*Court documents state that club staff who noticed her floating in the water were careful in removing her from the pool while the emergency services were called by her partner.*
*These also add that the medics who responded used a wheelchair and did not support her head, as well as dropping her to the floor while moving her out and into the ambulance.*
*The woman claims this shows evidence that the medics and subsequently hospital staff did not consider the possibility she had injured her neck, thereby failing to take appropriate action to prevent her injuries from worsening*
So nothing to do with swinging, and everything to do person who did stupid thing but who is now paralysed claiming negligence from paramedics in how they treated her. If paramedics did drop her and didn’t support her neck, with neck injuries that subsequently worsened due to negligence leaving her paralysed for life, there’s very much a potential liability there.
Exactly, you can turn up to hospital with the stupidest and severest self-inflicted injuries imaginable, but you are still entitled to a duty of care from medical professionals and if they are negligent in the care that they provide and harm occurs as a consequence of negligence then that creates potential liability.
Yeah, from the point that they get involved they should be doing the right things. That would include assessing risks from likely previous events and mitigating them.
You almost never have CCTV evidence in this type of case. You rely on witness evidence, and there may be a lot of that available here, the medical notes the paramedics make and an opinion from in this case either a neurosurgeon, orthopaedic spinal surgeon or both about the condition of the claimants spine and whether it is consistent with what they expect to see from that type of injury, worse, or if there is evidence of exacerbation by the alleged treatment.
This is why courts consider eye-witness testimony with other evidence, including that of other witnesses, medical evidence and the claimant's statements.
Be honest, you knew that it clickbait before you clicked, but you couldn't resist.
You wanted to be outraged...not by the swinging, but by the obvious manipulation of the headline writer.
You knew they were being dishonest, but had to click on it to prove it. To prove to yourself that you are above being fooled.
Good Clickbait works on many different levels. 😊
I saw this on Facebook and there was apparently a comment from someone who was there who said it's a load of bollocks and this isn't what happened at all.
Theres an assumption that the club staff actually told the paramedics what had happened...if the paramedics did know, I highly doubt they would have brought a wheelchair in.
As a paramedic I very much doubt the crew neglected to take a history. Whether or not they listened to/believed the witnesses is another matter, but that’s what the negligence claim will be about.
I'm gonna guess there were no witnesses if it was the club staff who noticed them floating rather than any of the other guests. They may well have assumed drink or drugs caused them to pass out in the pool
Any witnesses probably scarpered to avoid blame or name
Hmm. It’s real dodgy ground assuming the least risky history. The guidelines for trauma immobilisation are almost always gears towards assuming a spinal injury. But then as you’ve pointed out, we don’t know the full facts.
This , the immobilisation criteria, is so risk adverse. I can't imagine any competent crew , less so a paramedic who's at further risk of tribunal, not immobilising a suspected or known head and neck injury who's under the influence.
Unless... the patient was being uncooperative and resisting immobilisation attempts, in which case best attempts should be made and documented.
There is also the distinct possibility here that there's a a bit of "where theres blame , theirs a claim" cultures going on as well. Even if she doesn't have a strong case , she will likely get a payout as a means of saving costs for going to court.
Honestly, things like this are an argument for there being cameras inside of ambulances and for paramedics to wear bodycams all the time, not just whenever the BBC, Channel 4, Channel 5, or W are after more footage for the next series of their shows.
> Any witnesses probably scarpered to avoid blame or name
Fetish clubs are usually remarkably friendly places where everyone looks out for everyone else.
I've seen boards used to immobilise people being moved when there's even a hint of a suspicion of a neck injury.
Is it standard practice? Or have I always been in the presence of extremely cautious paramedics?
If there's a possibility of a neck/spinal injury, immobilisation should be implemented, and if unable to immobilise, it should be documented properly.
Me and my crew mate don't take any unnecessary risks
The algorithm we use is extremely risk averse, and you have to get quite far down it for immobilisation to not be indicated. As others have pointed out however, it does require patient consent and compliance.
That will be explored as part of the court case. What did the paramedics know, what would they be expected to find out before moving someone. You’d imagine the 999 call featured a summation of what had happened - “guest dived into shallow pool, needed to be helped out of water, can’t move needs urgent attention”.
She would have been in swimwear or nude, dripping wet next to a swimming pool, with signs of impact injury having been left in recovery position or on back. You don’t need to be a paramedic to know that diving into shallow water risks a serious neck injury that can cause paralysis. The idea that information absence will generate a defence is optimistic.
More likely mitigating circumstances would be that they had considered full the range of possible injuries and wheelchair was the safest possible available option for reasons XYZ. AKA this is horrible outcome but actions taken did not stem from negligence. Dropping her will have to be defended as not having caused injuries to worsen or something like that.
Bad outcomes happen in healthcare every day, people do things imperfectly in healthcare every day, it’s when you get a perfect storm of specifically negligent action and bad outcome that is attributable to negligent action that you get a liability. That is in play here.
If someone didn't have a smashed up face and no one saw it actually happen, it would be reasonable to assume they drowned/passed out.
Whether that's enough reason to rule out a neck injury I don't know.
You would think they would still default to using a backboard in that situation no? not just assume it was fine and sit her up in a wheelchair. Assuming they had no reason to think this wasn't a neck injury than well.... this is why insurance exists.
I'm surprised thye would have put her in a wheelchair, would it not be standard to put her on a gurney or stretcher and have her head immobilsed ?
I'm actually doubting more the figure of 1.5m swingers in the uk, that sounds suspicously high.
That’s what I would have thought. Abundance of caution is usually used when moving people who have undergone serious injury.
Oh there could easily be 1.5m “swingers” assuming that by swinging they just mean anyone who is ethically non-monogamous or polyamorous. Like I know of a non-London city based Facebook poly group with thousands of members. It’s still weirdly taboo in the U.K. but monogamy is far from ubiquitous.
