Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

€11.5 million settlement as a result of uninsured driver

Options
1…456810

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    She was driving on the wrong side of the road. She caused an accident which led to her child needing 24 hour care for the rest of his life.

    If this unfortunate child was walking across the road and was knocked down by a careless driver without insurance he/she would most likely be serving prison time. Why should this women be any different? Why should parents be exempt from prosecution for negligence leading to serious injury.


  • Options
    #213
    BaZmO*
    Registered Users Posts: 18,625 ✭✭✭✭BaZmO*


    challengemaster wrote: »
    It shows that there's consequences for actions such as driving uninsured
    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    You think she should go unpunished?
    I agree that she should be punished but I just don't see what good it will do. The fact that her child is paralysed from the neck down and in a wheelchair, and will be for the rest of his life is probably the cruellest punishment there could be.

    ResearchWill wrote: »
    The only evidence we currently have of wrong doing is driving without insurance. Do you think any mother or farther driving without insurance and no evidence of any further crime should be punished as you have set out.
    Exactly, it was an accident, and the mother is an absolute disgrace for what she's done (insurance wise) but if the police pick up someone for driving with no insurance tomorrow......same sentence?


  • Options
    #214
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    She was driving on the wrong side of the road. She caused an accident which led to her child needing 24 hour care for the rest of his life.

    If this unfortunate child was walking across the road and was knocked down by a careless driver without insurance he/she would most likely be serving prison time. Why should this women be any different? Why should parents be exempt from prosecution for negligence leading to serious injury.

    I am not saying she or any person should be exempt, but my reading of the article and I agree it is little to go on says "Ms Kennedy suffered a momentary lapse of concentration, when the child drew her attention to some animals.
    The car crossed the centre of the road and struck another car head-on. Cullen had been restrained by a booster seat in the rear of the car, but was thrown forward - striking the front windscreen." While some could argue that a momentary lapse of concentration is dangerous driving I would think more likely at best careless, especially in the circumstances as to how that lapse arose. I agree totally if there is evidence of dangerous driving then a prosecution should happen hence why I asked is there any good evidence for such.


  • Options
    #215
    Vertakill
    Registered Users Posts: 2,262 ✭✭✭Vertakill


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The effort on your insurance premiums is negligible since it would have been paid out anyway if she was insured. This is just a joint payment from all premiums in the country instead of premiums in one insurance company.

    I used to pay 2,450euro a year on car insurance and am more than happy that some of my contribution went to this family as opposed to the fake whiplash claims happening every day.

    I have paid consistently more than that over the past 6 years (4k for my first insurance policy fully comp on my own policy) and a percentage of that was given to the MIBI to cover uninsured drivers, like everyone else.
    I have no problem either with paying for this poor chap, but it irritates me that this woman has abused the system, destroyed her son's life and hasn't had any punishment to deter other people from following in her footsteps.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    So if you're still sitting behind your computer fuming at his judgment, what's the reason? I think she's a plank for driving with no insurance but that's completely besides the point.. The victim go protected by the fund that's meant to protest victims.

    If there were 0 uninsured drivers in Ireland starting from tomorrow (and the insurance companies past on the savings), we would be paying less on our insurance premiums.
    The victim was protected by the funds, correct - but if she paid her insurance premiums, the victim would STILL be protected financially - the difference is SHE would have paid for the insurance for the kid as opposed to us... and last time I checked, I didn't veer onto the wrong side of the road... she did.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    The settlement has ensured the victim will be provided with care for life.. It won't result in holidays and SUVs like the masses like to believe.

    You're speaking as if this mother is an upstanding citizen that we should trust completely when it comes to the money ... she has lost a lot of credibility as a result of this so I wouldn't put it past her to try to acquire a nice new X5 or Q7 as she'll need something very large and wheelchair accessible...


  • Options
    #216
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    Head on collision due to lack of concentration is dangerous driving. I really do not see the argument here. There is an emotional argument that the mother has already been punished as her child is seriously injured and what more can we as a society do. We can make an example that this type of driving and disregard for others safety will not be tolerated. What of the people in the other car? Have they been compensated?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Vertakill wrote: »
    I have paid consistently more than that over the past 6 years (4k for my first insurance policy fully comp on my own policy) and a percentage of that was given to the MIBI to cover uninsured drivers, like everyone else.
    I have no problem either with paying for this poor chap, but it irritates me that this woman has abused the system, destroyed her son's life and hasn't had any punishment to deter other people from following in her footsteps.



