|
Post by inforthebreaks on Oct 11, 2016 11:31:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by delorean on Oct 11, 2016 11:42:27 GMT
I don't anyway.
|
|
|
Post by veteran on Oct 11, 2016 13:17:15 GMT
James is right of course to have taken this case to court and I believe a cowardly attack should always be dealt with by the judiciary.
However , I cannot see the rationale of suggesting the State should be answerable. If he wins where does it end? If a teacher , a traffic warden , a prison officer or any public servant is assaulted on the playing field will they also be eligible to take a similar case. Has there been a precedent for this? I am no lawyer but I would be astonished if James succeeds going down this avenue. To an extent you could possibly understand him suing the GAA but even that would be unlikely to succeed on the grounds that they could not vouch for the character of all their players. I have no doubt this will be monitored by all sporting organisations.
|
|
|
Post by champer on Oct 11, 2016 13:38:42 GMT
James is right of course to have taken this case to court and I believe a cowardly attack should always be dealt with by the judiciary. However , I cannot see the rationale of suggesting the State should be answerable. If he wins where does it end? If a teacher , a traffic warden , a prison officer or any public servant is assaulted on the playing field will they also be eligible to take a similar case. Has there been a precedent for this? I am no lawyer but I would be astonished if James succeeds going down this avenue. To an extent you could possibly understand him suing the GAA but even that would be unlikely to succeed on the grounds that they could not vouch for the character of all their players. I have no doubt this will be monitored by all sporting organisations. There is a bad vibe to this case. No wonder all our insurance premiums are jumping 50% with stuff like this going on. How is it the State's fault that he got a dirty belt on the field? Masters should be told by his peers in no certain terms what their view is on this crap
|
|
|
Post by Mickmack on Oct 11, 2016 14:06:07 GMT
James is right of course to have taken this case to court and I believe a cowardly attack should always be dealt with by the judiciary. However , I cannot see the rationale of suggesting the State should be answerable. If he wins where does it end? If a teacher , a traffic warden , a prison officer or any public servant is assaulted on the playing field will they also be eligible to take a similar case. Has there been a precedent for this? I am no lawyer but I would be astonished if James succeeds going down this avenue. To an extent you could possibly understand him suing the GAA but even that would be unlikely to succeed on the grounds that they could not vouch for the character of all their players. I have no doubt this will be monitored by all sporting organisations. There is a bad vibe to this case. No wonder all our insurance premiums are jumping 50% with stuff like this going on. H ow is it the State's fault that he got a dirty belt on the field?Masters should be told by his peers in no certain terms what their view is on this crap "he believes it was done because he is a guard".
|
|
|
Post by Mickmack on Oct 11, 2016 14:06:48 GMT
I cant see Masters winning that.
|
|
|
Post by wayupnorth on Oct 11, 2016 19:26:30 GMT
Of course he is entitled to take any case he wishes as long as he is paying for it himself but the logic seems odd. He was not on the field as a Garda. What happened was not part of the game but common assault. The State didn't assault him so what action has been taken against the perpetrator? The news paper says he has been fined but presumably that was a criminal case and Masters may also be able to sue for civil damages.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 19:40:18 GMT
Ridiculous case. Hope it gets thrown out.
|
|
|
Post by hurlingman on Oct 12, 2016 11:13:45 GMT
I cant see Masters winning that. Wouldn't be the first time he didn't win something
|
|
|
Post by glengael on Oct 12, 2016 15:00:57 GMT
I remember reading about the Criminal case which was taken against the Valley Rovers player and being surprised to note from the Court report that the State were being sued also.
Surely any civil case is against the assilant or possibly the GAA who ran the game but not the State.
How can the State be responsible for the leisure time activities of its employees, participation in such activities having been freely chosen by those employess ?
|
|
mandad
Senior Member
Posts: 448
|
Post by mandad on Oct 12, 2016 17:43:25 GMT
A lot of people are scratching the head at this and wondering just how there could be any possible liability on the state in this type of situation. I went to the bother of looking up online the relevant law on the matter and this would appear to be what he is relying on:-
GARDA SÍOCHÁNA COMPENSATION (MALICIOUS INJURIES) BILL 2012 Deaths and injuries to which this Act applies:- Section 8. (1) C. (iii) While on duty or off duty or on leave or at any other time because of anything previously done by him or her as a member of the Garda Síochána or merely because of his or her being a member of the Garda Síochána. I think that explains what is going on and he probably has a decent chance of winning his case as the law stands. The Players Injury Scheme is limited enough and probably would not cover what would appear to be a deliberate/reckless incident. Nevertheless, I still believe it’s ridiculous and an unfair burden on the taxpayer and should more properly be levied on the offender in the first instance.
|
|
|
Post by beantownfan on Oct 12, 2016 17:55:20 GMT
Ah, well, if you read the article it sheds a bit more light on things. At first when I saw the headline above I thought it was madness. It sounds like Masters did get a bit of a raw deal, and probably has a case as the attacker calling him 'p*g' several times during the game, suggesting it might be pre-meditated based on the fact he is a guard. The attacker only getting fined $1,000 in district court is a bit lenient to say the least.. Mean while masters had stitches and a plate put in his head!