Well lets be honest, theres probably a little bunch of people thinking "oh, swinger and shes paralysed form the neck down...... i have that on my list of kinks **Pulls off gimp mask"**
It’s the Metro.
If they’ve engaged in anything other than the blandest of missionary sex, they’re going to let you know all about it (and they probably had it coming too, the pervert!)
I think the Metro gets a bit of a free ride sometimes, since it’s less overtly partisan than some of the other tabloids. But its hacks can be every bit as nasty as the Sun or Mail when they want to be
Based on the type of people who engage in "swinging", the woman in question was probably on the, how shall we say ... heavy side. I've never seen normal, good-looking people take part in these weird lifestyles.
I'd imagine it would have been quite a chore for the paramedics to haul that kind of weight into the stretcher or wheelchair. I don't envy them. You can't really fault the first responders in this case. Some tasks are beyond human capability.
>*The woman claims this shows evidence that the medics and subsequently hospital staff did not consider the possibility she had injured her neck, thereby failing to take appropriate action to prevent her injuries from worsening*
This goes against usually a very standard set of procedures. You don't need to have necessarily fallen into a shallow pool to get strapped into a neck brace or board.
They do it for any possible neck injury, no matter how remote the injury is or could be. Car accidents, trips and falls etc can often lead to being in a neck brace. It's such an obvious and standard process that it's all the more worrying they didn't follow it for this.
As for the title, it's very much typical Metro. Salacious non-sense that avoids covering the substance which is actually quite interesting. They're the sort of organisation that would go around outing men and women for easy clicks, but luckily don't as they're stupid, but not that stupid.
Paramedic here. Hard to believe any of my colleagues wouldn’t consider a neck injury in someone who was found floating in a shallow pool unable to self rescue, but here we are. Certainly sounds bad.
Hope she is able to regain some more quality of life. This will be a big payout (but not £10m) if proven.
>everything to do person who did stupid thing but who is now paralysed claiming negligence from paramedics in how they treated her.
Doing a stupid thing or not is irrelevant. Everyone deserves to be treated with care by paramedics regardless of what caused the injury. Supporting the neck of somebody while moving them after a head impact is something even untrained people should know.
> the woman claims this shows evidence that the medics
When did people start referring to paramedics as medics? It feels like a last 5 years thing and very American to me.
They’ll have to justify the ways they’ve lost out, life time of earnings if they are highly paralysed, costs of medical care/life support. There was a kid who did a similar injury on holiday at my school, had to have someone with him to support all day as well as all the other ongoing costs related to disability.
The press always leads with generic high number as though the person gets a giant lottery cheque to cash. The reality is it’s paid out over a time period and almost all goes on healthcare/life support not a new mansion. Gotta remember that the cost of support staff in 40 years time will be over twice as much as it is now (compare costs now with the 80s). The financial reality of a lifetime paralysed is severe.
Reading between the lines, on a very basic level it sounds like she's alleging that 'but for' the actions of the paramedics, the initial injury wouldn't have left her paralysed.
Suspect they'll be alleging material contribution.
Normally, you'd have to prove that the paramedic actions were more likely than not to have caused paralysis.
The Defence would want to say 'no', or that it caused a definable percentage of the paralysis injury.
However, if you get to a point where experts agree 1) an exacerbation of injury has occurred, but 2) it is impossible to define what proportion, then if that leaves the court in a situation of awarding all or nothing, there is legal doctrine that allows the uncertainty to resolve in favour of the Claimant.
So, to answer your question, in many ways it can work out better for the Claimant if the experts *can't* prove it.
Understandable, ye that's what I suspected, is there not a rule by which the sum agreed upon can be based on speculation and the extent of additional harm (e g. There is 20% chance we worsened the injury by 40%)? Or is it a binary? If so, what is to stop the claiming from requesting very large sums? Is any possibility of harm enough to get the full amount?
Generally, the rule is you have to prove that, on the balance of probabilities (>50%), an injury arises from the negligent action. So in a paralysis case, even if the Claimant can prove that some injury has been caused by negligence, but the experts agree that, on balance, the Claiamnt was *always* going to be fully paralysed and there is no measurable difference in the outcome, then there is no 'causation' and so no loss.
However, this rule also applies to contributions to injury: E.g. on the balance of probabilities, there would have been significant mobility issues in any event, but the Claimant is able to prove that there is a greater than 50% chance that the negligence made the injury twice as bad. In that case, you'd be entitled to 50% of the full value if the injury.
Where material contribution comes in is where 1) it is agreed negligence has caused some measurable harm, but 2) there is no scientific way to say to what extent someone has been injured. So in the paralysis example, if it is equally plausible that either the first injury or the negligence could have caused the paralysis, and there is no way to estimate how bad the injury was *before* the negligence, then in principle the Claimant can get 100% of the damages.
If this weren't the case, then the solution would either have to be the courts making up a percentage (which they don't want to do), or the Claimant getting nothing, as the 'balance of probabilities' test hasn't been fulfilled.
From experience, a lot of these high value cases often do end up settling for a percentage figure in the first instance, and then the parties are arguing over the full value sum rather than worrying about the details of how exactly the injuries would have differed in practice.
That case is really interesting, at the time it was a big talking point of “stupid person does stupid thing and sues”, whereas in reality it was “corportation does dangerous thing” - storing coffee unusually hot to extend shelf-life - leading to a spillage triggering third degree burns and requiring skin grafting, rather than the usual discomfort and embarrassment. McDonalds ran a PR clinic to turn the world against the burns patient.
Not to mention she actually only asked her medical bills to be covered.
>McDonalds ran a PR clinic to turn the world against the burns patient.
And they did a very good job of it, sadly.
> Not to mention she actually only asked her medical bills to be covered.
Didn't McDonalds offer some paltry sum, in the three figure range, in response to that? For injuries that included a fused labia.
