News.com.au Link

A LANDMARK $9.6 million compensation deal has finally been brokered for a boy who suffered horrific injuries after he was sucked down a school drain.

I don't get it. Why do stupid people keep getting rewarding for doing stupid things?

If you boogie board in rising water during a flood, take some responsibility you fool

and was stuck under water for eight minutes, causing "catastrophic brain injuries". An affidavit filed in the Supreme Court of Queensland on Monday states that Myles now had to be tube-fed "to sustain him". "He can walk awkwardly but has virtually no use of his upper limbs," the affidavit states. "The plaintiff cannot speak and his level of insight has been difficult to assess. The plaintiff is also incontinent."

put the poor c*** down

Never makes any since does it?

Common sense has died, long live the gross negligence pay outs!

yeah reckon

put the poor c*** down

Indeed.

It's the church though, shake them down for as much money as possible, $9 million shouldn't be a worry for them.

yeah, because reading a news.com.au article clearly gives you all the information required to pass judgement on something like this

the drain shouldnt have been accessible.

This is the reason there is no QGL

I'm with taggs - not enough information in the article to make a judgement call.

September 24, 2003 was a Monday and the boy was 12 year old. Was the he under the care of the school at the time? If he was then they were grossly negligent to allow him to play in a flooded area.

EDIT:

February 24, 2003: Myles Hill is playing with his mates in a pool of water about 3.30pm when he is sucked into the drain and sent hurtling through a 300m-long, 35cm-wide pipe.

I'm assuming that the school was still staffed at 3:30pm.

last edited by Hogfather at 10:37:10 29/Oct/09

^ true that

$10mil wouldn't be enough money to replace their kid just fyi

Kids are kids and don't really know any better, they'll play anywhere that looks fun without thinking of dangers, especially in this case if the drain wasn't already sucking in water. Having a drain with sufficient coverings so a person can't get sucked in should be mandatory.

Be funny if the kid did a Verbal Kint and walks off into the sunset with the 9 million. The perfect heist planned over a six year period.

6 years as an incontinent vege? Even for 9M I couldn't pull that off.

put the poor c*** down

Indeed.

It's the church though, shake them down for as much money as possible, $9 million shouldn't be a worry for them.

depends which church, I guess. Anglican church lost $160 million as the result of the GFC. Oh ye of too much faith!

Be funny if the kid did a Verbal Kint and walks off into the sunset with the 9 million. The perfect heist planned over a six year period.

Watched too many movies, Rev.

Also, yeah, I tend to think with these pay-outs that the people involved with deciding the pay-out know better than news dot com dot au article reporter.

It's the church though, shake them down for as much money as possible, $9 million shouldn't be a worry for them.

Also under common law, rulings affect everyone as it sets precedent!

The nature of the defendant shouldn't really come into it as the next time it could be a secular organisation or your favourite porn parlour.

You havent been aboe to use a 35cm concrete Stormwater pipe in QLD for a long long time. The school doesn't seem that old. Was probably either a 375 or 300 (37.5cm or 30cm.) so facts are all allready wrong!

Also, while it might happen (it would be extreamly rare) 300meters seems like an awefully long stormwater pipe without a few access chambers in there.

Myles was a new student and Year 7 boarder at The Southport School in February 2003 when he was sucked into the uncovered drain on the school grounds and swept about 400m down a pipe into the Nerang River.

Different article about the incident

400m now? Wow it grows.

They sent their other son to the same school, after the school said he could go there for free...

It is a boarding school, so time in the afternoon doesn't get the school off the hook. They would have duty of care all the time.

Just trying to find more information on it.
All these type of field inlet drains in LCC are required to have grated covering or be fenced off. I'm sure there are the odd ones that don't though. There are still heaps of pipe networks you can enter via down stream and still get caught in, you cant ever completly stop stupid people getting hurt.

With the very minimal information we're provided we cant know what happened or what the outcome should be. At the very least you think the school would have told the students not to play in flood waters... but we hear of stories like this from the Gold Coast (or around Australia at least) every year. Gold Coast and Cairns regonal council have a pretty decent budget to advertise the fact that stormwater drains are dangerous... which is a waste of rate payers money.

Next thing you know, people will be suing for damages after pogo sticking into a wall.

last edited by shad at 13:44:37 29/Oct/09

he shoulda learned, never go full retard.

Saint was sucked down a drain.......the brain injuries are obvious and massive.

Anybody see the front page of the Courier Mail today?

JUSTICE FOR MYLES

Lame.

12 year old boy is stupid for playing in drains ?
were you ever 12 ?
Younger kids were prolly playing in the same area and could have ended up like him. Somebody should have noticed it was dangerous.