    If there were 0 uninsured drivers in Ireland starting from tomorrow (and the insurance companies past on the savings), we would be paying less on our insurance premiums.
    The victim was protected by the funds, correct - but if she paid her insurance premiums, the victim would STILL be protected financially - the difference is SHE would have paid for the insurance for the kid as opposed to us... and last time I checked, I didn't veer onto the wrong side of the road... she did.



    You're speaking as if this mother is an upstanding citizen that we should trust completely when it comes to the money ... she has lost a lot of credibility as a result of this so I wouldn't put it past her to try to acquire a nice new X5 or Q7 as she'll need something very large and wheelchair accessible...

    The money has to be lodged in to The Courts Service, other than necessary funds for the child any other payment out will require an application to court.


  • Options
    #218
    Vertakill
    Registered Users Posts: 2,262 ✭✭✭Vertakill


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    The money has to be lodged in to The Courts Service, other than necessary funds for the child any other payment out will require an application to court.

    Yes, that's why I said can (and probably will) apply for money for transport for a big SUV for the child and equipment etc....


  • Options
    #219
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    Head on collision due to lack of concentration is dangerous driving. I really do not see the argument here. There is an emotional argument that the mother has already been punished as her child is seriously injured and what more can we as a society do. We can make an example that this type of driving and disregard for others safety will not be tolerated. What of the people in the other car? Have they been compensated?

    Just because something is not reported does not mean it did not happen. If the other people in the other car suffered injuries and took a case they will of course be compensated.

    2 we do not know if any charges had been brought against the mother my own guess is that at the very least a no insurance charge was brought.

    Without reading the crash investigation report and seeing the evidence no one can say if a matter was dangerous or careless driving or neither. That is for the police to investigate the DPP to decide to prosecute and finally if necessary a jury to decide on guilt on the little facts before us no one can tell for certain, in fact I have seen no evidence either way to say if any proceedings happened to have been brought or not.

    Also we do not know the circumstances behind the no insurance, go into any DC in the country any day and you will see no insurance charges some knowing full well they had no insurance others really believing they had, I know of a recent case where a solicitor had to call officials of two insurance companies to prove his client had in fact insurance. Remember also no insurance is a strict liability offense.


  • Options
    #220
    challengemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 16,931 ✭✭✭✭challengemaster


    BaZmO* wrote: »
    I agree that she should be punished but I just don't see what good it will do. The fact that her child is paralysed from the neck down and in a wheelchair, and will be for the rest of his life is probably the cruellest punishment there could be.

    Where does that stop though? Could you murder someone and get away without conviction because you now have to live with knowing you've killed someone, which is already a punishment/burden...

    Sure the same thing could be said for every case where a driver kills someone else while drunk driving / driving dangerously / etc. For example the case in donegal with the overcrowded passat - Would it be fair to ignore all the details and say "sure he has to live with what he did, isn't that enough"

    If you're not going to apply laws because people have to live with what they've done, you may as well ditch the entire system. Close all the prisons, do away with every sort of policing and judiciary system. They'll all have to live with knowing what they did, and sure isn't that enough. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #221
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    challengemaster wrote: »
    Where does that stop though? Could you murder someone and get away without conviction because you now have to live with knowing you've killed someone, which is already a punishment/burden...

    Sure the same thing could be said for every case where a driver kills someone else while drunk driving / driving dangerously / etc. For example the case in donegal with the overcrowded passat - Would it be fair to ignore all the details and say "sure he has to live with what he did, isn't that enough"

    If you're not going to apply laws because people have to live with what they've done, you may as well ditch the entire system. Close all the prisons, do away with every sort of policing and judiciary system. They'll all have to live with knowing what they did, and sure isn't that enough. :rolleyes:

    But we do not know what decision was made in relation to prosecution or not or by who or for what reason. In any case of dangerous driving causing death or serious injury the DPP has to weigh up many issues, the effect on the injured party or the dead persons family, the effect on the accused as it is an unusual crime in that most people don't set out to cause a death or serious injury when they take their car out. I am not saying such charges should not be brought but without all the facts how can we say it was right or wrong.

    Just as an aside to quote the Bard "The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
    It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
    Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
    It blesseth him that gives and him that takes."


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Just discovered an interesting thing about how the case was listed, the defendants are the MIBI and the father not the mother, would lead me to believe that the father had the car insured as he was the defendant. But as the mother not named she was not covered. Must not had spousal cover.


  • Options
    #223
    CoDy1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,637 ✭✭✭CoDy1


    BX 19 wrote: »
    No no no and no.

