Injured child gets 11.5 million euros

Kosseegan · 24-04-2012 12:48pm

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.

The amount of lawyesr who don't know the law on motor insurance more likely. If the wife had a policy of insurance on the car then there is no offence of driving without insurance. the wifes insurance has to cover him regardless of the policy. Idiots are constantly pleading guilty in the DC to no insurance when they are in fact innocent, advised by uninformed lawyers.

ResearchWill · 24-04-2012 1:20pm

Kosseegan wrote: »

The amount of lawyesr who don't know the law on motor insurance more likely. If the wife had a policy of insurance on the car then there is no offence of driving without insurance. the wifes insurance has to cover him regardless of the policy. Idiots are constantly pleading guilty in the DC to no insurance when they are in fact innocent, advised by uninformed lawyers.

That was the problem he defo was not covered, I think if I remember the issue had to do with his licence being a permit and he was excluded. BTW same solicitor does know his DC motor law, the reason he commented on it was that usually spousal cover works and in fact the guys wife was covered on his car under it.

dvpower · 24-04-2012 2:06pm

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.

The kid, who is 10 now, would have been around 6 at the time of the accident.
I have a kid around the same age who I'm constantly having to give out to for messing with the seatbelt. If she isn't releasing it altogether, she's adjusting it so she's not restrained property.

That seems to me to be a much more reasonable explanation for how the child came out of the booster seat.

Kosseegan · 24-04-2012 2:48pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

That was the problem he defo was not covered, I think if I remember the issue had to do with his licence being a permit and he was excluded. BTW same solicitor does know his DC motor law, the reason he commented on it was that usually spousal cover works and in fact the guys wife was covered on his car under it.

That solicitor does not know his ass from his elbow. There is a case going to the Supreme Court ion that point.

A permit is not a reason for refusing cover.

DIRECTIVE 2009/103/EC

Article 13
[FONT=EUAlbertina,EU Albertina][FONT=EUAlbertina,EU Albertina]Exclusion clauses
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EUAlbertina,EU Albertina][FONT=EUAlbertina,EU Albertina]1. Each Member State shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that any statutory provision or any contractual clause contained in an insurance policy issued in accordance with Article 3 shall be deemed to be void in respect of claims by third parties who have been victims of an accident where that statutory provision or contractual clause excludes from insurance the use or driving of vehicles by:
(a) persons who do not have express or implied authorisation to do so;
(b) persons who do not hold a licence permitting them to drive the vehicle concerned;
(c) persons who are in breach of the statutory technical requirements concerning the condition and safety of the vehicle concerned.
However, the provision or clause referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph may be invoked against persons who voluntarily entered the vehicle which caused the damage or injury, when the insurer can prove that they knew the vehicle
[/FONT][/FONT]

ResearchWill · 24-04-2012 3:00pm

Kosseegan wrote: »

That solicitor does not know his ass from his elbow. There is a case going to the Supreme Court ion that point.

A permit is not a reason for refusing cover.

DIRECTIVE 2009/103/EC

Article 13
[FONT=EUAlbertina,EU Albertina][FONT=EUAlbertina,EU Albertina]Exclusion clauses
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=EUAlbertina,EU Albertina][FONT=EUAlbertina,EU Albertina]1. Each Member State shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that any statutory provision or any contractual clause contained in an insurance policy issued in accordance with Article 3 shall be deemed to be void in respect of claims by third parties who have been victims of an accident where that statutory provision or contractual clause excludes from insurance the use or driving of vehicles by:
(a) persons who do not have express or implied authorisation to do so;
(b) persons who do not hold a licence permitting them to drive the vehicle concerned;
(c) persons who are in breach of the statutory technical requirements concerning the condition and safety of the vehicle concerned.
However, the provision or clause referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph may be invoked against persons who voluntarily entered the vehicle which caused the damage or injury, when the insurer can prove that they knew the vehicle
[/FONT][/FONT]

While you are correct on what you have quoted. It must be remembered that I am passing on a third party story, of which I do not know the facts, It was a story being told in company of which I did not go into the details. I was only making the point that persons drive cars they believe they are insured to drive but are not. The solicitor who was dealing with the case is one who deals with the district court every day. I do not nor did I claim to have all the facts of the case, it may very well be that they where partners not spouses, or divorced I dont know. But I dont want to derail this thread, my point still stands re persons driving without insurance with out knowing it. I for one will only drive a vehicle that I am a named driver on.

