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

Injured child gets 11.5 million euros

Options
1…1920222425…27

Comments

  • Options
    #632
    firedancer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 125 ✭✭firedancer


    micropig wrote: »
    Not one post on this thread refers to how the child feels. It's all about the mother..



    So how would you feel waking up every morning looking in to the eyes of the person who had so little respect for you, they brought you in a car without insurance and ended up crippling you?


    Or will having any amount of money in the bank make it easier...?

    oh for the love of god....Judge Micropig...that accident would've happened WITH or WITHOUT insurance....and ACCIDENT is the operative word here.

    That kid has more compassion , forgiveness, and gratitude for life in his little finger than the likes of you will ever comprehend. He is happy his mam is there for him, that means more than any amount of money.
    But you just don't get that.
    Doubt you ever will.


  • Options
    #633
    Motorist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Motorist


    firedancer wrote: »
    oh for the love of god....Judge Micropig...that accident would've happened WITH or WITHOUT insurance....and ACCIDENT is the operative word here.

    That kid has more compassion , forgiveness, and gratitude for life in his little finger than the likes of you will ever comprehend. He is happy his mam is there for him, that means more than any amount of money.
    But you just don't get that.
    Doubt you ever will.

    I hope the child can forgive the mother for what she did for his own sanity. Im sure it's something he will struggle hugely with when he comes to an age where he comprehends properly what happened and what he has lost. About your point on accidents - a tree falling in front of you, a truck losing a wheel and smashing through your window, an unknown underlying medical condition occuring while driving such as a seizure would be accidents. Turning around, not looking at the road and swerving into the opposite lane is massive driver error. Even still, the horrific injuries to the childs spinal cord could have been avoided if he had been restrained and not been throwing with force into the windscreen. We can only speculate on what caused that particular massive failure.

    The stickler is the that the incident shouldn't have happened as the woman should never have been driving in the first place.


  • Options
    #634
    micropig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,366 ✭✭✭micropig


    firedancer wrote: »
    That kid has more compassion , forgiveness, and gratitude for life in his little finger than the likes of you will ever comprehend. He is happy his mam is there for him, that means more than any amount of money.
    But you just don't get that.
    Doubt you ever will.

    It was an accident, but she shouldn't have been one the road

    I hope he has enough compassion and grows up to be a well adjusted, balanced adult. It will be difficult for him, but I hope that all the money awarded goes to helping him achieve this.


  • Options
    #635
    For Paws
    Closed Accounts Posts: 812 ✭✭✭For Paws


    Effectively the child involved sued both his parents for the injuries he received whilst in their care.

    The insured persons of Ireland, through the MIBI, compensate the child and provide for his future care.

    The child is returned to the care of his parents.

    A portion of the sum settled on is paid out immediately, in lump sums, to those who have cared for and treated the child since his injuries were incurred.

    The treating hospital(s) get a lump sum for 4 years of treatment.
    The child's legal team get a lump sum for 4 years of advice & legal work.
    Those responsible for his care, his grandparents, get a lump sum for their efforts over 4 years.
    Others responsible for his care, like his parents, get a lump sum for their efforts over 4 years.

    Can anyone confirm whether this is not part of the settlement agreement ?


  • Options
    #636
    Eoin
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 21,238 CMod ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    firedancer wrote: »
    oh for the love of god....Judge Micropig...that accident would've happened WITH or WITHOUT insurance....and ACCIDENT is the operative word here

    Do you think that someone who drives uninsured with their child is unlikely to take other risks when it comes to driving?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #637
    Motorist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Motorist


    Eoin wrote: »
    Do you think that someone who drives uninsured with their child is unlikely to take other risks when it comes to driving?

    Why stop at breaking just one law?

    Statistics from Northern Ireland show that uninsured cars are six times more likely to be unfit to be on the road and their drivers are 10 times more likely to drink-drive.


  • Options
    #638
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Motorist wrote: »
    Why stop at breaking just one law?

    Statistics from Northern Ireland show that uninsured cars are six times more likely to be unfit to be on the road and their drivers are 10 times more likely to drink-drive.
    There is no indication whatsoever those either of those are true in this case.


  • Options
    #639
    Eoin
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 21,238 CMod ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    dvpower wrote: »
    Motorist wrote: »
    Why stop at breaking just one law?

    Statistics from Northern Ireland show that uninsured cars are six times more likely to be unfit to be on the road and their drivers are 10 times more likely to drink-drive.
    There is no indication whatsoever those either of those are true of this case.