    Lets get something clear here. The parents won't see a cent of the money. The 11.5m will be held by the clerk of the court until the child turns 18. Until then, the only way that child can access the money is for the guardians to make an application to the court and apply for a portion of the money for vouched medical expenses or education expenses or other expenses relating to the child's welfare.

    Don't think the parents will be going off on an expensive holiday on the back of this.

    Also, alot of posters are feigning shock at the fact that they have to pay towards the costs of this payout.

    Get over yourselves, whether the mother was insured or not, it makes no difference.

    Yes, the book should be thrown at the mother, she should lose her licence. she acted irresponsibly but if some posters here think that paralysing your child own child is a quick fast method of making money, they can f off.

    Put yourself in that young lads shoes. There is no cash alternative. His life is over.


  • Options
    #224
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    CoDy1 wrote: »
    Also, alot of posters are feigning shock at the fact that they have to pay towards the costs of this payout.

    Get over yourselves, whether the mother was insured or not, it makes no difference.

    Yes, the book should be thrown at the mother, she should lose her licence. she acted irresponsibly but if some posters here think that paralysing your child own child is a quick fast method of making money, they can f off.

    Put yourself in that young lads shoes. There is no cash alternative. His life is over.

    If you look at my above post you will see that the father was sued as defendant, so he may have been the insured, it is possible the mother thought she was insured, I have seen it happen loads where people believe they are covered under open policy when they are not.

    It almost happened to me, I was a named driver on a friends policy for years, had not driven the car in years also he asked me to drive it one day, I said ok where is policy to make sure I'm still on it, he said you are I said show me he said alright got policy lo and behold he had taken me off policy but forgot.


  • Options
    #225
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    itmxpwjfls2kbg wrote: »
    Mammy's low-cut top looks quite the part for a court hearing:rolleyes:
    Guess I have to ask the obvious question that no-one else has asked; Would ya?

    I would............ just not in the back seat, with her track record.


  • Options
    #226
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,381 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Why are some people on here so confused about what constitutes dangerous driving? Vearing onto the wrong side of the road is not dangerous driving. It's an accident. Vearing onto the other side of the road while doing 100mph is dangerous driving.

    By the logic in this thread, every insurance claim in the country would result in a dangerous driving charge.. If I crash into the back of someone at traffic lights, do I get a dangerous driving conviction and lose my license?


  • Options
    #227
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,931 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Why are some people on here so confused about what constitutes dangerous driving? Vearing onto the wrong side of the road is not dangerous driving. It's an accident. Vearing onto the other side of the road while doing 100mph is dangerous driving.

    Oh, I didn't realise there was a safe speed limit for driving on the wrong side of the road.
    Would 50mph be ok?

    Failing to keep your car on the correct side of the road is careless driving at the very least.

    By the logic in this thread, every insurance claim in the country would result in a dangerous driving charge.. If I crash into the back of someone at traffic lights, do I get a dangerous driving conviction and lose my license?

    I think every 'accident' that causes serious injury should be prosecuted.

    The word 'accident' is troublesome, it implies 's**t happens', 'couldn't be helped' etc. and takes responsibility away from where it lies. Accidents are always caused, and despite what a lot of people seem to think, mechanical or medical causes are very rare. 'Sure she never set out to injure her own child'... well if she had good intentions they're f-all use to her poor son now. Good intentions aren't enough.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #228
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,381 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Why are some people on here so confused about what constitutes dangerous driving? Vearing onto the wrong side of the road is not dangerous driving. It's an accident. Vearing onto the other side of the road while doing 100mph is dangerous driving.

    Oh, I didn't realise there was a safe speed limit for driving on the wrong side of the road.
    Would 50mph be ok?

    Failing to keep your car on the correct side of the road is careless driving at the very least.

    By the logic in this thread, every insurance claim in the country would result in a dangerous driving charge.. If I crash into the back of someone at traffic lights, do I get a dangerous driving conviction and lose my license?

    I think every 'accident' that causes serious injury should be prosecuted.

    The word 'accident' is troublesome, it implies 's**t happens', 'couldn't be helped' etc. and takes responsibility away from where it lies. Accidents are always caused, and despite what a lot of people seem to think, mechanical or medical causes are very rare. 'Sure she never set out to injure her own child'... well if she had good intentions they're f-all use to her poor son now. Good intentions aren't enough.
    I'm not sure how much I think the resulting injuries should affect the prosecution unless it's a death..