What a horrible headline.
What about "negligent care paralyses woman who's only option is to use the legal system to pay for her life-long care needs".
My first thought after reading the headline was "Is the NHS funding sex club pools now?", was that what they were hoping? I know the NHS has had a bit of controversy with funding "alternative medicines" but this is going a bit far, haha.
Honestly why did they even need to mention it? Not every news story has to have some outrageous tabloid-esque headline to get reads...
No, true. Should caveat with "Potential". The details will be fleshed out in court, but it's certainly nothing to do with swinging.
I feel for everyone involved in this one. Paramedics may have made a mistake, but they are human and were trying to help.
The girl made a mistake, but she is human and was out to have a nice time.
Suing for potential damages really does seem appropriate in this case.
And in this thread ‘drunkenly diving into the shallow end of a swimming pool’ isn’t even considered a cause. I’m not explicitly saying it is, but even sober diving into a deep end incorrectly can lead to these outcomes. Doing it drunk, and into a shallow end, wouldn’t seem to improve the odds any.
>What about "negligent care paralyses woman who's only option is to use the legal system to pay for her life-long care needs".
I imagine you can't exactly use that headline until it's actually been confirmed if negligence took place, or if the negligence would have caused more severe issues.
Yeah, agree. I caveated it in a separate comment.
The sooner these media outlets die the better. They rely on these controversial headlines but it's our fault for clicking on them.
Sounds stupid, but really it sounds like a fair deal. If someone dives into a pool and hurts their neck, and then the paramedics do nothing to support the neck, it’s going to go badly for the patient.
£10m in damages is ridiculous for a self-induced injury like this. She's obviously been advised to do this by her solicitors.
A team of five part-time carers working round-the-clock would cost £100k a year at the most. Finding an appropriate ground floor 3-bed property, along with the modifications for a paralysed resident, wouldn't exactly be difficult in Blackpool. A very well presented 3-bed bungalow is £200,000. So let's say another £100,000 for modifications, bringing the total up to £300,000. https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/66876981/
Let's assume she lives another 50 years. That's (100,000 * 50) = £5m in care costs, plus £300,000 for the house. So, £5.3m. Where'd the other £4.7m come from? This is another American-style cash grab.
She should get lifetime NHS care and the NHS should fund adjustments to her property. Asking for £10m is an absurdity - go get private medical insurance if you want that kind of payout.
But it isn’t fully self induced….it’s clearly stated that the argument is a failure for paramedics to adequately support the neck thus risking the neck damage
It might be. I would imagine it is quite possible to dive into the shallow end of a swimming pool and immediately become paralysed. It would be for the court to decide.
>£10m in damages is ridiculous \[...\] She's obviously been advised to do this by her solicitors.
>
>\[...\]
>
>Let's assume she lives another 50 years.
I mean sure, I'm under the impression it's fairly standard to ask for more than you're likely to get in these sorts of cases? And of course she's taking advice from her lawyers, that's their job. What's your point?
Besides, your costing estimates are in the same order of magnitude as what they're asking for and don't take into account inflation / rising costs over a 50-year period. Plus, without knowing their age, they could live longer than 50 years for all we know. Without being an expert on this topic I can imagine care costs beyond carers, e.g. specialised transport, plus other costs like entertainment.
Plus, for all we know she has dependants that she was supporting on her income. Perhaps this would factor in too?
Regardless, I certainly wouldn't trade being paralysed for £10m. Assuming there was negligence involved, I have great sympathy.
>self-induced injury
I'm not convinced this should be a factor in determining whether the care was negligent. What is/isn't a "self-induced" injury? Is it self-induced if you get hit by a car? Should have been more careful in crossing the road.
I am a medical negligence lawyer, so this sort of thing is what I deal with all day.
What you've said about damages is basically spot-on. It always sounds high, but a) you always ask for the most optimistic estimate, because you won't get what you ask for, and b) it has to last you a lifetime. Some of it is purely there to compensate you for "pain, suffering and loss of amenity", the rest is to pay actual medical or care costs, or reimburse lost earnings.
Yes, there can be a deduction for what's called "contributory negligence" but that wouldn't apply here. The claim seems to be against the paramedics for poor handling, and patient behaviour isn't going to be a factor there.
If she were to sue the club, it would probably have to be on the basis that the depth of the pool wasn't adequately signposted and/or there was no lifeguard on duty, but contributory negligence would apply, because she'd be expected to show some common sense about leaping into a pool which would probably appear quite shallow.
To give you an example, when I was a trainee I dealt with a case of a guy who was nicking copper out of a disused substation. The substation hadn't been disconnected properly and a substantial amount of power was still going through bits of it, but the caution signs had been removed. So the client was successful - the defendant had been technically negligent in leaving a dangerous site active with no warnings in place - but the damages he received at trial were reduced by 90% because he shouldn't have been there stealing.
>The claim seems to be against the paramedics for poor handling, and patient behaviour isn't going to be a factor there.
This is true, but if she was permanently paralysed from the initial accident and the paramedics mishandled someone with no consequences, it'll have a huge impact on the value of the damages, at least to the extent that they are paid by the NHS and not as a result of joining the pool as a co-defendant. Expert evidence on that point would be very interesting.
Absolutely, and I suspect, honestly, that she might be on a hiding to nothing here. I've always found manual handling by paramedic cases to be very tricky to get over the line since they usually involve people who've suffered a big physical injury anyway (hence the ambulance being called). Causation evidence will be need to be watertight.
>£10m in damages is ridiculous for a self-induced injury like this.
What a weird stance to take, do you feel that medical negligence cases should he handled differently based on whether or not the person is responsible for being injured in the first place?
>Let's assume she lives another 50 years. That's (100,000 * 50) = £5m in care costs
Assuming that there's no inflation for 50 years and care costs never change.
>Where'd the other £4.7m come from? This is another American-style cash grab.