BTW i will pass on the info to the solicitor that you think he does not know his ass from his elbow, based on my story of a case he was involved in of which I do not have all the information. If you read my post I did say "I think if I remember the issue had to do with his licence being a permit and he was excluded" i siad cleary "I think if I remember" i may have been wrong as I did not have the benifit of the summons, garda statements or a copy of the policy in front of me to know exactly he was saying.

Kosseegan · 24-04-2012 3:54pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

While you are correct on what you have quoted. It must be remembered that I am passing on a third party story, of which I do not know the facts, It was a story being told in company of which I did not go into the details. I was only making the point that persons drive cars they believe they are insured to drive but are not. The solicitor who was dealing with the case is one who deals with the district court every day. I do not nor did I claim to have all the facts of the case, it may very well be that they where partners not spouses, or divorced I dont know. But I dont want to derail this thread, my point still stands re persons driving without insurance with out knowing it. I for one will only drive a vehicle that I am a named driver on.

BTW i will pass on the info to the solicitor that you think he does not know his ass from his elbow, based on my story of a case he was involved in of which I do not have all the information. If you read my post I did say "I think if I remember the issue had to do with his licence being a permit and he was excluded" i siad cleary "I think if I remember" i may have been wrong as I did not have the benifit of the summons, garda statements or a copy of the policy in front of me to know exactly he was saying.

Based on the information you have given, no offence was committed. There was a policy on the vehicle. That is good enough. Whether he was named or not or held no licence is irrelevant. There is also the servant defence which might be available.

doubletrouble? · 24-04-2012 4:38pm

i'd like to bring your attention to the state of the mothers car in the image below. firdancer you asked me earlier if i'm looking or a huge payout? you obviously have no idea of the comlications of being involved in an accident with an uninsured driver. to this day i'm still out of pocket because of the clown that hit me, alli want is justice and to get back what out of pocket on. plus i deplore your condoning of the childs mother driving with no insurance. the award could've been €115m and to me that would still be never enough for what she put her child through. eventually insurance companies are going to hike up prices for the amount of claims out there. it's a fact.
none of us honestly know if the child was strapped in properly or not. now what happens if the booster seat is found to be faulty. does the mother sue the manufactorers?
.

ResearchWill · 24-04-2012 4:52pm

Kosseegan wrote: »

Based on the information you have given, no offence was committed. There was a policy on the vehicle. That is good enough. Whether he was named or not or held no licence is irrelevant. There is also the servant defence which might be available.

I have said over and over I do not know the facts behind the case. It was something said over coffee, the total conversation lasting no more than a couple of mins. So while I can not say for certainity what happened neither can you. The reason i brought it up was that the person telling the story, would have assumed in the normal course of events that the guy was covered, but for some reason in this case he was not. It was mentioned that his other half was defo covered to drive his car, so they must have checked that out.

While you are correct in the information you give I do not know if it fits the facts as I said twice now I dont know the facts as I was not involved.

Kosseegan · 24-04-2012 5:10pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

I have said over and over I do not know the facts behind the case. It was something said over coffee, the total conversation lasting no more than a couple of mins. So while I can not say for certainity what happened neither can you. The reason i brought it up was that the person telling the story, would have assumed in the normal course of events that the guy was covered, but for some reason in this case he was not. It was mentioned that his other half was defo covered to drive his car, so they must have checked that out.

While you are correct in the information you give I do not know if it fits the facts as I said twice now I dont know the facts as I was not involved.

You have said that it is certain that the other half is coverred. That is enough.

ResearchWill · 24-04-2012 5:29pm

Kosseegan wrote: »

You have said that it is certain that the other half is coverred. That is enough.

You must be correct.

Hayte · 25-04-2012 1:30pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

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.

MIBI have secured a separate judgement against Margaret Kennedy for the full amount of the award so if Cullen Kennedy dies prematurely and there is still money held by the Courts then it falls to the rules of succession. When someone dies, what happens is that all of their assets are pooled together (the Estate) and the deceased's debts are paid out of the Estate. If there is anything left over once all debts are paid then the residue of the Estate is divided up in accordance with the deceased's Will if they have one. If they didn't make a Will, or they are incapable of making a Will (i.e. because they are a minor or a person of unsound mind) then it gets divided up in accordance with the rules of intestacy.