|
|
|
Post by wayupnorth on Oct 12, 2016 18:29:33 GMT
Ah, well, if you read the article it sheds a bit more light on things. At first when I saw the headline above I thought it was madness. It sounds like Masters did get a bit of a raw deal, and probably has a case as the attacker calling him 'p*g' several times during the game, suggesting it might be pre-meditated based on the fact he is a guard. The attacker only getting fined $1,000 in district court is a bit lenient to say the least.. Mean while masters had stitches and a plate put in his head! Yes but... That still doesn't explain why the State can be considered culpable. And isn't making these comments a Black Card offence?
|
|
|
Post by beantownfan on Oct 12, 2016 19:52:23 GMT
Ah, well, if you read the article it sheds a bit more light on things. At first when I saw the headline above I thought it was madness. It sounds like Masters did get a bit of a raw deal, and probably has a case as the attacker calling him 'p*g' several times during the game, suggesting it might be pre-meditated based on the fact he is a guard. The attacker only getting fined $1,000 in district court is a bit lenient to say the least.. Mean while masters had stitches and a plate put in his head! Yes but... That still doesn't explain why the State can be considered culpable. And isn't making these comments a Black Card offence? It should have been a black card for the name calling :-) I think his argument is based on the following, quoted above: Section 8. (1) C. (iii) While on duty or off duty or on leave or at any other time because of anything previously done by him or her as a member of the Garda Síochána or merely because of his or her being a member of the Garda Síochána. He is arguing that because he is a garda he was attacked.. Just like if he arrested some lad some night in the street, and that fella later after being released assaulted him while off duty he could make a claim against the state.. What he is saying here is the opposing player during the game referred to him as a p%g repeatedly, and then assaulted him.. I would guess he is arguing he was out of work for a period due to the injuries sustained, and would not have received those if not a garda.. I don't like the approach myself, as it is probably arguable that he would have sustained the injuries regardless of profession... But at the same time, he has a case.. Did the attacker see an opportunity to assault a garda, thinking he would get away with it?
|
|
|
Post by sullyschoice on Oct 12, 2016 22:40:23 GMT
I wonder if the boot was on the other foot, so to speak, and Masters assaulted another player, would people be quick to point out that he should be treated differently because he is a Garda. I hear it regularly that a fella should be held more accountable because he is a Garda or a teacher and should set a better example. Its been said about Aidan O Mahoney in the past. The Garda Siochana (compensation) Act is there to compensate members of An Garda Siochana who suffer injury as a result of their occupation, through no negligence or wilful neglect on their part.
Do the criteria apply in this case....possibly.
|
|
|
Post by delorean on Oct 13, 2016 8:26:52 GMT
A lot of people are scratching the head at this and wondering just how there could be any possible liability on the state in this type of situation. I went to the bother of looking up online the relevant law on the matter and this would appear to be what he is relying on:- GARDA SÍOCHÁNA COMPENSATION (MALICIOUS INJURIES) BILL 2012 Deaths and injuries to which this Act applies:- Section 8. (1) C. (iii) While on duty or off duty or on leave or at any other time because of anything previously done by him or her as a member of the Garda Síochána or merely because of his or her being a member of the Garda Síochána. I think that explains what is going on and he probably has a decent chance of winning his case as the law stands. The Players Injury Scheme is limited enough and probably would not cover what would appear to be a deliberate/reckless incident. Nevertheless, I still believe it’s ridiculous and an unfair burden on the taxpayer and should more properly be levied on the offender in the first instance. Fair play mandad, nice too see someone go the extra mile to educate themselves instead of just throwing around comments in ignorance. I'm not necessarily pro or anti Masters in his approach to this, just have an open mind really, but I don't think the burden on the taxpayer is something he should be conscious of. The Bill is there for a reason and if he's entitled to compensation then good luck to him, he clearly went through quite an ordeal all things considered. The verdict and particularly the reasons behind it will be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by homerj on Oct 13, 2016 8:59:57 GMT
taking a case against the state is a standard process for a Garda.
|
|
|
Post by buck02 on Oct 13, 2016 9:00:49 GMT
A lot of people are scratching the head at this and wondering just how there could be any possible liability on the state in this type of situation. I went to the bother of looking up online the relevant law on the matter and this would appear to be what he is relying on:- GARDA SÍOCHÁNA COMPENSATION (MALICIOUS INJURIES) BILL 2012 Deaths and injuries to which this Act applies:- Section 8. (1) C. (iii) While on duty or off duty or on leave or at any other time because of anything previously done by him or her as a member of the Garda Síochána or merely because of his or her being a member of the Garda Síochána.I think that explains what is going on and he probably has a decent chance of winning his case as the law stands. The Players Injury Scheme is limited enough and probably would not cover what would appear to be a deliberate/reckless incident. Nevertheless, I still believe it’s ridiculous and an unfair burden on the taxpayer and should more properly be levied on the offender in the first instance. Thats a fairly open ended statement and could be open to a huge array of interpretation. The report in the Indo says the assailant was merely fined €1000 (presumably seeing no jail time) and no report of compensation being paid to the injured party. Given the limits of the Player Injury Scheme and you'd have to assume, the pointless nature in bringing a civil case against the assailant, this appears to be the only route left for Masters to go down to get some compensation for the injuries he received.
|
|