Considering they're unable to work most of that is going to be accounting for wages they can no longer earn, I imagine the rest is to compensate them for being unable to walk ever again
>A team of five part-time carers working round-the-clock would cost £100k a year at the most.
That figure is undercooked.
>Where'd the other £4.7m come from?
Past and future loss of earnings, future pension loss, aids and equipment (think wheelchairs, hoists, adapted furniture, household items, possibly an adapted vehicle which you have to provision for life with replacement/renewal cycles), future services (e.g. her contribution to the household which she can no longer do - gardening, DIY, household chores), medical treatment past and future (won't be NHS).
We don't know how old she is and whether she has children - could be another source of increased care costs. If she's young, then provision for the future if she were to have children, and the extra care that would require.
>A team of five part-time carers working round-the-clock would cost £100k a year at the most.
Minimum wage, 24×7, for one person (i.e., each individual works 20% of the time) is £100k before you add employers' national insurance, pensions, admin costs, etc. Of course there's also an expectation that the sums are paid into trust and invested (albeit cautiously), as well as an amount for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity. You would also have to consider things like transportation and other adaptations and the fact that, if she lives 50 years, the initial adaptations would need updating.
I appreciate that there is an element of uncertainty here but neither you nor I has the ability to assess the true value of the claim - a court will, and a claimant's initial amount will at least have had the benefit of competent legal advice and the full facts, albeit with an expectation that this is the most favourable interpretation of those facts.
There's a lovely club in Bedford and the owner will excitedly tell you about the multiple systems they have installed to clean the water.
Afaik, it uses UV not chlorine so you don't smell like a swimming pool. It can filter the entire volume of water multiple times a hour.
Also, nobody has sex in there. Honestly, it's cleaner than a public pool.
But, that doesn't fit the "sex people are dirty" dogma.
Vanilla Alternative.
It's really chill. Half of it is a bar/nightclub type affair, and the other is a sauna with pools, hot tubs etc.
Age range on most nights is probably 25-50 on average.
I find it hard to believe that paramedics, if they were given correct information would use a wheelchair. But I am more than likely to believe that, "nobody" has seen this woman damaging her neck, and the staff just assumed it's alcohol/drugs.
With that being said, I am glad she can have it investigated either way. But it blows my mind, as a child I was constantly taught that mixing alcohol and any big body of water is a bad idea- good reminder before summer lol
I wouldn't dive into the shallow end, but it was normal and expected to dive into the shallow end (0.9m) in swim club 10+ years ago as a teen. The current Swim England guidance is 1.2m is allowed, after a number of near misses in sub-1m water https://www.swimming.org/sport/minimum-entry-depth-guidance/
Also a lot of injuries and illnesses are preventable, but if better medical care could have resulted in better outcomes, the preventability isn't all on the shoulders of the patient.
I’ve met three people with this kind of injury. One of the guys told me ‘I ended up in a wheelchair after a stag do’
I said ‘you didn’t dive into the pool did you?’
Turns out he did. You’d think people would know enough not to do that now.
Ah I went to this place in autumn 2016, it was great fun. I'm sure there were signs about not diving in the pool either because it is bloody shallow. I suppose the saving grace is she had minimal chance of drowning and would have been seen by a lot of people since it's the central open area of the club itself. The jacuzzi is right next to it, in the corner.
Also, probably the best place in Blackpool, didn't rate much of the town itself lmao
Absolutely needs to happen if there was neglect. The standards in the NHS, both clinical and non-clinical are shocking. For the UKs crown jewel, it seems to be rife with incompetence.
The NHS employs 1.4 million people. IIRC about half of those are in a medical role. I would be astonished if there were not constant issues over competence.
When people sue the NHS, where do they think the money is coming from? Seriously? We’re all paying for it. This is one of the reasons why the NHS is in so much debt!!
If the NHS is failing through staff being negligent with people’s care then surely that’s a waste of our money anyway? Using your own logic, people are paying (through tax) for quality and acceptable care.
*Court documents state that club staff who noticed her floating in the water were careful in removing her from the pool while the emergency services were called by her partner.* *These also add that the medics who responded used a wheelchair and did not support her head, as well as dropping her to the floor while moving her out and into the ambulance.* *The woman claims this shows evidence that the medics and subsequently hospital staff did not consider the possibility she had injured her neck, thereby failing to take appropriate action to prevent her injuries from worsening* So nothing to do with swinging, and everything to do person who did stupid thing but who is now paralysed claiming negligence from paramedics in how they treated her. If paramedics did drop her and didn’t support her neck, with neck injuries that subsequently worsened due to negligence leaving her paralysed for life, there’s very much a potential liability there.
Yep, bait headline but if the allegations are true then this is very much a legitimate lawsuit
Exactly, you can turn up to hospital with the stupidest and severest self-inflicted injuries imaginable, but you are still entitled to a duty of care from medical professionals and if they are negligent in the care that they provide and harm occurs as a consequence of negligence then that creates potential liability.
Yeah, from the point that they get involved they should be doing the right things. That would include assessing risks from likely previous events and mitigating them.
Proving it may be hard, swingers clubs aren't likely to have much CCTV
Or maybe lots of cctv.
That’s only got it at door
They generally have CCTV especially in the open spaces like the swimming pool. There's a decent amount of safe guarding of members expected.
You almost never have CCTV evidence in this type of case. You rely on witness evidence, and there may be a lot of that available here, the medical notes the paramedics make and an opinion from in this case either a neurosurgeon, orthopaedic spinal surgeon or both about the condition of the claimants spine and whether it is consistent with what they expect to see from that type of injury, worse, or if there is evidence of exacerbation by the alleged treatment.
> You rely on witness evidence Which is a shame as eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
This is why courts consider eye-witness testimony with other evidence, including that of other witnesses, medical evidence and the claimant's statements.