7 million ? no thats far too much but dont forget his legal firm would be taking a good chunk of that money.
I think in these situations the government should appoint a guardian that overseas the finances so the money doesnt just become a gravy train ride for the family and their friends.

i wouldn't admit to reading that tabloid, exo.

fyi - I believe he was a boarder. So the school would have a duty of care. As far as precedent goes, this doesn't extend anything.

As far as precedent goes, this doesn't extend anything

Oh? Given that its an (apparently) record amount, or doesn't precedent apply to damage awards?

Damages are largely governed by statue nowadays. My understanding is that quantum is less precedent and more case-by-case based on the substantiated damages (A lot of this money will go towards the next 40 years of care).

I would seek instructions from the school to appeal. I haven't read the judgment (nor will I), but it doesn't sound the Court made any apportionment for the contributory negligence of the kid.

except for punitive damages. they will be set by precedent.

hhaha infi, tropic thunder <3

I've just given the article a proper read.

It's not a judgment.

It appears to be a consent order. This is an application whereby the parties list the terms which they both consent the Court to make an order in. Effectively its a private settlement that the Court ratifies to make binding.

There is no ratio decidendi. So, no precedent set.

last edited by fade at 14:05:43 29/Oct/09

d0mino should sue his boss for hurting his shoulder that time.

well if it's agreement by negotiation then it's not technically "justice". It's "business".

and the courier mail is not technically "journalism". What do you expect?

i wouldn't admit to reading that tabloid, exo.

I had to move it aside in the lunchroom to get to The Australian sitting underneath.

Respect restored.

your point?

I thought australia didn't buy into punitive damages like the Yanks do. 9M would be more to do with medical costs and lost income across a lifetime.

Our term is exemplary damages. But punitive is interchangeable.

Where does a boarding school kid find a boogie board from? I know its the coast, and it probably wouldn't be too hard for him to get one to use at the beach, but based on my experience of boarding schools, they typically don't have enough room to store things like boogie boards :/

I work at a boarding school.
They definately used to have a surf club, kids have golf clubs road bikes all sorts of stuff.

Our guys even make their own surf boards.

Same school as 6 years ago? :p

As far as i recall, all that stuff had its own storage locker that couldn't be accessed without teacher approval, which i spose is what im getting at - he can't have just had a board lying around, someone of authority had to know he was mucking around in floodwaters

Though to be fair. Do you guys remember going to school. Who didn't do s*** without teachers permission?

As a parent I understand my kids will most likely f*** up and f*** up bad. However I also understand that at the end of the day kids are kids and will behave like kids. I am sure things can be done to stop them doing stupid things or hurting them but sometimes you can't (due to the inability to do so and due to just not having the resources).
To me you don't sue because of it. Not because someone with free thought decided to use it and it didn't work out well.

Bad s*** happens, deal with it.

last edited by Kat at 20:05:06 29/Oct/09

Saint was sucked down a drain.......the brain injuries are obvious and massive.

I though it was Saint sucks like a drain?

THAT'S WHAT I HEARD!

edit: And I did lots of spectacularly stupid s*** as a kid, but it would never have occurred to my parents that it was someone else's fault?!

last edited by Mantra at 00:35:01 30/Oct/09

but it would never have occurred to my parents that it was someone else's fault?!

Did you get massive permanent brain damage?

They may have started looking into who to blame if someone had lost an eye...

last edited by Hogfather at 09:29:53 30/Oct/09

Bad s*** happens, deal with it.

so you're saying even if the school was horribly negligent in their duty of care to your child, resulting in permanent disability or death, you would take no action whatsoever... because you would 'deal with it'?

f***ing rofl.

It's always someone elses fault.

nah not always.

but in this case it seems to be at least partially the school's fault or they wouldn't be willing to settle for ~$9m.

It's always someone elses fault.

Except for politics. Then it really is all Labor's fault.

so you're saying even if the school was horribly negligent in their duty of care to your child, resulting in permanent disability or death, you would take no action whatsoever... because you would 'deal with it'?

No, but come on. The guy was playing in a drain when it was raining (or just after). The kid was 12, not 2. The child has ownership of his behaviour. We aren't talking about the school forcing kids to dive into an empty pool here.

What if it wasn't on school property - would they still sue? Maybe people sue because they want a) someone to blame and b) someone to pay, not because the person getting sued did anything actually wrong

well i'm glad that you have such a sound psychological understanding of what's going through peoples' heads when they seek a legal remedy to situations like this. /sarcasm

so you're questioning how negligent the school actually was? i think that brings us back to:

yeah, because reading a news.com.au article clearly gives you all the information required to pass judgement on something like this

And again

The family of a woman who died while taking part in a radio station water-drinking contest to win a Nintendo Wii has been awarded more than $US16.5 million ($18.01 million) by a jury in California.

