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

«13456710

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 18,357 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    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

    Okay, emotively this is a tough case, the poor lad ended up in a very very bad state and deserves some level of compensation (Indeed I am sure his mother can hardly get over it) however
    Doesn't this set a scary precedent for an abuse of this kind of system?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,150 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    As it was his own mother's momentary lapse of concentration, I'm sure the family are not in a good place.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,262 ✭✭✭Vertakill


    Sorry, but am I missing something here?

    The mother was driving around uninsured and, through her own fault, crashed and ruined her son's life.... sooo the MIBI (which we pay) are now giving her son (technically, his guardians, which coincidentally is the person responsible for his injuries) 11m?

    I didn't realise that's how this worked..?


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,080 ✭✭✭✭Big Nasty


    This is a very delicate one obviously!

    An uninsured mother drives across the road in to another car permanently injuring her son then claims for compensation for her son? How can that be right?

    Feel very sorry for the child though!


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,907 ✭✭✭✭Kristopherus


    And we'll had/have to pay for damage /injuries to the other vehicle/driver/passengers as well.:eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,088 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    Vertakill wrote: »
    Sorry, but am I missing something here?

    The mother was driving around uninsured and, through her own fault, crashed and ruined her son's life.... sooo the state are now giving her son (technically, his guardians, which coincidentally is the person responsible for his injuries) 11m?

    I didn't realise that's how this worked..?

    I don't think it's the state giving out this money.
    It's MIBI which I think is funded from our insurance premiums.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,147 ✭✭✭mise


    Of course this is a very sensitive case..

    But there must be more to this than has been reported, surely.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,088 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    MCMLXXV wrote: »
    This is a very delicate one obviously!

    An uninsured mother drives across the road in to another car permanently injuring her son then claims for compensation for her son? How can that be right?

    Feel very sorry for the child though!

    I think that is right with one little exception.
    She caused an accident injuring someone, she was not insured so MIBI paid for injuries.
    But now MIBI should recover this sum from her.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,409 ✭✭✭✭Blazer


    top of the class student? at 6...are they seriously taking the piss?
    Yep I feel terrible for the young fella but this was completely his mother's fault.
    I'm sorry but driving without insurance and then expecting a payout? Sod off...why bother with insurance at all then?:confused:


    just seen the ^^ above...
    That makes more sense..if anything she should now be prosecuted and chased after for that money etc...except one thing...she prob doesn't have a bob and this money will be in the son's name or something to avoid something like that from happening.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,624 ✭✭✭wmpdd3


    I presume the child is suing the mother through another adult?

    what i want to know is, how did the child get out of the booster seat. I'm the only person I know who would only allow a child under 10 in my car if he used the booster seat, most would just have them in the seat belt at that age.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,875 ✭✭✭✭MugMugs


    Oh my.....


    Without wanting to be heartless, there's no mention of prosecution against the mother. At the very least, she should be done for no insurance. LEAST.....

    Personally, I think she should have the book thrown at her. Just because of her relationship to Cullen, she is not above blame for her actions and should suffer the consequences. Obviously inflicting such life altering injuries such as these to her son is bad but I really do feel that she should suffer the full wrath of the law on this one.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭heyjude


    The mother seems to have had two momentary lapses, the first, when she decided not to insure herself and then the second which led to the accident.

    Despite whatever guilt she may now have about the accident, it is disturbing that having cost the 'law abiding' insured drivers over €11m and despite having broke the law by driving uninsured, there is no mention of any criminal proceedings having been taken against her, either for careless/dangerous driving or for driving while uninsured.

    The RTE report also says "the boy struck the windscreen and suffered catastrophic injuries", would it be possible for a then 6 year old boy(he is 10 now) who should have been seated in the back of the car with a seat belt on(and probably a booster seat too), to strike the windscreen or if the child was in the front of the car(are 6 year olds supposed to be in a front seat ?), with a seat belt on, how could he have struck the windscreen ?