    Other than the crash of course. And the suspicious failure of the child's restraint.


  • Options
    #640
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Eoin wrote: »
    Other than the crash of course. And the suspicious failure of the child's restraint.
    Explain how the failure of the child restraint is an indicator of drink driving or an unroadworthy vehicle, and how these factors were seemingly not discovered by the Gardai?
    Second thoughts - don't bother.


  • Options
    #641
    firedancer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 125 ✭✭firedancer


    Eoin wrote: »
    Do you think that someone who drives uninsured with their child is unlikely to take other risks when it comes to driving?

    I would safely bet they are twice as careful as other drivers, being aware they have no insurance and thus drive even more carefully to avoid an accident.

    Have any of you (begrudgers) ever driven with young children ?
    It is very very easy to take your eyes off the road for a couple of seconds , this is what happened here. I know of a mother who, many years ago, took her eyes off the road for a split second to respond to her two children in the back seat, and slammed head on into a bus travelling in the opposite direction. It happens.
    This woman was (and is) a teacher. They all emerged with minor injuries. The car was a complete write-off.


    And yes, before the more cynical among you jump to ask, she did have insurance....meh


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #642
    Motorist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Motorist


    firedancer wrote: »
    I would safely bet they are twice as careful as other drivers, being aware they have no insurance and thus drive even more carefully to avoid an accident.

    Have any of you (begrudgers) ever driven with young children ?
    It is very very easy to take your eyes off the road for a couple of seconds , this is what happened here. I know of a mother who, many years ago, took her eyes off the road for a split second to respond to her two children in the back seat, and slammed head on into a bus travelling in the opposite direction. It happens.
    This woman was (and is) a teacher. They all emerged with minor injuries. The car was a complete write-off.


    And yes, before the more cynical among you jump to ask, she did have insurance....meh

    :pac::pac:


  • Options
    #643
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Motorist wrote: »
    It's an unfortunate soul that fails to see the moral dubiousness of a situation where a person who has utter contempt for the law and causes a severe accident with devastating consequences for a child manages to enjoy the fringe benefits of a back of an envelope 11.5 million award calculation, and seems to have faced no criminal charges. And all of this at immense cost to every law-abiding motorist.

    Have you ever exceeded the speed limit on any roads?


  • Options
    #644
    Eoin
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 21,238 CMod ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    firedancer wrote: »
    I would safely bet they are twice as careful as other drivers, being aware they have no insurance and thus drive even more carefully to avoid an accident.

    Evidently not.

    I don't understand why people think that the collision and being uninsured are totally exclusive. It shows a complete lack of regard for herself, her son and other road users. I don't believe it means that she's more likely to be careful.
    robbie7730 wrote:
    Have you ever exceeded the speed limit on any roads?

    That's a stupid argument; it implies that all violations are equal when they're clearly not.


  • Options
    #645
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Eoin wrote: »
    That's a stupid argument; it implies that all violations are equal when they're clearly not.
    No, it is asking does Motorist disregard speed limit laws? So if he (or you) hit someone while breaking that law, you obviously think thats ok then.

    After all, posters are saying the woman had contempt for a driving law.

    So you violate one law, because its not as bad as violating another.


  • Options
    #646
    Eoin
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 21,238 CMod ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    No, it is asking do you disregard speed limit laws? So if you hit someone while breaking that law, you obviously think thats ok then.

    After all, you just said the woman this thread is about, has contempt for driving laws.

    So you violate one law, because its not as bad as violating another.

    I don't believe that all offences are equally dangerous or irresponsible. For example going 10kmh over the limit on an empty motorway is not the same as drink driving, even if they're both illegal.

    Trying to equate vaguely specified speeding offences with driving uninsured is silly.


  • Options
    #647
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    When the poor kid dies (and he will probably die young due to his injuries), will the remaining money go to his mother as his next of kin?

    I don't begrudge the kid a penny but his mother will benefit from this and that is a travesty.

    Yes, she will probably have a guilty conscience if she has any humanity in her but she will also be living in the lap of luxury.

    With the money, she will be able to build/buy a new house suitable for the kid, pay for nurses, carers, home help, cleaners, gardeners, etc etc. so therefore she gets a new house (whatever type she wants), a crew of servants to do her bidding, and plenty of dosh for living expenses.

    Who says crime doesn't pay.


  • Options
    #648
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Eoin wrote: »
    I don't believe that all offences are equally dangerous or irresponsible. For example going 10kmh over the limit on an empty motorway is not the same as drink driving, even if they're both illegal.

