Settlement of €2.9m for boy (4) who sued mother

DonJose · 13-02-2010 7:24pm #1

:eek: Uninsured woman crashed her car, we pay for it. My sympathy is with the child but WTF!!!

THE High Court has approved a €2.9m settlement in the case of a baby boy who was blinded and severely brain damaged when the car his mother was driving hit a wall.

Ben McHale, who is now aged four, sued his parents, Disislave and Marcus McHale from Northview, Fethard Road, Clonmel, Co Tipperary, following an accident in April 2006. Ben was four months old at the time.

Suing through his uncle, William McHale, the action was also against the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland, as Mrs McHale was not insured to drive her husband's car. Liability was conceded.

The court heard the accident occurred on the Clonmel to Kilkenny Road, near Clonmel, when Mrs McHale suffered a blackout. The car glanced off a tree and crashed into a wall.

Ben suffered a severe head injury and was also blinded.
The court heard there was a possibility Ben's future brain development may benefit from stem-cell treatment being undertaken in Germany.
In papers submitted to the court, it was alleged that he was not properly restrained in the back seat of the car.

Following the accident, Marcus McHale had to give up his valeting business to help look after his son, along with his wife, the court was told by counsel for the boy.

The family had also got into difficulties with the mortgage on their home and an order for its repossession was made because they were €35,000 in arrears. Mr Justice John Quirke approved the settlement and extended his sympathy to the McHale family.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/settlement-of-836429m-for-boy-4-who-sued-mother-2061806.html

alex73 · 13-02-2010 7:34pm

Was thinking the exact same thing today. I presume none of the money will go to the parents? Poor kid.

bad2dabone · 13-02-2010 7:34pm

madness. sympathy with the boy but this is madness.

Mr. Presentable · 13-02-2010 7:38pm

If she conceded liability, has she been prosecuted?

DonJose · 13-02-2010 7:42pm

I can only hope that this money is put into a trust and spent solely on this kids medical costs. It would sick to see the parents living the highlife on account of this. Further reading, this woman should have been charged with dangerous driving and driving without insurance. The poor kid wasn't properly restrained:mad:

"The child was being attended and nursed in the back of the car at the time of the crash and it seemed the driver had some form of blackout, counsel said. He said the car grazed off a tree and crashed into a wall."
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0213/1224264352693.html

"The court heard four-month-old Ben McHale was a back-seat passenger, that he was thrown forward on impact and was found by the ambulance crew lying unconscious outside the car."
http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/29m-settlement-for-tipperary-boy-hurt-in-crash-445930.html

LookBehindYou · 13-02-2010 7:43pm

Where is the logic ?
I do have sympathy for the child, BUT the parents are supposed to be responsible for caring for the child.
The mother drives without insurance.
The mother did not restrain the child properly in the car.
Was the mother locked up for this ?
What penalties for the parents ?

Kristopherus · 13-02-2010 7:44pm

A trajedy indeed, but I hope the parents get piddle-all benefit from this award. We are all going to have to pay for this through a hike in our premiums.

DonJose · 13-02-2010 7:44pm

Also being discussed at the following motor forum.

http://octane.ie/forum/showthread.php?t=35249

L1011 · 13-02-2010 7:48pm

I do hope the state will now prosecute the mother for uninsured driving, and also ensure that not a cent of that 2.9M goes towards anything other than the childs care / trust fund.

Gary ITR · 13-02-2010 7:58pm

MYOB wrote: »

I do hope the state will now prosecute the mother for uninsured driving, and also ensure that not a cent of that 2.9M goes towards anything other than the childs care / trust fund.

I bloody hope so. Parents need locking up, according to reports the kid was thrown from the car so obviously wasn't properly restrained either

P.C. · 13-02-2010 8:06pm

This boils my blood.

The mother should be prosecuted.

Max Headroom · 13-02-2010 8:09pm

I tell ya...if my wife did this theres no way on earth i'd stay with her...I'd do everything in my power to see that she does'nt get away without being procecuted /jailed/ banned from ever seeing the kid.......:mad:

Gary ITR · 13-02-2010 8:25pm

Max Headroom wrote: »

I tell ya...if my wife did this theres no way on earth i'd stay with her...I'd do everything in my power to see that she does'nt get away without being procecuted /jailed/ banned from ever seeing the kid.......:mad:

I'd say the husband knew what she was at

Muckie · 13-02-2010 8:58pm

It makes you sick alrite, why wasnt she locked up. Whats wrong
with this countrys justice system.