    It is also disturbing to see the judge saying that it was an excellent settlement and that she had never seen a better one, it may be excellent for the boy, but it is hardly excellent news for the average insured motorist as it will add to their insurance bills.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,272 ✭✭✭✭Max Power1


    Shocking.

    Its clearly her fault. Why are we (the insured) paying her?

    Will I just not pay my insurance then crash into a wall and claim 11 million?

    Total and utter bollocks


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    The award isn't for her, it's for her son.

    Why should her son have to suffer for the rest of his life because his mother's an idiot?


  • Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    seamus wrote: »
    The award isn't for her, it's for her son.

    Why should her son have to suffer for the rest of his life because his mother's an idiot?

    True, surely she'll see some of the cash though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 717 ✭✭✭rubberdiddies


    This is a very sensitive case, but one which in my opinion sets a very dangerous precedent.

    Whats to stop some unscrupulous people from doing this now on purpose for financial gain.

    The child here is the one that suffered. it's just awful.

    However the Mother should have been prosecuted. Maybe she was...the article didnt state. If she's not prosecuted then sure we could all drive around with no insurance.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,262 ✭✭✭Vertakill


    CiniO wrote: »
    I think that is right with one little exception.
    She caused an accident injuring someone, she was not insured so MIBI paid for injuries.
    But now MIBI should recover this sum from her.

    Yeah I think you're right.

    I should know seeing as I actually claimed off the MIBI once before for an uninsured driver! D'oh!

    I know it's a bit callous and I hate to say it, but like, instead of a mother, if this was a father in his late 20's I think they outcome would have been a lot different.
    I'd say the child would be taken into care and he'd probably be done in a criminal court.

    seamus wrote: »
    The award isn't for her, it's for her son.

    Why should her son have to suffer for the rest of his life because his mother's an idiot?

    But he's living permanently on a respirator and in a wheelchair and the person caring for him is the person that caused the whole thing - so I would imagine she would be given some of that money because she'll never be able to work a job for the rest of the boys life as he needs 24/7 care...
    And the boy won't be able to touch the money until he's 18 or something though in most of these cases anyways?

    If this woman wasn't that boy's mother, she'd be in prison right now.
    If you or I drove uninsured and hit a 10yo pedestrian and made them a quadriplegic, we'd be behind bars....

    I'm absolutely gobsmacked here...

    So basically, the moral of the story here is, why the hell are the rest of us paying for insurance?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 326 ✭✭Johntegr


    seamus wrote: »
    The award isn't for her, it's for her son.

    Why should her son have to suffer for the rest of his life because his mother's an idiot?
    I reckon she'll be an even bigger idiot with being in control of such a settlement.

    That money should be locked away and they should have to appeal to have money drawn from it to go towards caring for the son.

    The mother and the rest of the family definitely shouldn't see a sniff of it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,866 ✭✭✭✭MuppetCheck


    RoverJames wrote: »
    True, surely she'll see some of the cash though.

    It can vary. I believe the bigger settlement is for life-long car of the injured party. It is often the case in situations similar to the one mentioned that parents/spouses undertake a case for their hardship too. The report does not mention if the settlement is combined or not. I would hope that this is for the injured party.

    No doubt however there will be a nice house built or purchased to meet his needs, a car or two for transport etc. Indirecty she at least the mother will lead a wry privileged life from this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,875 ✭✭✭✭MugMugs


    seamus wrote: »
    The award isn't for her, it's for her son.

    Why should her son have to suffer for the rest of his life because his mother's an idiot?

    I wouldn't dispute the award, I'd have concerns over her getting away with this! If it was me Id be sending this from a smuggled Android phone in the joy!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    RoverJames wrote: »
    True, surely she'll see some of the cash though.
    11.5m over fifty years = €220k per year.

