I read this article today
I'd normally post in AH as people can rage and take a mick out of it.
But I think there is serious issue now in terms of Judges awarding outlandish sums of money to people who have been in bad accidents but have fully or near fully recovered
To sum up:
This girl was in a car crash with her Uncle, Aunt and Cousin.
The Car hit a wall, and the Aunt and Cousin died.
The Girl through her father sued her Uncle for damages:
"suffered multiple injuries and fractures and was in hospital for 34 days afterwards. He said she still suffers from headaches but otherwise has made a good physical recovery"
Mr Justice Kevin Cross awarded her €255,000.
Now I'm sorry, but that is just way to much.
The smug picture of her leaving court says it all really.
I'll be open about this, I suffered a serious injury as a result of motorcycle accident a few years ago. Far more serious than a couple of fractures, I'm still living with the ramifications of it to this day. But I would never have expected to get that amount. (Nor did I get anywhere near it.)
The Government need to legislate more on what Judges can award.
I'm no fan of insurance companies, but I'd say whoever the insurer was feels fairly shafted right about now.
But the reality is that this bill will just be passed on to policy holders or life, home, health, mortgage and motor insurance.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but are the Judges completely overstepping the line?
You have all of the details of your own injuries and you may have seen some or all of your own medical reports which described those injuries.
On the other hand, all that we have to tell us about the award is that she had multiple fractures, was in hospital for 34 days and now gets headaches sometimes.
This is very meagre information and does not refer to any medical evidence from any any medical consultant (and there is little doubt that there would have been such evidence.
It is absolutely not possible to assess any personal injury case for damages without seeing the relevant medical reports.
We have no idea how many operations that this lady underwent (or if there were any), how much pain she may have endured, what future repercussions there may be, whether she is likely to get degenerative disc disease at an early age. We have none of that information.
We also have no idea whether there were any special damages which would increased the amount of the award. if someone is rendered unable to work, there can be large claims for loss of earnings.
Also, journalists give partial and incorrect information all of the time. I was in court once when a solicitor applied to make a criminal matter peremptory on the Gardai. It was written up in the newspaper but all of the details were wrong, to include the name of the solicitor or the type of application.
As pat said you don't have the full story. She was injired, in hospital for over a month which is serious in itself and also saw her relatives die which is mentally scarring.
So the judge took all the info and made his decision based on the evidence.
When I was 6 I was walking through a well known department store and a lady staking shelves with plates didn't see me and turned around and smashed them off my eyebrow, cutting me open and I had to go to hospital to get stitches etc. My mother sued and I was awarded 3500 pounds in 1995 and wouldn't get it until I was 18.
I also have a pretty nifty scar but I'm happy with what I got.
If you want to rage that's noting compared to thishttps://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/bike-fall-in-shop-sees-girl-awarded-10-000/010516
You did read that two persons in the crash died? Also you did read "Approving the settlement" the judge did not pick a figure out of thin air, it was a settlement offered by the Defendant! You understand why that is important.
The only reason a judge was involved is any settlement of a case where a child is the plaintiff, a judge must protect the interest of the child must agree that the settlement is in the interest of the child.
So in answer to your question, yes you did miss two things.
While I'm not going to comment on the size of the award, I do note that her aunt and her cousin died in the same crash. Physical scars aside, she surely must be dealing with some hefty emotional scars.
It was not an award it was a settlement offered by the Defence. Hence why the report says "settlement" not "aweraded"
Jesus, you've crucially glossed over the fact that she saw 2 people die in the same crash.
I'm never for these big awards but in this case I agree with it. She may have recovered well but if she spent 34 days in hospital then she suffered a lot of pain and she will never recover emotionally.
I don't see a smirk on her face at all.
Is it anything to do with nationality that has you ranting about this particular case?
A month in hospital, 2 people dead - it's hardly slipping on a fúcking chicken mcnugget after a night out now is.
Sounds to me like that girl has been through hell. Am I missing something?
'Smug look in the picture leaving the court'
Are you actually for real writing that
Seems like you're only focusing on the physical injuries and not the mental damage that being in an accident in which two members of your family die.
Counselling and psychiatrists don't come cheap and this poor girl may need to use their services for years. That's not to mention the physical injuries which can't be healed full.
The judge had full access to all the facts and medical reports, you're jumping on a headline and joining the outrage bandwagon.
I won't even comment on "The smug picture of her leaving court says it all really."
Some people make you think is the Internet worth the amount of stupid we have to put up with. A 16 year old seriously injured in a crash, spends over a month in hospital, witnessed both Aunt and cousin die, is OFFERED money in settlement, that she can not get till 18. And in the OP's mind that child was smirking, god help us.
It says through her father she sued, Who did they sue? The Aunts husband ? Your mans brother?
A child can not sue while a child in her own name, so a adult must be named in the proceedings. The Defendant is always named as the person who committed the negligence, but in road traffic in effect it is the insurance company, who runs the defence and pays in this case the settlement.
In a road traffic case part of the settlement/award must include a payment to the Health Service for medical care and if the person had insurance also a payment to refund VHI.
I think the judge might have had more facts available to them than you do. I wonder if they looked Irish and had Irish names would you care so much?