    Yea, but if you do that 10kph extra for a while, then hit a child in a town later, if you drove legally, you wouldnt be there to hit the child.

    And if you tend go over the limit on motorways, this is likely on other roads also, where it is a danger to everyone.
    Trying to equate vaguely specified speeding offences with driving uninsured is silly.

    Im not equating them. The poster i asked the question said the driver in question disregarded driving laws.

    Speeding is disregarding laws also. Everyone disregards it as vague, yet its a big killer on the roads.


  • Options
    #649
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Eoin wrote: »
    I don't believe that all offences are equally dangerous or irresponsible. For example going 10kmh over the limit on an empty motorway is not the same as drink driving, even if they're both illegal.

    Trying to equate vaguely specified speeding offences with driving uninsured is silly.

    You are of course right crashing at 2kph over limit and crashing at 50kph over limit where both result in serious injury may or may not involve the same level of culpability.

    But it is the same in insurance, a person knowing they are driving uninsured nd a person driving uninsured but believing they are insured are two different events, btw we don't know in which category this case falls. Was taking to a solicitor today he told me about case where a guy was charged with no insurance, his own car was in garage which was insured, he believed he was covered on his wife's policy as he knew she was somehow covered on his, so drove wife's car, stopped, then discovered he had no insurance on wife's car. The amount of people who do not understand or know the restrictions on open driving.


  • Options
    #650
    Eoin
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 21,238 CMod ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    Yea, but if you do that 10kph extra for a while, then hit a child in a town later, if you drove legally, you wouldnt be there to hit the child.

    Ah come on, seriously?
    ResearchWill wrote: »
    You are of course right crashing at 2kph over limit and crashing at 50kph over limit where both result in serious injury may or may not involve the same level of culpability.

    But it is the same in insurance, a person knowing they are driving uninsured nd a person driving uninsured but believing they are insured are two different events, btw we don't know in which category this case falls. Was taking to a solicitor today he told me about case where a guy was charged with no insurance, his own car was in garage which was insured, he believed he was covered on his wife's policy as he knew she was somehow covered on his, so drove wife's car, stopped, then discovered he had no insurance on wife's car. The amount of people who do not understand or know the restrictions on open driving.

    That's a fair point. I've fully comp cover on other cars - but my wife's car is specifically excluded from that; as is her open cover on my car. We both had to be specifically named on each other's policies for some reason. Maybe that's the case in this story.


  • Options
    #651
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Eoin wrote: »
    Ah come on, seriously?

    Well there you go, speeding is disregarded like its nothing. Thats the attitude of many. Everyone does it, so its ok.

    But if the woman here had insurance, would that have made a difference to having this accident?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #652
    Eoin
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 21,238 CMod ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    Well there you go, speeding is disregarded like its nothing. Thats the attitude of many. Everyone does it, so its ok.

    No, I was just saying that your 10 kph extra point was ridiculous.
    robbie7730 wrote: »
    But if the woman here had insurance, would that have made a difference to having this accident?

    If she was knowingly driving uninsured, I think that demonstrates a less cautious approach to driving and therefore a higher risk of causing a crash. I am also dubious about the child's restraint failing too.


  • Options
    #653
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Eoin wrote: »
    Ah come on, seriously?



    That's a fair point. I've fully comp cover on other cars - but my wife's car is specifically excluded from that; as is her open cover on my car. We both had to be specifically named on each other's policies for some reason. Maybe that's the case in this story.

    Ya some policy's include spouses and others exclude it. The DC is full of people who really believed they had cover but had not, it's a strict liability offense you either had it or you did not, if not conviction.


  • Options
    #654
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Eoin wrote: »
    No, I was just saying that your 10 kph extra point was ridiculous.
    The point being, you, like many others, disregard speeding like it is of no consequence, yet can condemn another for driving illegally. And you dont even know the facts, do you?
    If she was knowingly driving uninsured, I think that demonstrates a less cautious approach to driving and therefore a higher risk of causing a crash. I am also dubious about the child's restraint failing too.

    Drivers who regularly speed demonstrate a less cautious approach to driving. But thats ok, we can disregard that as silly.


  • Options
    #655
    Motorist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Motorist


    There are different degrees of seriousness of driving offences. For example dangerous driving causing death obviously has more impact than driving in a bus lane. The degree of seriousness of various driving offences is indicated by the severity of punishment.

    10kmp/h over the limit - Although a garda probably wouldn't stop someone for that it is 2 penalty points and an 80 euro fine. No criminal conviction results if fixed penalty notice is accepted and paid.