    Hiring nursing care for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year must cost at least €150k/year. Even if she covers 12 hours a day, you would still be looking at €100k/year. Then you have medical equipment, drugs, scans, operations, and so on and so forth.

    That kind of money will probably allow them to buy a property that it suited for his needs and provide her the freedom to look after him without having to worry about working. But that's probably about it. I think it's a little naive to picture her having exotic foreign holidays and driving expensive sports cars on the back of this award.
    The money means that he won't have to live in poverty for the rest of his life, it's just incidental that his mother will share in that existence for the rest of hers. Not much consolation for her I imagine.


  • Registered Users Posts: 988 ✭✭✭manutd


    seamus wrote: »
    The award isn't for her, it's for her son.

    Why should her son have to suffer for the rest of his life because his mother's an idiot?

    the boy should be taken off her for life, she drove him in an uninsured car and crashed, clearly not able to look after him, driving him in an uninsured car.

    Does anyone know this, for example if i drove without insurance, no one else in the car, i had an accident, broke my leg and arm, can i get money from this fund? i don't know.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,272 ✭✭✭✭Max Power1


    seamus wrote: »
    The award isn't for her, it's for her son.

    Why should her son have to suffer for the rest of his life because his mother's an idiot?

    Because the mother is the sons primary caregiver. The accident was her fault, why should the son (and the mother by obvious link) be compensated from my pocket for her breaking the law and reckless driving?

    This country has the sense of justice of the populous gone to **** if this is to be seen as accepted.

    Im tempted to try a similar SCAM. I pay too much in insurance every year for a percentage of it via MIBI to be going to the likes of these bottom dwelling scum that have no respect for the other road users. (no insurance & reckless driving)


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    manutd wrote: »
    Does anyone know this, for example if i drove without insurance, no one else in the car, i had an accident, broke my leg and arm, can i get money from this fund? i don't know.
    No, the fund only covers third parties injuries as a result of an uninsured driver. If your mate was driving uninsured with you in the car, you can claim.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Max Power1 wrote: »
    Because the mother is the sons primary caregiver. The accident was her fault, why should the son (and the mother by obvious link) be compensated from my pocket for her breaking the law and reckless driving?
    So because of the sins of his mother, he should suffer?


  • Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    seamus wrote: »
    ............. I think it's a little naive to picture her having exotic foreign holidays and driving expensive sports cars on the back of this award.
    ...............

    I'd be surprised if she doesn't take the odd (annual) break in the sun tbh.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,979 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    manutd wrote: »
    Does anyone know this, for example if i drove without insurance, no one else in the car, i had an accident, broke my leg and arm, can i get money from this fund? i don't know.

    You would get nothing. If you were hit by another un-insured driver, you can both claim off MIBI though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 988 ✭✭✭manutd


    seamus wrote: »
    No, the fund only covers third parties injuries as a result of an uninsured driver. If your mate was driving uninsured with you in the car, you can claim.

    thanks for clearing that up, its not passages fault the driver is not insured.


  • Registered Users Posts: 451 ✭✭TheZ


    Terrible case.

    There was a case a few years ago where husband and wife are in daughters car. Wife is driving. They have accident and husband is badly injured. Not insured. Sue on behalf of husband who is in a coma. They win substantial monies.

    Husband dies and under his will money all goes to wife. However MIBI waiting in wings so she disclaims her interest in the will, first daughter also disclaims interest in will and second daughter takes the cash from the settlement which was part of fathers estate.

    MIBI came after them under Statute of Frauds (four hundred year old piece of legislation) and had the disclaiming set aside and recovered the money.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,272 ✭✭✭✭Max Power1


    seamus wrote: »
    So because of the sins of his mother, he should suffer?

    If the mother is reckless via being an alcoholic, the son suffers.
    If the mother is reckless via being a gambling addict, the son suffers.
    If the mother is reckless via making bad choices in life, the son suffers.

    Why is this any different??


Advertisement