]

I think it's disgusting she would sue her friend for her own stupidity, you don't dive in unless you know the water is deep enough! xx

 

[andbabymakes3]

I hate the blame culture we live in nowadays. What happened to taking responsibility for your own actions??

 

[Tegans Mama]

She is an accident. She should be taking the blame herself, not palming it off on someone else.

 

[Jody R]

I've heard of cases similar to this (in some ways) before.

For example someone travelling in a friends car was badly injured but no other vehicles were involved in the crash so in order to claim compensation she had to state that her friend was a negligent driver. The friends insurance company fought the claim but the girl won and the money paid for the care she needed to continue with her life.

However I feel this is different. I am sure the only reason this girl is suing her friends family is because she needs to pay for her own help and care for the rest of her life.

But it was her own actions that caused her injury and I doubt that a sign would have made much difference to what happened.

If she didn't think to ask the depth would she think to look for a sign? Had she been swimming in the pool before? Had she been drinking before she dived into the pool?

I would like to know what the hospital did/didn't do to make her feel she has to sue them too.

I think perhaps she is trying to get as much money as possible from the case so she can ensure her future is financially stable and I understand that, but she wasn't a child and she was responsible for her own actions.

I don't think it is fair to bankrupt a family to pay for her own mistake.

 

[rubixcyoob.]

Her case probably would have no evidence for negligence. Sure there were no signs posted, however in a civil case like this the burden of proof requires that all evidence be on the 'balance of probabilities'.
This would mean that if there were signs would she have paid heed to them, or ignored them. If the later it wouldn't matter, she wouldn't be able to sue. If it was the former however, she could.

I for one doubt it could be seen or conveyed that she would have paid attention to the signs for many reasons:

- it was a midnight swim. Who goes for a midnight swim sober? There was probably alcohol involved, thus dimming her common sense - signs would not have been the first thing on her mind.
- it was a midnight swim. Unless glow in the dark the signs would not have been noticeable so she wouldn't have paid attention to them. She couldn't expect them to instal indvidual sign lights because it would not be probable to assume anyone would be swimming at 12am.
- it was a private swimming pool. I have never seen a private pool with signs. She should have taken heed of this fact and realised it wasn't the same as a public pool, water depth would not be the same.
- even if there had been a sign would the accident have occured? She may have been warned, she may have taken a little more precautions, but who is to say she wouldn't have landed the way she did?

It wouldn't stand up in court. Some Lord said about Boxers - "one who is willing cannot be hurt", meaning, in a boxing match both take part knowing there can be injuries, no one can sue the other if they occur. With events like swimming it is probable there are injuries that could occur, if you willingly go ahead, do not expect compensation should liability arise.

However, if it can be proven she could sue the NHS Trust I would. If there negligent care caused me added injuries or heightened my already apparent injuries I would have compensation to pay for my life-long care.

 

[lesleyann]

Her case probably would have no evidence for negligence. Sure there were no signs posted, however in a civil case like this the burden of proof requires that all evidence be on the 'balance of probabilities'.
This would mean that if there were signs would she have paid heed to them, or ignored them. If the later it wouldn't matter, she wouldn't be able to sue. If it was the former however, she could.

I for one doubt it could be seen or conveyed that she would have paid attention to the signs for many reasons:

- it was a midnight swim. Who goes for a midnight swim sober? There was probably alcohol involved, thus dimming her common sense - signs would not have been the first thing on her mind.
- it was a midnight swim. Unless glow in the dark the signs would not have been noticeable so she wouldn't have paid attention to them. She couldn't expect them to instal indvidual sign lights because it would not be probable to assume anyone would be swimming at 12am.
- it was a private swimming pool. I have never seen a private pool with signs. She should have taken heed of this fact and realised it wasn't the same as a public pool, water depth would not be the same.
- even if there had been a sign would the accident have occured? She may have been warned, she may have taken a little more precautions, but who is to say she wouldn't have landed the way she did?

It wouldn't stand up in court. Some Lord said about Boxers - "one who is willing cannot be hurt", meaning, in a boxing match both take part knowing there can be injuries, no one can sue the other if they occur. With events like swimming it is probable there are injuries that could occur, if you willingly go ahead, do not expect compensation should liability arise.

However, if it can be proven she could sue the NHS Trust I would. If there negligent care caused me added injuries or heightened my already apparent injuries I would have compensation to pay for my life-long care.

I think she should in a way tbh, shes was invited into the pool its not like she just said oh im going into the pool, most houses with pools outside do have lighting outside so signs would of been able to be seen. just because it was 12am does not mean anyone is drunk when people are drunk they more jump into the pool that dive into it. If she was never alarted to the fact the pool is not the correct depth to be dived into by her friend or by signs then i think she has everyright