    I slid of a motorway before in snow and luckily only damaged my bumper.. If I hit someone while sliding, should I be prosecuted. I dont think so.

    If I slid of the road when there is no snow and hit somebody, should I be prosecuted? Or should it be compensation? I don't know..


  • Options
    #229
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,381 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Why are some people on here so confused about what constitutes dangerous driving? Vearing onto the wrong side of the road is not dangerous driving. It's an accident. Vearing onto the other side of the road while doing 100mph is dangerous driving.

    Oh, I didn't realise there was a safe speed limit for driving on the wrong side of the road.
    Would 50mph be ok?

    Failing to keep your car on the correct side of the road is careless driving at the very least.

    By the logic in this thread, every insurance claim in the country would result in a dangerous driving charge.. If I crash into the back of someone at traffic lights, do I get a dangerous driving conviction and lose my license?

    I think every 'accident' that causes serious injury should be prosecuted.

    The word 'accident' is troublesome, it implies 's**t happens', 'couldn't be helped' etc. and takes responsibility away from where it lies. Accidents are always caused, and despite what a lot of people seem to think, mechanical or medical causes are very rare. 'Sure she never set out to injure her own child'... well if she had good intentions they're f-all use to her poor son now. Good intentions aren't enough.
    I'm not sure how much I think the resulting injuries should affect the prosecution unless it's a death..

    I slid of a motorway before in snow and luckily only damaged my bumper.. If I hit someone while sliding, should I be prosecuted. I dont think so.

    If I slid of the road when there is no snow and hit somebody, should I be prosecuted? Or should it be compensation? I don't know.. Is the crime sliding of the motorway or si it being unfortunate and hitting someone?


  • Options
    #230
    Vertakill
    Registered Users Posts: 2,262 ✭✭✭Vertakill


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'm not sure how much I think the resulting injuries should affect the prosecution unless it's a death..

    I slid of a motorway before in snow and luckily only damaged my bumper.. If I hit someone while sliding, should I be prosecuted. I dont think so.

    If I slid of the road when there is no snow and hit somebody, should I be prosecuted? Or should it be compensation? I don't know..

    Bit of a silly question to be fair..

    If you slid off the road in snow and hit someone and maimed/killed them, the judge would rule that based on the extreme conditions, accidents can occur (provided you were driving at an appropriate speed for the circumstance)...

    It wasn't snowing the day that this mother went into the oncoming lane so your point is moot.


    If I have a lapse in concentration, I kerb my alloys or I lose a wing mirror...

    I'd love to know what the hell this woman was doing that she managed to lose so much of her concentration that she was unable to rectify the car steering several yards into oncoming traffic...


  • Options
    #231
    BaZmO*
    Registered Users Posts: 18,625 ✭✭✭✭BaZmO*


    Vertakill wrote: »
    Bit of a silly question to be fair..

    If you slid off the road in snow and hit someone and maimed/killed them, the judge would rule that based on the extreme conditions, accidents can occur (provided you were driving at an appropriate speed for the circumstance)...

    It wasn't snowing the day that this mother went into the oncoming lane so your point is moot.


    If I have a lapse in concentration, I kerb my alloys or I lose a wing mirror...

    I'd love to know what the hell this woman was doing that she managed to lose so much of her concentration that she was unable to rectify the car steering several yards into oncoming traffic...
    She was distracted by her child. People really should read the articles before they starting making their comments.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    mrblack
    Registered Users Posts: 350 ✭✭mrblack


    BaZmO* wrote: »
    She was distracted by her child. People really should read the articles before they starting making their comments.

    If she had strapped the child into his car seat properly then he wouldn't have distracted her in the first place.

    The moral hazard this case creates is mind boggling to me. Does anyone not suspect that with all the coincidences here that maybe just maybe she set out to perhaps cause a minor accident but instead got a much bigger one.

    She drove while uninsured (with owners permission or not)
    Put child in car seat but didn't strap him in properly
    distracted by said kid momentarily allegedly (or was she on phone/drugs)
    crossed centre line and drove straight into oncoming (unlucky) innocent driver

    law abiding middle classs people are just suckers in this country-screwed with taxes and levies to apy for negligence/laziness of of others as well as all the overpaid judges & civil servants who helped create this almost bankrupt little banana republic.