MagicMarker · 13-02-2010 9:02pm

Who exactly pays this 2.9m? Obviously not insurance because she wasn't insured?

DonJose · 13-02-2010 9:03pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

Who exactly pays this 2.9m? Obviously not insurance because she wasn't insured?

We pay :mad:

rbrt · 13-02-2010 9:07pm

How does the logic of this work, how could the state be liable for an uninsured mother crashing her car, whilst her 4 month old child isn't suitably restrained? And yet an uninsured boy racer crashes into a normal joe public and joe is claiming off his own insurance for the damage to their own car...
Sympathies indeed, however how this works defies me

Cookie_Monster · 13-02-2010 9:21pm

I completly fail to understand the logic behind this also.

Despite the lack of insurance, or any other factor, surely it is soley the mother at fault, failing to properly restrain the child, dangerous driving. And the state has to pay,

I sympathise with the child, being blinded is one of the worst things I can imagine, but can't help thinking if it was two adults it would have been a totally different outcome

Gary ITR · 13-02-2010 9:26pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

Who exactly pays this 2.9m? Obviously not insurance because she wasn't insured?

A portion of your insurance policy goes to the MIBI which pays out claims on behalf of uninsured drivers, stolen cars etc

Mr Benevolent · 13-02-2010 9:26pm

Someone was twisting the law to their advantage methinks. It's legal but fairly suspicious.

Cookie_Monster · 13-02-2010 9:27pm

Onkle wrote: »

A portion of your insurance policy goes to the MIBI which pays out claims on behalf of uninsured drivers, stolen cars etc

But why are they paying out in this case? Surely they will in turn be sueing the mother for costs?

Run_to_da_hills · 13-02-2010 9:28pm

The child should be taken into care by the HSE if a mother was so irresponsible to take a car out without a screed of insurance.

Barr · 13-02-2010 9:47pm

Hope they at least prosecute the mother !!

Eoin · 13-02-2010 10:13pm

rbrt wrote:

How does the logic of this work

It's easier if you think about it like this:

Someone was hurt because of the actions of an uninsured driver. That injured party has successfully sued the driver, and as the driver was not insured the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland has to fork out.

I don't know if sending the mother to jail would really serve any purpose to society, but I suppose that's a debate for another forum.

CharlieCroker · 13-02-2010 10:26pm

If the mother was prosecuted, it would have happened by now. A criminal prosecution always goes before a civil case, which is what this was. She may well have been prosecuted for an offence (i'd imagine she was, but i dont know), but they may not have mentioned it in the civil case so as not to compromise it.

as i said, the civil case against the MIBI is completely seperate to the criminal case for any driving offences so any driving conviction is irrelivant to the judge in the civil case. She admitted liability, thats all the judge needed to know.

rbrt · 13-02-2010 10:55pm

Thanks Eoin and Onkle for clearing that up. I guess in its inception this type of case whereby the recipient of the claim and the party which was partially responsible for same damages were biologically related were not the main intended beneficiaries - hence my struggling to grasp the logic

Don't necessarily think this should be allowed, sounds like a piece of legislation which may need further rework...

L1011 · 13-02-2010 10:57pm

rbrt wrote: »

How does the logic of this work, how could the state be liable for an uninsured mother crashing her car, whilst her 4 month old child isn't suitably restrained? And yet an uninsured boy racer crashes into a normal joe public and joe is claiming off his own insurance for the damage to their own car...
Sympathies indeed, however how this works defies me

The state isn't paying, the MIBI is.

Similarly if an uninsured driver hits you, you claim off the MIBI not your own insurance.

argosy2006 · 13-02-2010 11:07pm

2.9 m is drop in the ocean when it comes to insurance companies, thats why we have insurance, they should pay out in more cases like this,

Gary ITR · 13-02-2010 11:11pm

MYOB wrote: »

Similarly if an uninsured driver hits you, you claim off the MIBI not your own insurance.

Does the MIBI pay out all claims or is it just personal injuries?

Mr. Presentable · 13-02-2010 11:13pm

The problem lies in the fact that the mother is a benificiary of her own wrongdoing. There is no way in which she cannot benefit from the court's decision. The judgement even noted her mortgage deficit.

Cookie_Monster · 13-02-2010 11:20pm

MYOB wrote: »

The state isn't paying, the MIBI is.

Similarly if an uninsured driver hits you, you claim off the MIBI not your own insurance.

MIBI is an arm of the state, funded by a combination of Gov funds and motorists insurance %

Settlement of €2.9m for boy (4) who sued mother

Comments