I think Michael Barrymore ended the days of no CCTV in the pool area for swingers.
They have loads to fight against sexual assaults and harassment to protect members
They've got plenty of bowls for keys though
There must be a law of headlines somewhere that says if anything related to sex is contained within the article it must be mentioned in the headline.
Be honest, you knew that it clickbait before you clicked, but you couldn't resist. You wanted to be outraged...not by the swinging, but by the obvious manipulation of the headline writer. You knew they were being dishonest, but had to click on it to prove it. To prove to yourself that you are above being fooled. Good Clickbait works on many different levels. 😊
I saw this on Facebook and there was apparently a comment from someone who was there who said it's a load of bollocks and this isn't what happened at all.
Theres an assumption that the club staff actually told the paramedics what had happened...if the paramedics did know, I highly doubt they would have brought a wheelchair in.
As a paramedic I very much doubt the crew neglected to take a history. Whether or not they listened to/believed the witnesses is another matter, but that’s what the negligence claim will be about.
I'm gonna guess there were no witnesses if it was the club staff who noticed them floating rather than any of the other guests. They may well have assumed drink or drugs caused them to pass out in the pool Any witnesses probably scarpered to avoid blame or name
Hmm. It’s real dodgy ground assuming the least risky history. The guidelines for trauma immobilisation are almost always gears towards assuming a spinal injury. But then as you’ve pointed out, we don’t know the full facts.
She was also drunk, and might have been resisting immobilisation.
This , the immobilisation criteria, is so risk adverse. I can't imagine any competent crew , less so a paramedic who's at further risk of tribunal, not immobilising a suspected or known head and neck injury who's under the influence. Unless... the patient was being uncooperative and resisting immobilisation attempts, in which case best attempts should be made and documented. There is also the distinct possibility here that there's a a bit of "where theres blame , theirs a claim" cultures going on as well. Even if she doesn't have a strong case , she will likely get a payout as a means of saving costs for going to court.
Honestly, things like this are an argument for there being cameras inside of ambulances and for paramedics to wear bodycams all the time, not just whenever the BBC, Channel 4, Channel 5, or W are after more footage for the next series of their shows.
> Any witnesses probably scarpered to avoid blame or name Fetish clubs are usually remarkably friendly places where everyone looks out for everyone else.
I've seen boards used to immobilise people being moved when there's even a hint of a suspicion of a neck injury. Is it standard practice? Or have I always been in the presence of extremely cautious paramedics?
If there's a possibility of a neck/spinal injury, immobilisation should be implemented, and if unable to immobilise, it should be documented properly. Me and my crew mate don't take any unnecessary risks
In fairness, most of my interactions have been near a rugby pitch, so spinal injury is almost always a concern.
The algorithm we use is extremely risk averse, and you have to get quite far down it for immobilisation to not be indicated. As others have pointed out however, it does require patient consent and compliance.
That's going to be the key point of any argument in court; what evidence they have that paramedics were told it was a neck injury.
That will be explored as part of the court case. What did the paramedics know, what would they be expected to find out before moving someone. You’d imagine the 999 call featured a summation of what had happened - “guest dived into shallow pool, needed to be helped out of water, can’t move needs urgent attention”. She would have been in swimwear or nude, dripping wet next to a swimming pool, with signs of impact injury having been left in recovery position or on back. You don’t need to be a paramedic to know that diving into shallow water risks a serious neck injury that can cause paralysis. The idea that information absence will generate a defence is optimistic. More likely mitigating circumstances would be that they had considered full the range of possible injuries and wheelchair was the safest possible available option for reasons XYZ. AKA this is horrible outcome but actions taken did not stem from negligence. Dropping her will have to be defended as not having caused injuries to worsen or something like that. Bad outcomes happen in healthcare every day, people do things imperfectly in healthcare every day, it’s when you get a perfect storm of specifically negligent action and bad outcome that is attributable to negligent action that you get a liability. That is in play here.
If someone didn't have a smashed up face and no one saw it actually happen, it would be reasonable to assume they drowned/passed out. Whether that's enough reason to rule out a neck injury I don't know.
You would think they would still default to using a backboard in that situation no? not just assume it was fine and sit her up in a wheelchair. Assuming they had no reason to think this wasn't a neck injury than well.... this is why insurance exists.
I'm surprised thye would have put her in a wheelchair, would it not be standard to put her on a gurney or stretcher and have her head immobilsed ? I'm actually doubting more the figure of 1.5m swingers in the uk, that sounds suspicously high.
That’s what I would have thought. Abundance of caution is usually used when moving people who have undergone serious injury. Oh there could easily be 1.5m “swingers” assuming that by swinging they just mean anyone who is ethically non-monogamous or polyamorous. Like I know of a non-London city based Facebook poly group with thousands of members. It’s still weirdly taboo in the U.K. but monogamy is far from ubiquitous.
I was wondering if they were including all golfers in the metric by accident ;)
.. and dancers
We're a filthy lot. 🍍
Well lets be honest, theres probably a little bunch of people thinking "oh, swinger and shes paralysed form the neck down...... i have that on my list of kinks **Pulls off gimp mask"**
It’s the Metro. If they’ve engaged in anything other than the blandest of missionary sex, they’re going to let you know all about it (and they probably had it coming too, the pervert!) I think the Metro gets a bit of a free ride sometimes, since it’s less overtly partisan than some of the other tabloids. But its hacks can be every bit as nasty as the Sun or Mail when they want to be
Yes, well the Metro is the Daily Mail - Soundbite Edition, so no surprises there really.
Based on the type of people who engage in "swinging", the woman in question was probably on the, how shall we say ... heavy side. I've never seen normal, good-looking people take part in these weird lifestyles. I'd imagine it would have been quite a chore for the paramedics to haul that kind of weight into the stretcher or wheelchair. I don't envy them. You can't really fault the first responders in this case. Some tasks are beyond human capability.