    Driving without insurance is generally punishable by a fine of up to €2,500, 5 penalty points, disqualification of one year or more for a first offence and two years or more for a second offence, and, at the discretion of the court, a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months.


  • Options
    #656
    Eoin
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 21,238 CMod ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    The point being, you, like many others, disregard speeding like it is of no consequence, yet can condemn another for driving illegally. And you dont even know the facts, do you?.

    No, I am not disregarding it. I am saying that there are degrees of seriousness to different driving offences, and I think that driving uninsured is very much at the higher end.
    robbie7730 wrote: »
    Drivers who regularly speed demonstrate a less cautious approach to driving. But thats ok, we can disregard that as silly.

    And within different driving offences there are degrees of offending too. Doing 60kmh in a 50kmh zone near schools is not the same as 130kmh on a 120kmh motorway.


  • Options
    #657
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Just a few things that struck while reading this thread;

    First of all I find mind boggling and frankly worrying that some people are actually worried about what this payment might cost them in terms of premiums. How selfish can you get?

    This poor little lad will spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair, made quadraplegic thanks to his Mother's negligence. I am happy if my insurance goes some way to helping him. How anyone would begrude him is beyond me.

    Second some are saying that €11.5 million is excessive. With the level of care the boy will need that money will be gone in the blink of an eye. Besides which no amount of money will ever be enough to compensate what happened to him.

    While I feel sympathy for the Mother it is nothing compared to my sympathy for her son. But if she is anyway human she will spend the rest of her life feeling guilty and looking at her little boy unable to lead a normal life because of her, needing 24/7 care and that will be punishment enough.

    To say this kind of accident could happen to anyone misses the point completely. Yes we are all capable of making terrible mistakes but this does not and should not mean she should not be held responsible for what she did.

    Losing concentration is one thing, but not strapping your child into the care securely is criminal in my opinion and she should be held responsible. She might still have crashed and he might still have been hurt if he was strapped in but I'd be willing to bet he wouldn't be in a wheelchair now if she looked after him properly.


  • Options
    #658
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    Just a few things that struck while reading this thread;

    First of all I find mind boggling and frankly worrying that some people are actually worried about what this payment might cost them in terms of premiums. How selfish can you get?

    This poor little lad will spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair, made quadraplegic thanks to his Mother's negligence. I am happy if my insurance goes some way to helping him. How anyone would begrude him is beyond me.

    Second some are saying that €11.5 million is excessive. With the level of care the boy will need that money will be gone in the blink of an eye. Besides which no amount of money will ever be enough to compensate what happened to him.

    While I feel sympathy for the Mother it is nothing compared to my sympathy for her son. But if she is anyway human she will spend the rest of her life feeling guilty and looking at her little boy unable to lead a normal life because of her, needing 24/7 care and that will be punishment enough.

    To say this kind of accident could happen to anyone misses the point completely. Yes we are all capable of making terrible mistakes but this does not and should not mean she should not be held responsible for what she did.

    Losing concentration is one thing, but not strapping your child into the care securely is criminal in my opinion and she should be held responsible. She might still have crashed and he might still have been hurt if he was strapped in but I'd be willing to bet he wouldn't be in a wheelchair now if she looked after him properly.

    The RTE report of the incident states: "He was a rear-seat passenger and was restrained in a booster seat."

    Seems from my reading he was not only strapped in but also had the required booster seat.

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


  • Options
    #659
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    The RTE report of the incident states: "He was a rear-seat passenger and was restrained in a booster seat."

    Seems from my reading he was not only strapped in but also had the required booster seat.

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

    If that's the case then how did he go through the front windscreen?

    He may have been restrained but it can't have been done properly.


  • Options
    #660
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    If that's the case then how did he go through the front windscreen?

    He may have been restrained but it can't have been done properly.

    I dont know I have not seen any evidence i.e. accident report or experts reports which would hepl me answer that question. I would rather have evidence of wrong doing before i condem a person. The mother may not have secured the child properly, the child may have released the seat belt, if the child was small enough maybe no adult seat belt would restrain him, i dont know, but if I am going to condem a person in public, I would rather have evidence that they actully did something wrong in relation to the restraint of the child.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #661
    firedancer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 125 ✭✭firedancer


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    If that's the case then how did he go through the front windscreen?

    He may have been restrained but it can't have been done properly.

    so quick to blame and not even in possession of all the facts....sad:(

    plenty of righteousness in this country, nothing better to be doing than passing judgement on others


Advertisement