...

Mother-of-three Jennifer Strange was 28 when she died in 2007 after participating in the "Hold Your Wee For a Wii" contest run by KDND-FM.

...

An autopsy determined that Strange died of water intoxication. No criminal charges were filed in the case, but Strange's survivors sued the station and its owners for more than $US34 million ($37.11 million).

Is that figure based solely on loss of income? There wouldn't be any medical or other bills (save funeral costs) because she's dead.

At 28, assuming retirement age of 65, she'd have a fantastic career getting paid heaps. Specially for a mother of 3.

No, but come on. The guy was playing in a drain when it was raining (or just after). The kid was 12, not 2. The child has ownership of his behaviour.

except that the law has already decided 18 is when a child has ownership of his behavior
before that, its free reign

^

nah i don't that that's correct at all. pretty sure you can be ARE tried as an adult at age 17 in qld anyway.

but despite the 12 year olds possible contributory negligence to look after his own safety (12 isn't all that mature, really) the school obviously contriubed in a very serious way as well; hence the ~$9m settlement

edit: strikethrough update

last edited by taggs at 13:39:13 30/Oct/09

A 12 year old is not a responsible adult accountable for their actions. That's just silly.

except that the law has already decided 18 is when a child has ownership of his behavior

a child can be charged with a criminal offense from the age of 12 in queensland.

Tried as an adult at 12? Citation?

We had huge open stormwater drains near where i lived in canberra 12 years ago. I remember being told explicitly to not play near them because when it rains in the mountains a flash flood comes through those stormwater drains and will probably wash you away.

So you know what i didn't do? Play in the drains. I was 10. I could walk myself 900m home from primary school, i could ride my bike to a shop to buy milk for my parents and i did stupid s*** but teh worst of it was curbed by being made real clear of what can potentially happen.

If i was swept away i'm pretty sure my parents would take the blame onto themselves, not the general public.

If you think a 12 year old is responsible and aware of all possible dangers that may occur, you are wrong.

There are plenty of adults that get stuck in drains.....

Sorry I meant 10.

CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 29
29 Immature age

(1) A person under the age of 10 years is not criminally responsible for any act or omission.

(2) A person under the age of 14 years is not criminally responsible for an act or omission, unless it is proved that at the time of doing the act or making the omission the person had capacity to know that the person ought not to do the act or make the omission.

So you know what i didn't do? Play in the drains. I was 10. I could walk myself 900m home from primary school

Comprehension fail. Kid wasn't playing IN the drain, kid was playing in flood water.

Wasn't there a thread here not so long ago about someone exploring drains in Brisbane? If this is apparently such a no-brainer, where were the OMG THAT IS INSANE SO STUPID YOURE GONNA DIE A 12 YEAR ODL KNOWS BETTER calls then?

infi: Still doesn't answer the question about whether the child is tried as an adult. Its a massive difference that acoc***s for maturity.

last edited by Hogfather at 13:19:18 30/Oct/09

Go find the thread Hogfather, I think you'll find quite a few responces saying that it was a rather retarded thing to do.
Even more retarded meeting some random 4Chan guy at the same time.

Here.

Not exactly a resounding outcry given how obviously stupid it is according to this thread.

Unlike the star of the above thread this kid didn't even go in the drain - he was sucked in while playing in rainwater.

Here's your response Scooter:

As far as i'm aware it's not illegal. Though i've never really looked into it.
The bars/grills are placed over most pipes to stop kids getting in for safety reasons, not legality.

Also, Sewer Trunk Mains are around the 1m Mark, With the largest I can find in Logan being just 1.5m, thats the line running into the Sh!t plant. Average pipes in residential are 225mm. Good luck climbing sliding up them.

A question to the guys doing this, Do you get a DBYD plan of the Stormwater so you have a MUD map and can work out where you're going? Or just run in marking/remembering where you've been and hope to find a way out?

You sound more interested than concerned for safety?

last edited by Hogfather at 13:28:24 30/Oct/09

Why would I be concerned for some random guys on the internets safety?

I also said this:

if you do plan on doing this, I strongly suggest you invest in a cheap gas/oxygen detector or stay in very well ventilated pipes. 1/4 systems have oxygen deficient atmospheres. Only like ~16% though, so you wont die or anything, but it's not good for you. Dangerous if you have Bronchitis/Asthma.

I asumed an adult, even a retard one on the internet, wouldn't be stupid enough to go into a Stormwater system during a storm.