Because of that Judgement against the mother, no matter what way the remaining Wardship proceeds are divided up in the event of her son's early death, there is no way for the boy's mother to materially benefit from it and by extension, benefit from her son's accident. I'm actually shocked that this is even being suggested in this thread and I'm surprised I even need to mention this.

MIBI can pursue the Judgement any time they want in many ways depending on how, when and if the mother comes into any significant funds. I think this is the best possible outcome under very dire circumstances. The child can have as much of a normal life as his disability allows him. He will still have a mother who is capable of caring for him and they will still be a family. MIBI have secured permission from the court to pursue what they lost if or when the mother has anything worth pursuing.

If the boy lives long enough that he uses the entire 11.5 million then that is never wasted. No matter which way you spin it, its still a bad deal for him because nobody in their right mind would take the money if they had to give up a normal life for it.

Kosseegan · 25-04-2012 2:27pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

You must be correct.

Of course I am! people have got off on that defence frequently.

King of Kings · 25-04-2012 7:24pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

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.

Hayte wrote: »

MIBI have secured a separate judgement against Margaret Kennedy for the full amount of the award so if Cullen Kennedy dies prematurely and there is still money held by the Courts then it falls to the rules of succession. When someone dies, what happens is that all of their assets are pooled together (the Estate) and the deceased's debts are paid out of the Estate. If there is anything left over once all debts are paid then the residue of the Estate is divided up in accordance with the deceased's Will if they have one. If they didn't make a Will, or they are incapable of making a Will (i.e. because they are a minor or a person of unsound mind) then it gets divided up in accordance with the rules of intestacy.

Because of that Judgement against the mother, no matter what way the remaining Wardship proceeds are divided up in the event of her son's early death, there is no way for the boy's mother to materially benefit from it and by extension, benefit from her son's accident. I'm actually shocked that this is even being suggested in this thread and I'm surprised I even need to mention this.

MIBI can pursue the Judgement any time they want in many ways depending on how, when and if the mother comes into any significant funds. I think this is the best possible outcome under very dire circumstances. The child can have as much of a normal life as his disability allows him. He will still have a mother who is capable of caring for him and they will still be a family. MIBI have secured permission from the court to pursue what they lost if or when the mother has anything worth pursuing.

If the boy lives long enough that he uses the entire 11.5 million then that is never wasted. No matter which way you spin it, its still a bad deal for him because nobody in their right mind would take the money if they had to give up a normal life for it.

glad to see somebody else actually bothered to read the full story instead of jumping to conclusions.

firedancer · 25-04-2012 8:26pm

doubletrouble? wrote: »

i'd like to bring your attention to the state of the mothers car in the image below. firdancer you asked me earlier if i'm looking or a huge payout? you obviously have no idea of the comlications of being involved in an accident with an uninsured driver. to this day i'm still out of pocket because of the clown that hit me, alli want is justice and to get back what out of pocket on. plus i deplore your condoning of the childs mother driving with no insurance. the award could've been €115m and to me that would still be never enough for what she put her child through. eventually insurance companies are going to hike up prices for the amount of claims out there. it's a fact.
none of us honestly know if the child was strapped in properly or not. now what happens if the booster seat is found to be faulty. does the mother sue the manufactorers?
.

In no way am I condoning uninsured driving, never have, never will, I don't see why you're so angry with that mother, she has a life sentence that will be infinitely more traumatic each and every minute than any jail cell.
I'm sorry for what happened to you, I don't see why you posted that picture , also that headline is obviously gutter press appealing to the lowest common denominator, primarily to sell papers.
I can't see how that child's mother is going to benefit in any way at all.
You could stop feeling hard done by and wish them well, they're going to need it.
Bless the situation you will feel a lot better, that bitterness is going to eat you up.

Motorist · 25-04-2012 10:16pm

doubletrouble? wrote: »

i'd like to bring your attention to the state of the mothers car in the image below. firdancer you asked me earlier if i'm looking or a huge payout? you obviously have no idea of the comlications of being involved in an accident with an uninsured driver. to this day i'm still out of pocket because of the clown that hit me, alli want is justice and to get back what out of pocket on. plus i deplore your condoning of the childs mother driving with no insurance. the award could've been €115m and to me that would still be never enough for what she put her child through. eventually insurance companies are going to hike up prices for the amount of claims out there. it's a fact.
none of us honestly know if the child was strapped in properly or not. now what happens if the booster seat is found to be faulty. does the mother sue the manufactorers?
.