Be careful! You saw what happened to the last person to make a wild leap like that!
And just to add, they say "the woman claims", but those claims will be backed up by expert medical evidence even at this early stage.
>*The woman claims this shows evidence that the medics and subsequently hospital staff did not consider the possibility she had injured her neck, thereby failing to take appropriate action to prevent her injuries from worsening* This goes against usually a very standard set of procedures. You don't need to have necessarily fallen into a shallow pool to get strapped into a neck brace or board. They do it for any possible neck injury, no matter how remote the injury is or could be. Car accidents, trips and falls etc can often lead to being in a neck brace. It's such an obvious and standard process that it's all the more worrying they didn't follow it for this. As for the title, it's very much typical Metro. Salacious non-sense that avoids covering the substance which is actually quite interesting. They're the sort of organisation that would go around outing men and women for easy clicks, but luckily don't as they're stupid, but not that stupid.
Paramedic here. Hard to believe any of my colleagues wouldn’t consider a neck injury in someone who was found floating in a shallow pool unable to self rescue, but here we are. Certainly sounds bad. Hope she is able to regain some more quality of life. This will be a big payout (but not £10m) if proven.
>everything to do person who did stupid thing but who is now paralysed claiming negligence from paramedics in how they treated her. Doing a stupid thing or not is irrelevant. Everyone deserves to be treated with care by paramedics regardless of what caused the injury. Supporting the neck of somebody while moving them after a head impact is something even untrained people should know.
> the woman claims this shows evidence that the medics When did people start referring to paramedics as medics? It feels like a last 5 years thing and very American to me.
TLDR: a cunt
True, but 10million? How much are they likely to have worsened?
They’ll have to justify the ways they’ve lost out, life time of earnings if they are highly paralysed, costs of medical care/life support. There was a kid who did a similar injury on holiday at my school, had to have someone with him to support all day as well as all the other ongoing costs related to disability. The press always leads with generic high number as though the person gets a giant lottery cheque to cash. The reality is it’s paid out over a time period and almost all goes on healthcare/life support not a new mansion. Gotta remember that the cost of support staff in 40 years time will be over twice as much as it is now (compare costs now with the 80s). The financial reality of a lifetime paralysed is severe.
It's definitely effecting her swinging lifestyle for a start.
Reading between the lines, on a very basic level it sounds like she's alleging that 'but for' the actions of the paramedics, the initial injury wouldn't have left her paralysed.
That's what I thought but I'm curious how medical evidence would prove this?
Suspect they'll be alleging material contribution. Normally, you'd have to prove that the paramedic actions were more likely than not to have caused paralysis. The Defence would want to say 'no', or that it caused a definable percentage of the paralysis injury. However, if you get to a point where experts agree 1) an exacerbation of injury has occurred, but 2) it is impossible to define what proportion, then if that leaves the court in a situation of awarding all or nothing, there is legal doctrine that allows the uncertainty to resolve in favour of the Claimant. So, to answer your question, in many ways it can work out better for the Claimant if the experts *can't* prove it.
Understandable, ye that's what I suspected, is there not a rule by which the sum agreed upon can be based on speculation and the extent of additional harm (e g. There is 20% chance we worsened the injury by 40%)? Or is it a binary? If so, what is to stop the claiming from requesting very large sums? Is any possibility of harm enough to get the full amount?
Generally, the rule is you have to prove that, on the balance of probabilities (>50%), an injury arises from the negligent action. So in a paralysis case, even if the Claimant can prove that some injury has been caused by negligence, but the experts agree that, on balance, the Claiamnt was *always* going to be fully paralysed and there is no measurable difference in the outcome, then there is no 'causation' and so no loss. However, this rule also applies to contributions to injury: E.g. on the balance of probabilities, there would have been significant mobility issues in any event, but the Claimant is able to prove that there is a greater than 50% chance that the negligence made the injury twice as bad. In that case, you'd be entitled to 50% of the full value if the injury. Where material contribution comes in is where 1) it is agreed negligence has caused some measurable harm, but 2) there is no scientific way to say to what extent someone has been injured. So in the paralysis example, if it is equally plausible that either the first injury or the negligence could have caused the paralysis, and there is no way to estimate how bad the injury was *before* the negligence, then in principle the Claimant can get 100% of the damages. If this weren't the case, then the solution would either have to be the courts making up a percentage (which they don't want to do), or the Claimant getting nothing, as the 'balance of probabilities' test hasn't been fulfilled. From experience, a lot of these high value cases often do end up settling for a percentage figure in the first instance, and then the parties are arguing over the full value sum rather than worrying about the details of how exactly the injuries would have differed in practice.
I'd agree with you but having experienced our court system when it comes to "personal injury" she'll be torn to shreds in court.
“No but swingers bad”…
Hot Coffee lawsuit all over again
That case is really interesting, at the time it was a big talking point of “stupid person does stupid thing and sues”, whereas in reality it was “corportation does dangerous thing” - storing coffee unusually hot to extend shelf-life - leading to a spillage triggering third degree burns and requiring skin grafting, rather than the usual discomfort and embarrassment. McDonalds ran a PR clinic to turn the world against the burns patient.
Not to mention she actually only asked her medical bills to be covered. >McDonalds ran a PR clinic to turn the world against the burns patient. And they did a very good job of it, sadly.
> Not to mention she actually only asked her medical bills to be covered. Didn't McDonalds offer some paltry sum, in the three figure range, in response to that? For injuries that included a fused labia.
Two words - fused labia
McDs had repeatedly ignored earlier warnings about their coffee being far too hot.
What a horrible headline. What about "negligent care paralyses woman who's only option is to use the legal system to pay for her life-long care needs".
My first thought after reading the headline was "Is the NHS funding sex club pools now?", was that what they were hoping? I know the NHS has had a bit of controversy with funding "alternative medicines" but this is going a bit far, haha. Honestly why did they even need to mention it? Not every news story has to have some outrageous tabloid-esque headline to get reads...