Why are you concerned about this kid's payout / cuplability?

Also: there's never flash storms in SE QLD? I hate those Melbourne players...

Has no one heard of Life insurance? Permanent disability insurance? Anyone?

Comprehension fail. Kid wasn't playing IN the drain, kid was playing in flood water.

I'm sorry I'll make it clearer maybe i said drains but i meant those storm water gully's which i conveniently labelled as "drains" out of not knowing a better word.


View Larger Map

Because of the way storm fronts work here, we usually have pretty decent warnings about most storms.

I'm not really concerned about the Boy/Church I'm more concerned about Australia becoming a completely litigious society where no-one is willing to take any responsibility for themselves/those in their care. I dont think people should be getting millions upon millions of $ for seemingly unknown reasons.

The kid doesn't have anyone to provide for, so his income is moot, so that leaves medical expences. I never said 9.6M figure was wrong either. Assuming the kid lives to a decent age (though I'm not sure how much of a life it will be) 9.6M seems like a fair amount... if you can prove it was the schools fault.

If at any point in his schooling the teachers/administrators told kids not to play in drains/flood water I dont think the school should pay anything. They cant just lock kids in their room or they would be in fr even more lawsuits.

Those are Drains skythra, Open drains.

Looking at google maps there seems to be a pipe outlet into the river. ~300m from that pipe outlet is a huge open drain, between the ovals of the school. Thats where a lot of flood water would be...

Has no one heard of Life insurance? Permanent disability insurance? Anyone?

you're referring to the radio station thingy, not the kid/drain thingy yeah?



anyway, i can imagine that there are two possible areas where the school could have been negligent:

1) should that opening to the storm water pipe have been open/accesible? probably not, imo. even a simple grill across it probably would have prevented the incident. and how much does that s*** cost... a lot less than ~$9m!

2) had the child previously been warned that the open pipe could be potentially dangerous? was the child being supervised, or at the very least told not to play in the flood waters? it was straight after school had finished at a boarding school so if TSS is anything like the GPS boarding school i went to (and i'd imagine that it is) then there would have been a tonne of staff still on school grounds. i'd imagine the kid wasn't doing this by himself, so potentially we have a bunch of kids messing around in a fairly dangerous situation, possibly unaccounted for by school staff.

it's pretty easy to imagine that the school was very negligent in its duty of care imo.

it's pretty easy to imagine that the school was very negligent in its duty of care imo.

It's pretty easy to imagine a bunch of 12yo boys not doing what they were told and sneaking off to muck around in flood waters.
It's also pretty easy to imagine one of those boys saying "Hey I bet going through that is like going down a waterslide" then saying hi was sucked into it to avoid getting into trouble...

But, I can also imagine kissing Jessica Alba. Doesn't mean it's ever going to happen/has happened :(

Like you said at the start, you really need more information then tabloid news sites give to be able to even begin to understand anything about the case.

considering the ~$9m settlement it's pretty obvious that that the kid's family have at least a moderate case. strong enough that the church would rather pay 9 mil than go to court.

that's why i'm leaning that way.

^^ The church would have insurers anyway.

The school would owe a duty of care to take reasonable precautions to prevent the children from injuring themselves.

Quite obviously allowing to be playing a drain/outside/unsupervised are breach of this duty.

End of story I believe.

but it would never have occurred to my parents that it was someone else's fault?!
Did you get massive permanent brain damage?

They may have started looking into who to blame if someone had lost an eye...

I just asked my mum, she said she wouldn't, particularly at age 12.

What did the school do wrong here? Do you think that if they knew they were playing near/in/around a stormwater drain they'd allow it?!

"But they should have known where they were at all times?! They had a duty of care!"

So would that involve chaining them to where ever they left them?

"You can't treat my kids like that?!"

Ok, locking them in their dorms?

"You can't treat my kids like that?! Besides, what if there's a fire / flood / act of god / alien invasion?"

Ok, how about we tell them that leaving the dorm to play in storm water is dangerous?

"Yes, but they aren't old enough to make that sort of judgement. They're children!"

Ok, how about we assume everyone is a f***ing vegetable until they hit 18, when they magically become adults and can take responsibility for themselves?

"But but but"...

I am so amazingly tired of how we are being over regulated for "our own good" or "for the children", and whenever someone f***s up, the first thing people do is look for someone to blame.

I read in the courier mail (yeah I know) that there were community groups that were up in arms over Windows 7 because it has in-built encryption technology to keep data private. "What about pedophiles that can hide all their kiddy porn on this new evil software? Microsoft need to take responsibility!".