That car is a mess and brings home the horror of this case outside of all the legalistic arguments. Very poignant headline.

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/458874/202003.jpg

CaliforniaDream · 26-04-2012 7:38am

This was posted on Facebook. I'm not sure if it's a legitimate account or not so maybe someone else can shed some light.

TOO ALL THOSE WHO THINK THERE INSURANCE WILL GO UP COS OF MY SONS CLAME, UR IDIOTS, IT WONT, HIS MONEY CAME FROM THE 'MIBI' OF IRELAND. ITS A SEPERATE ORGANISATION TO INSURANCE COMPANYS AND THE MONEY HAS BEEN SITTING THERE FOR YEARS WAITING FOR SUMONE TO CLAME IT AND MY SON DID AND HE BLOODY DISERVES IT AFTER THE TORTURE HE WENT TRU. OK. LONG MAY HE LIVE !!!!!!!!! feckin begrudgers!!!! nutin else worrying them but insurance isnt it well for them, without that money he wont get proper treatment, and with that money he can eventualy go over seas for stemcell life changing treatment so F*^# the begrudgers!!!!

Link

Probably not the smartest move either.

Milk & Honey · 26-04-2012 8:33am

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0426/1224315195021.html

Should children get into cars driven by their mothers at all.

A €4.25 million settlement has been approved by the High Court for a boy who is paraplegic as a result of devastating injuries suffered by him six years ago, when a car driven by his mother was involved in a head-on collision with a truck.

Seán McCullagh, now 10, was a back-seat passenger in a belted-in booster seat in the car at the time of the crash, which occurred on Ballycoolin Road, Blanchardstown, Dublin, in February 2006 when his mother swerved to avoid a pothole. He suffered catastrophic injuries.

Mr Justice Gerard Hogan in the High Court heard that the truck driver was exonerated of any blame in the matter.

Seán, through his father Rory, Summerfield Avenue, Blanchardstown, had brought proceedings against his mother as the insured driver of the car.

Liability was accepted and the case was before Mr Justice Hogan for assessment only.

bigpink · 26-04-2012 8:42am

CaliforniaDream wrote: »

This was posted on Facebook. I'm not sure if it's a legitimate account or not so maybe someone else can shed some light.

TOO ALL THOSE WHO THINK THERE INSURANCE WILL GO UP COS OF MY SONS CLAME, UR IDIOTS, IT WONT, HIS MONEY CAME FROM THE 'MIBI' OF IRELAND. ITS A SEPERATE ORGANISATION TO INSURANCE COMPANYS AND THE MONEY HAS BEEN SITTING THERE FOR YEARS WAITING FOR SUMONE TO CLAME IT AND MY SON DID AND HE BLOODY DISERVES IT AFTER THE TORTURE HE WENT TRU. OK. LONG MAY HE LIVE !!!!!!!!! feckin begrudgers!!!! nutin else worrying them but insurance isnt it well for them, without that money he wont get proper treatment, and with that money he can eventualy go over seas for stemcell life changing treatment so F*^# the begrudgers!!!!

Link

Probably not the smartest move either.

How do you make a screenshot of that?

Sounds like a lovely person

tbh · 26-04-2012 8:55am

bigpink wrote: »

How do you make a screenshot of that?

Sounds like a lovely person

Hamilcar · 26-04-2012 9:00am

CaliforniaDream wrote: »

This was posted on Facebook. I'm not sure if it's a legitimate account or not so maybe someone else can shed some light.

TOO ALL THOSE WHO THINK THERE INSURANCE WILL GO UP COS OF MY SONS CLAME, UR IDIOTS, IT WONT, HIS MONEY CAME FROM THE 'MIBI' OF IRELAND. ITS A SEPERATE ORGANISATION TO INSURANCE COMPANYS AND THE MONEY HAS BEEN SITTING THERE FOR YEARS WAITING FOR SUMONE TO CLAME IT AND MY SON DID AND HE BLOODY DISERVES IT AFTER THE TORTURE HE WENT TRU. OK. LONG MAY HE LIVE !!!!!!!!! feckin begrudgers!!!! nutin else worrying them but insurance isnt it well for them, without that money he wont get proper treatment, and with that money he can eventualy go over seas for stemcell life changing treatment so F*^# the begrudgers!!!!