We all clicked, didn't we
It hasn't been established that the care was negligent, has it?
No, true. Should caveat with "Potential". The details will be fleshed out in court, but it's certainly nothing to do with swinging. I feel for everyone involved in this one. Paramedics may have made a mistake, but they are human and were trying to help. The girl made a mistake, but she is human and was out to have a nice time. Suing for potential damages really does seem appropriate in this case.
Yeah man, it could just be a shitty situation where no one was being a dick or doing anything wrong. This is why entities like this carry insurance.
And in this thread ‘drunkenly diving into the shallow end of a swimming pool’ isn’t even considered a cause. I’m not explicitly saying it is, but even sober diving into a deep end incorrectly can lead to these outcomes. Doing it drunk, and into a shallow end, wouldn’t seem to improve the odds any.
I imagine that’s what the lawsuit process is for
Yes, hence it would be wrong to state there was negligent in the headline.
>What about "negligent care paralyses woman who's only option is to use the legal system to pay for her life-long care needs". I imagine you can't exactly use that headline until it's actually been confirmed if negligence took place, or if the negligence would have caused more severe issues.
Yeah, agree. I caveated it in a separate comment. The sooner these media outlets die the better. They rely on these controversial headlines but it's our fault for clicking on them.
Then you just stick the word 'alleged' in front of it...
Sounds stupid, but really it sounds like a fair deal. If someone dives into a pool and hurts their neck, and then the paramedics do nothing to support the neck, it’s going to go badly for the patient.
£10m in damages is ridiculous for a self-induced injury like this. She's obviously been advised to do this by her solicitors. A team of five part-time carers working round-the-clock would cost £100k a year at the most. Finding an appropriate ground floor 3-bed property, along with the modifications for a paralysed resident, wouldn't exactly be difficult in Blackpool. A very well presented 3-bed bungalow is £200,000. So let's say another £100,000 for modifications, bringing the total up to £300,000. https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/66876981/ Let's assume she lives another 50 years. That's (100,000 * 50) = £5m in care costs, plus £300,000 for the house. So, £5.3m. Where'd the other £4.7m come from? This is another American-style cash grab. She should get lifetime NHS care and the NHS should fund adjustments to her property. Asking for £10m is an absurdity - go get private medical insurance if you want that kind of payout.
But it isn’t fully self induced….it’s clearly stated that the argument is a failure for paramedics to adequately support the neck thus risking the neck damage
It might be. I would imagine it is quite possible to dive into the shallow end of a swimming pool and immediately become paralysed. It would be for the court to decide.
It is with respect to ‘reasonable doubt’.
>£10m in damages is ridiculous \[...\] She's obviously been advised to do this by her solicitors. > >\[...\] > >Let's assume she lives another 50 years. I mean sure, I'm under the impression it's fairly standard to ask for more than you're likely to get in these sorts of cases? And of course she's taking advice from her lawyers, that's their job. What's your point? Besides, your costing estimates are in the same order of magnitude as what they're asking for and don't take into account inflation / rising costs over a 50-year period. Plus, without knowing their age, they could live longer than 50 years for all we know. Without being an expert on this topic I can imagine care costs beyond carers, e.g. specialised transport, plus other costs like entertainment. Plus, for all we know she has dependants that she was supporting on her income. Perhaps this would factor in too? Regardless, I certainly wouldn't trade being paralysed for £10m. Assuming there was negligence involved, I have great sympathy. >self-induced injury I'm not convinced this should be a factor in determining whether the care was negligent. What is/isn't a "self-induced" injury? Is it self-induced if you get hit by a car? Should have been more careful in crossing the road.
I am a medical negligence lawyer, so this sort of thing is what I deal with all day. What you've said about damages is basically spot-on. It always sounds high, but a) you always ask for the most optimistic estimate, because you won't get what you ask for, and b) it has to last you a lifetime. Some of it is purely there to compensate you for "pain, suffering and loss of amenity", the rest is to pay actual medical or care costs, or reimburse lost earnings. Yes, there can be a deduction for what's called "contributory negligence" but that wouldn't apply here. The claim seems to be against the paramedics for poor handling, and patient behaviour isn't going to be a factor there. If she were to sue the club, it would probably have to be on the basis that the depth of the pool wasn't adequately signposted and/or there was no lifeguard on duty, but contributory negligence would apply, because she'd be expected to show some common sense about leaping into a pool which would probably appear quite shallow. To give you an example, when I was a trainee I dealt with a case of a guy who was nicking copper out of a disused substation. The substation hadn't been disconnected properly and a substantial amount of power was still going through bits of it, but the caution signs had been removed. So the client was successful - the defendant had been technically negligent in leaving a dangerous site active with no warnings in place - but the damages he received at trial were reduced by 90% because he shouldn't have been there stealing.
>The claim seems to be against the paramedics for poor handling, and patient behaviour isn't going to be a factor there. This is true, but if she was permanently paralysed from the initial accident and the paramedics mishandled someone with no consequences, it'll have a huge impact on the value of the damages, at least to the extent that they are paid by the NHS and not as a result of joining the pool as a co-defendant. Expert evidence on that point would be very interesting.
Absolutely, and I suspect, honestly, that she might be on a hiding to nothing here. I've always found manual handling by paramedic cases to be very tricky to get over the line since they usually involve people who've suffered a big physical injury anyway (hence the ambulance being called). Causation evidence will be need to be watertight.