    This woman broke at least 3 motoring offences and maybe ruined the life of the occupants of the other car (never mind her own kid) and whats her legal applied penalty. Zilch it seems.
    Just another day in D'Ireland


  • Options
    #233
    alexmcred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,487 ✭✭✭alexmcred


    Case from two years ago very similar circumstances:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64455251


  • Options
    #234
    Allyall
    Registered Users Posts: 10,381 ✭✭✭✭Allyall


    Possibly a very stupid question, But, what happens now? does anything?
    Could the MIBI sue her, for careless driving/driving uninsured etc..?


  • Options
    #235
    BaZmO*
    Registered Users Posts: 18,625 ✭✭✭✭BaZmO*


    mrblack wrote: »
    If she had strapped the child into his car seat properly then he wouldn't have distracted her in the first place.

    From the article....
    He was a rear-seat passenger and was restrained in a booster seat.


    mrblack wrote: »
    Put child in car seat but didn't strap him in properly
    Where does it say that?

    mrblack wrote: »
    distracted by said kid momentarily allegedly (or was she on phone/drugs)
    crossed centre line and drove straight into oncoming (unlucky) innocent driver
    Again, where does it say this, or are you just making stuff up?

    mrblack wrote: »
    This woman broke at least 3 motoring offences and maybe ruined the life of the occupants of the other car (never mind her own kid) and whats her legal applied penalty. Zilch it seems.
    Just another day in D'Ireland
    What are these 3 motoring offences? Apart from driving without insurance, what are the other 2?


  • Options
    #236
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    BaZmO* wrote: »
    ....Apart from driving without insurance, what are the other 2?

    Driving without due care and attention?

    I've read elsewhere that MIBI obtained an order which would allow them sue the parents should they come into funds personally in the future, i.e. if the injured child was to die prematurely.


  • Options
    #237
    Damien360
    Registered Users Posts: 6,261 ✭✭✭Damien360


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    Driving without due care and attention?

    I've read elsewhere that MIBI obtained an order which would allow them sue the parents should they come into funds personally in the future, i.e. if the injured child was to die prematurely.

    This was answered earlier by ads by google. The money is in ward of court. It is controlled by the courts and held by the courts. It is only released in parts to the family when they prove it is for their son. Should he die, the remainder of the money held by the courts returns to MIBI.


  • Options
    #238
    sandin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭sandin


    Allyall wrote: »
    Possibly a very stupid question, But, what happens now? does anything?
    Could the MIBI sue her, for careless driving/driving uninsured etc..?

    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    Driving without due care and attention?

    I've read elsewhere that MIBI obtained an order which would allow them sue the parents should they come into funds personally in the future, i.e. if the injured child was to die prematurely.


    MIBI automatically apply to a court for the cost of the award they have paid out on behalf of any uninsured to be a charge against that person.

    Therefore, if that person comes into any windfall such as inheritance or winning the lottery (happened once), the money goes to the MIBI. Same in this case - the grandfather took the case and becomes the benefactor of the money shoudl the child dies, but if the childs mother became benefactor, MIBI simply go to court to get as much as possible paid back, therefore there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow in this case.


  • Options
    #239
    carbon nanotube
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 994 ✭✭✭carbon nanotube


    Atlantic Dawn wrote: »
    No sign of any punishment or fine for the uninsured driver for costing the rest of us drivers €11.5 million.

    www.rte.ie/news/2012/0420/largest-settlement-ever-in-high-court-11-5m.html


    erm

    i just was to post this

    ummm
    wtf

    firstly she veered into the other side of the road

    secondly she was un insured.


    hell, lets give her 11 million.

    says how uselsss the courts are, how long does it take to be a barrister?


  • Options
    #240
    carbon nanotube
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 994 ✭✭✭carbon nanotube


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Why are some people on here so confused about what constitutes dangerous driving? Vearing onto the wrong side of the road is not dangerous driving. It's an accident. Vearing onto the other side of the road while doing 100mph is dangerous driving.

    By the logic in this thread, every insurance claim in the country would result in a dangerous driving charge.. If I crash into the back of someone at traffic lights, do I get a dangerous driving conviction and lose my license?


    thats bs, you should not veer into the other lane of the road at any speed...wtf is wrong with some people

    no wonder the roads are hell to drive on now.

    who ever gave that woman 11 million... i want whatever they are smoking.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    Reg'stoy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,570 ✭✭✭Reg'stoy


    carbon nanotube wrote: »
    thats bs, you should not veer into the other lane of the road at any speed...wtf is wrong with some people

    no wonder the roads are hell to drive on now.

    who ever gave that woman 11 million... i want whatever they are smoking.

    Read the thread the money was awarded to the child for his life care and not to his mother.


Advertisement