Link

Probably not the smartest move either.

I wouldn't begrudge that young lad anything and I hope he goes on to have a decent life.
Well, whatever about being done for having no insurance, she should be done for crimes against the English language

tfitzgerald · 26-04-2012 9:03am

I think he deserves every cent he got and as for his mother she sounds like she watched her child suffer and has had enough of the "oh he will be fine now he has money brigade" . He won't be fine . And as his mother well knows he will never again be fine

CaliforniaDream · 26-04-2012 9:07am

Hamilcar wrote: »

I wouldn't begrudge that young lad anything and I hope he goes on to have a decent life.
Well, whatever about being done for having no insurance, she should be done for crimes against the English language

As I said already in this thread, I don't believe the child should suffer any more than he has already. I hope the money helps him get some sort of normality in any way possible.
It's awful to see such an innocent child be robbed of his quality of life.

I just don't think the mother is in a position to be saying things like the above. The best thing, imo, if for her to keep her silence and focus all her time and energy on her son.

bigpink · 26-04-2012 9:14am

Has she expressed any remorse in public i wonder

tbh · 26-04-2012 9:16am

bigpink wrote: »

Has she expressed any remorse in public i wonder

I definitely think that someone should sit her down and explain to her that the "fcuk yous, I'm entitled to this money" strategy isn't a good one. On the other hand, she's done nothing she needs to apologise to me for.

dvpower · 26-04-2012 9:37am

bigpink wrote: »

Has she expressed any remorse in public i wonder

Why should she show any remorse in public?

tbh wrote: »

I definitely think that someone should sit her down and explain to her that the "fcuk yous, I'm entitled to this money" strategy isn't a good one.

Her "fcuk yous, I'm entitled to this money" strategy is a figment of your own imgaination.

bigpink · 26-04-2012 9:51am

If she was taken to court by the grandparents maybe she issed a statement thats all i was thinking
Or if she was up in court for driving without insurance

Bruthal · 26-04-2012 11:47am

dvpower wrote: »

Why should she show any remorse in public?

Her "fcuk yous, I'm entitled to this money" strategy is a figment of your own imgaination.

We might have differed a little in the HHC thread, not here though.

tbh · 26-04-2012 11:50am

dvpower wrote: »

Her "fcuk yous, I'm entitled to this money" strategy is a figment of your own imgaination.

It might have been a bit of an exaggeration to call it a strategy, but if I were friends with her, I'd be advising her not to make posts like that on facebook.

micropig · 26-04-2012 12:30pm

CaliforniaDream wrote: »

This was posted on Facebook. I'm not sure if it's a legitimate account or not so maybe someone else can shed some light.

TOO ALL THOSE WHO THINK THERE INSURANCE WILL GO UP COS OF MY SONS CLAME, UR IDIOTS, IT WONT, HIS MONEY CAME FROM THE 'MIBI' OF IRELAND. ITS A SEPERATE ORGANISATION TO INSURANCE COMPANYS AND THE MONEY HAS BEEN SITTING THERE FOR YEARS WAITING FOR SUMONE TO CLAME IT AND MY SON DID AND HE BLOODY DISERVES IT AFTER THE TORTURE HE WENT TRU. OK. LONG MAY HE LIVE !!!!!!!!! feckin begrudgers!!!! nutin else worrying them but insurance isnt it well for them, without that money he wont get proper treatment, and with that money he can eventualy go over seas for stemcell life changing treatment so F*^# the begrudgers!!!!

Link

Probably not the smartest move either.

Where does she think the money came from? not from her paying insurance premium

Sitting there for year waiting for sumone to claim it?...well she should have said, I would have claimed it, if it was there waiting

He son deserves it for the torture she put him - true, but she should be ashamed of herself with all the publicity whoring & I see all the hangers on congratulating her...looking for their cut of the money?

Did they congratulate her the day of the crash?

Guy:Incognito · 26-04-2012 12:57pm

I see her friend sare like minded anyway

Facebook wrote:

Paddy Kilbane i dont bother with insurance so its grand haha!!
28 minutes ago · 1

Sure lets all have a laugh and joke about it.
The childs welfare is clearly at the front of all their minds :rolleyes:

I think that post on Facebook gives a bit of an insight in to the mind of the woman that caused the child all the hurt but doesnt accept any of the blame.

Injured child gets 11.5 million euros

Comments