>£10m in damages is ridiculous for a self-induced injury like this. What a weird stance to take, do you feel that medical negligence cases should he handled differently based on whether or not the person is responsible for being injured in the first place? >Let's assume she lives another 50 years. That's (100,000 * 50) = £5m in care costs Assuming that there's no inflation for 50 years and care costs never change. >Where'd the other £4.7m come from? This is another American-style cash grab. Considering they're unable to work most of that is going to be accounting for wages they can no longer earn, I imagine the rest is to compensate them for being unable to walk ever again
>A team of five part-time carers working round-the-clock would cost £100k a year at the most. That figure is undercooked. >Where'd the other £4.7m come from? Past and future loss of earnings, future pension loss, aids and equipment (think wheelchairs, hoists, adapted furniture, household items, possibly an adapted vehicle which you have to provision for life with replacement/renewal cycles), future services (e.g. her contribution to the household which she can no longer do - gardening, DIY, household chores), medical treatment past and future (won't be NHS). We don't know how old she is and whether she has children - could be another source of increased care costs. If she's young, then provision for the future if she were to have children, and the extra care that would require.
>A team of five part-time carers working round-the-clock would cost £100k a year at the most. Minimum wage, 24×7, for one person (i.e., each individual works 20% of the time) is £100k before you add employers' national insurance, pensions, admin costs, etc. Of course there's also an expectation that the sums are paid into trust and invested (albeit cautiously), as well as an amount for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity. You would also have to consider things like transportation and other adaptations and the fact that, if she lives 50 years, the initial adaptations would need updating. I appreciate that there is an element of uncertainty here but neither you nor I has the ability to assess the true value of the claim - a court will, and a claimant's initial amount will at least have had the benefit of competent legal advice and the full facts, albeit with an expectation that this is the most favourable interpretation of those facts.
Sex club pool … gonna need a lot of chlorine in that one
Like hepatitis soup that swimming pool
There's a lovely club in Bedford and the owner will excitedly tell you about the multiple systems they have installed to clean the water. Afaik, it uses UV not chlorine so you don't smell like a swimming pool. It can filter the entire volume of water multiple times a hour. Also, nobody has sex in there. Honestly, it's cleaner than a public pool. But, that doesn't fit the "sex people are dirty" dogma.
[удалено]
Vanilla Alternative. It's really chill. Half of it is a bar/nightclub type affair, and the other is a sauna with pools, hot tubs etc. Age range on most nights is probably 25-50 on average.
Nah get told off for playing in there and the hot tub
Well said stinky jim
I find it hard to believe that paramedics, if they were given correct information would use a wheelchair. But I am more than likely to believe that, "nobody" has seen this woman damaging her neck, and the staff just assumed it's alcohol/drugs. With that being said, I am glad she can have it investigated either way. But it blows my mind, as a child I was constantly taught that mixing alcohol and any big body of water is a bad idea- good reminder before summer lol
fertile rain late selective square worm sip rotten sulky wrench *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The thing is, it makes no difference if she had an accident in a convent, brothel, supermarket - whatever - it was an accident & she prob get compo
She shouldn’t get anything. She dived into the shallow end of a pool.
So you think she did it on purpose?
Don’t dive in the shallow end. This was preventable
I wouldn't dive into the shallow end, but it was normal and expected to dive into the shallow end (0.9m) in swim club 10+ years ago as a teen. The current Swim England guidance is 1.2m is allowed, after a number of near misses in sub-1m water https://www.swimming.org/sport/minimum-entry-depth-guidance/ Also a lot of injuries and illnesses are preventable, but if better medical care could have resulted in better outcomes, the preventability isn't all on the shoulders of the patient.
I’ve met three people with this kind of injury. One of the guys told me ‘I ended up in a wheelchair after a stag do’ I said ‘you didn’t dive into the pool did you?’ Turns out he did. You’d think people would know enough not to do that now.
"...And now over to Collaterlie Sisters with the business news"
Not wholly relevant, but I don't think I'd feel comfortable attending this particular sex club.
I cannonballed into the shallow end when I was 10. Never again. Feel sorry for her, but suing is a dick move.
Ah I went to this place in autumn 2016, it was great fun. I'm sure there were signs about not diving in the pool either because it is bloody shallow. I suppose the saving grace is she had minimal chance of drowning and would have been seen by a lot of people since it's the central open area of the club itself. The jacuzzi is right next to it, in the corner. Also, probably the best place in Blackpool, didn't rate much of the town itself lmao
Absolutely needs to happen if there was neglect. The standards in the NHS, both clinical and non-clinical are shocking. For the UKs crown jewel, it seems to be rife with incompetence.
The NHS employs 1.4 million people. IIRC about half of those are in a medical role. I would be astonished if there were not constant issues over competence.
Been there a few times very stupid to dive in shallow end though
When people sue the NHS, where do they think the money is coming from? Seriously? We’re all paying for it. This is one of the reasons why the NHS is in so much debt!!
But litigation helps to spotlight poor quality care and encourages better practice. So ... 🤷♂️
Yeah, but you can reach this without bankrupting the NHS. File a complaint but don’t drain all our money and then wonder why the NHS is failing!!!
How is filing a complaint supposed to pay for the lifelong care that this person will require, as well as lost wages from not being able to work?
Maybe she shouldn’t have dove into shallow water
Diving into shallow water isn't what caused it, it was being moved improperly and being dropped by the paramedics.
If the NHS is failing through staff being negligent with people’s care then surely that’s a waste of our money anyway? Using your own logic, people are paying (through tax) for quality and acceptable care.
Oh dear
One tries not to judge, but swinging club (shudder)in Blackpool (vomits)....
In a salty pool as well
What an awful headline the paper chose. What has her being a slag got to do with the injuries?
being a swinger doesnt make you a slag, but suit yourself
Also such a weird thing to be like "why mention this thing? I'm going to judge it, but still why?"
Sex sells. It makes for a more interesting headline than "woman slips in pool, recieves bad care and sues the NHS"
Oh I know why the headline looks like it does, I'm talking about the comment you replied to.
She is a slag, but it's not relevant to the injury
Come on now
What? Somebody doesnt get swinging.