WTF?!?!?!

infi: Still doesn't answer the question about whether the child is tried as an adult.

I am not infi (obviously, thank god) but I'll answer your question even though you know your answer, so I'll just say Children's Courts and leave it at that.

Its a massive difference that acoc***s for maturity.

In QLD the age of adult criminal responsibility is 17.

So in summary, Hogfather was right.

last edited by Triamks at 23:32:10 30/Oct/09

There are many different ages - what infi quoted was correct.

cliffnotes

under 10 = no liability

10-14 = Crown must show that the child had an understanding of their actions, presumed without capacity

14-17 = responsible, but goes thru the childrens courts.

17+ = you're playing with the big boys now.

yeah, everyone (i.e. kat, mantra's mum, et al) say they wouldn't do anything if something like this was to occur in their family...

have they ever lost a child? cause i dunno, quite frankly unless it's happened to them i don't think they have a clue as to how they'd react. it's happened to my family and i can guarantee whatever i thought i knew or understood about things like that didn't mean s***. it's very easy to sit here and pass judgement on the boy's family for 'looking for someone to blame'.

f*** the baby bonus, I'm gonna have a kid so I can score $9M because it does something dumb and gets hurt in a few years ... that's like winning the lotto!

There are many different ages.

Forgive me for arguing semantics but I think everyone was always aware of that, and is what Hogfather was trying to demonstrate to infi who blurted something out without providing context. You, fade, have subsequently done that with your cliffnotes. Consider everyone educated.

- what infi quoted was correct.

The Criminal Code section he quoted was correct, but what he initially said about a 12 year old being charged was incorrect in the context of the discussion about charging a person as an adult, which was Hogfather's comment that infi was responding to.

last edited by Triamks at 09:55:26 31/Oct/09

How about this for stupid:

A Montana jury took a swing at the makers of the Louisville Slugger baseball bat.
The panel ruled in favor of a family who sued the company for not warning users about the dangers of using aluminum bats.

The verdict means Hillerich and Bradsby is on the hook for $850,000. The company said it's not sure what it means beyond that because the jury also decided there was nothing wrong with the product.

In 2003, 18-year-old Brandon Patch died after being hit in the head by a ball he threw to a batter. That batter was using an aluminum Louisville Slugger.

The poor kid didn't do anything wrong, the manufacturer didn't do anything wrong. Yet the jury still awards the family $850k. People are retarded.

http://www.wlky.com/cnn-news/21467637/detail.html

Bah - Yes I got hit on the head :(

last edited by greazy at 19:55:33 31/Oct/09

last edited by greazy at 19:57:45 31/Oct/09

If the kid is old enough to get charged with murder, he's old enough to be responsible for doing something stupid like boarding in flood waters IMO.

For as long as I can remember, I was warned against playing in or near drains and flood waters. I was also taught to keep clear of creeks and waterways when unsupervised. These are things I have known, understood and obeyed from about the age of 3. So I guess at the age of 3 I was smarter than that kid was at 12. If anything, the parents should be charged with gross negligence for not teaching their kid to not play in flood waters.

hit in the head by a ball

...

only person at fault is the idiot who threw the bat

Were you hit in the head greazy or are you just plain old illiterate.

I miss natural selection

you'd have died a long time ago.

There have been plenty of times I could have died in my life. But I didn't. And it wasn't because I sued someone to take responsibility for my actions or because I made someone else make it possible that I live. It's called survival of the fittest and I am pretty fit both emotionally and physically.

As a woman who has had a miscarriage I understand that some people aren't strong enough to live. This extends to smart as well.

All the dumb people are now protected and left to breed creating more dumb people. I miss the day when people who did stupid things were held accountable and normally removed from the gene pool.

All these bleeding hearts aren't fit to be humans.

haha holy s***.
how f***ing arrogant can one bogan be?

The problem with being better than everyone else is they assume you're arrogant.

last edited by Kat at 20:03:24 31/Oct/09

kats pumping up her own thread for another hungy

kat i preferred your other comment which clearly showed you got offended.

Sorry you're a bogan.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/hoyts-sued-over-fall-on--hazardous-stairs-20091105-hz9s.html

lol, see where this one goes

guy falls down the steps in the dark at a theatre and blames hoyts for not having sufficient lighting. Also says the anti slip tread on the stair edge was a trip hazard and hoyts did not do enough to ensure his safety.

I have been to that same cinema a number of times and it has the same led tube and step lights as any other cinema, where no doubt thousands of competent people can navigate the stairs weekly without falling down.

In summation, "I am a useless twat who wasnt watching where i was walking, I fell over, but its someone elses fault pay me $$$ plz"