Coolstore fire - wedding couple sues

More
13 years 10 months ago #13757 by reggit
...and loses. Let's hear it for common sense.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10523623

So their wedding ambience wasn't what they expected?

Would they rather that (a) their guest hadn't gone to help the injured firefighters so that the wedding could continue, or (b) that the fire service had left them to finish their function in peace, knowing that that leaving them there in the meantime put them at risk, and that the access way out of the venue would have been impassable when the festivities had finished?

They would do well to remember that while their 'dream wedding' turned out differently than they planned, at least all their family and friends lived to enjoy another day - not everyone involved was so lucky :(

The attitude that seems to be behind the newlyweds court case is certainly a far cry from what the bride was quoted as saying just after the event:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501820&objectid=10502436

Take a break...while I take care of your home, your block, your pets, your stock! [;)] PM me...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 10 months ago #211873 by NZ Appaloosas
and I thought lawsuits in the US came in all flavours of frivolous...

Diane


Featuring Wap Spotted, sire of the first Wap Spot 2 grandget in Southern Hemisphere and New Zealand

On the first day God created horses. On the second day He spotted the best ones.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 10 months ago #211875 by reggit
That's why I am glad this one didn't get anywhere...would hate to see people encouraged to start up this sort of legal shenanigans over all sorts of rubbish...

Take a break...while I take care of your home, your block, your pets, your stock! [;)] PM me...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 10 months ago #211887 by GrantK
Yeah, I couldn't believe it this morning when I read that article [:0]

How completely selfish and petty of the complainants to bring this court action [:(!]

It shows a total lack of respect for the firefighter who lost his life and the others who were injured as a result of this fire. And all they had to complain about was "loss of ambience". Pathetic [xx(]

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 10 months ago #211907 by The Kats Place
Some years ago a friend had their wedding on the Waipa Delts paddle boat, anyhow the boat lost power for some reason and only went a couple of hundred meters rather that the full cruise. The party when ahead and the couple were quite happy. The Delta refunded half their money and the couple donated it to charity.

To go to court for 'loss of ambience' when it was through no fault of the venue, and there was such a tragic loss is just petty and selfish.

kats
Live your life in such a way that it will be easy for people to say nice things at your funeral [;)]

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 10 months ago #211913 by betenoir
My thoughts about them are probably not suitable for viewing on a family site[:(!] I just wonder was it their idea or were they 'approached' by a member of the legal fraternity to persue a case.."loss of ambience' doesn't regularly make the legal headlines!

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] BAAAAAAAAA

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 10 months ago #211919 by NZ Appaloosas
I'd say most likely either they or a family member had been watching waaaay too much Judge Judy...the legal fraternity just don't seem to have the same sort of mindset you find in litigators in the US.

Diane


Featuring Wap Spotted, sire of the first Wap Spot 2 grandget in Southern Hemisphere and New Zealand

On the first day God created horses. On the second day He spotted the best ones.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 10 months ago #211961 by organicltd
Far be it from me to defend lawyers, but they were not involved. It was heard in the disputes tribunal.

Wine does not make you FAT it makes you LEAN...
....against tables, chairs, floors, walls and ugly people.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 10 months ago #212065 by wino
Sounds bizarre doesn't it? I thought they were ungrateful nutters too at first reading.

But contemplating it further I wonder if the whole story was reported. If for instance you had paid up front for your whole reception including the meal and then ended up evacuated from the venue as the meal was being served would you perhaps want some money back - even while you accepted that it wasn't the fault of the venue owners.

The trouble with the Small Claims Tribunal is the proceedings are private.

Just a thought...

Never have a hangover - stay drunk

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 10 months ago #212071 by NZ Appaloosas
I don't know if people were evacuated. Sounded more like people took off from the reception to go help out. But then again, even if they were evacuated, how is that the fault of the venue owner? To get compensation, one has to sue the party responsible for causing whatever situation. The only time there are lots of defendants listed is when there is a sitaution where could be a variety of people responsible (i.e., product liability--new stove blows up, burns house down--responsible party could be the installer, the store who sold the stove, the business who put all the parts together to make the stove, the business that made individual parts of the stove, people who supplied the metal for the parts).

Diane


Featuring Wap Spotted, sire of the first Wap Spot 2 grandget in Southern Hemisphere and New Zealand

On the first day God created horses. On the second day He spotted the best ones.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 10 months ago #212072 by reggit

wino;186286 wrote: If for instance you had paid up front for your whole reception including the meal and then ended up evacuated from the venue as the meal was being served would you perhaps want some money back - even while you accepted that it wasn't the fault of the venue owners.


Having just finished organising a 200+ person conference, I know that the food etc must be paid for up front - so the venue operator would have already had to shell out for it - no way to take it back or refund it. The first articles reported that they packed up all the food to take back to their place where the party continued...

To me, 'loss of ambience' indicates that they were more concerned about not having the perfect wedding they wanted to remember than any financial loss for a particular item! I would say their reluctance to comment after the hearing may be because they know that public opinion would not be on their side for this one...[}:)]

If I were a venue that offered outdoor garden weddings and it rained on the day...would people think I was justified in sueing the venue owner for loss of ambience...? Sometimes you have just got to accept that s**t happens and get on with it...

Take a break...while I take care of your home, your block, your pets, your stock! [;)] PM me...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 10 months ago #212076 by Gracelands
Reading between the lines from the two articles looks to me like maybe the wedding venue people were the ones who insisted everyone evacuated. ( They would have to have emergency procedures in place as part of their license as I'm sure you would know, Tigger. )

Maybe the couple, I don't know, thought that it wasn't necessary to evacuate perhaps? That they were only at the venue for 2 hours instead of 6? Who knows. As you say, there is a big difference in attidude from the bride over the two articles.

"Just living is not enough. One must have sunshine, freedom and a little flower."
Hans Christian Anderson

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 10 months ago #212079 by reggit
The venue is only 200m from the coolstore down the same accessway - to get to the venue, you drive past the coolstore. If the fire had got worse, there is absolutely no other way out of the venue except throwing guests over a very high concrete brick wall which separates it from the motorway!

And if the LPG tank had gone up as was the worry, the venue would have been destroyed also...and it would have been goodnight nurse for all concerned :(

I also have met the venue owner several times, and she is not a lady to mince words. I imagine she moved them all out quick smart, which from what I can see was exactly the right thing to do in uncertain circumstances...

Take a break...while I take care of your home, your block, your pets, your stock! [;)] PM me...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 10 months ago #212089 by Gracelands
I agree with you, it was absolutely the right thing to do. I was just casting around in my mind trying to find what sort of justification they thought they might have to sue. You would think they would be happy that they and all their guests ended up safe. Guess not.

I've met the venue owner myself. She's a smart cookie, and would have done everything absolutely correctly. Glad to see the courts saw reason.

"Just living is not enough. One must have sunshine, freedom and a little flower."
Hans Christian Anderson

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 10 months ago #212091 by wino
I am not suggesting they are right.

Just having no doubt dealt with the media you will be aware that they can put whatever slant on a story that they see fit and it can often be a fair distance from the actual truth.

It seems a distinctly deranged thing to do (sue for loss of ambience) so either:
1) they are nutters
2) they genuinely feel hard done by for reasons perhaps not fully communicated to the press and therefore took their case to Small Claims.

Suspect that the Consumer Guarantees Act would direct them to claim off the venue owner not the coolstore.

Who actually said "loss of ambience" I wonder. The venue owner - being as stated not one to mince words - may have used that phrase to summerise how she saw the claim.

Never have a hangover - stay drunk

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.241 seconds