This is sooo wrong..."€215,000 award for fatal crash "

tomcollins97

Why should the rest of us pay becasue they/he was stupid enough not to have insurance?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0211/1233867931727.html

€215,000 award for fatal crash

The family and two children of a motorcyclist who died from injuries sustained in a road crash have secured €215,000 in settlement of their High Court action.

Edward Carter (24), Annagh, Gorey, Co Wexford, died after his motorbike was in collision with a vehicle driven by Declan Fleming, also of Annagh, Gorey, on March 26th, 2001, near Hollyfort, Gorey, Co Wexford.

Neither was insured and the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) was joined to the action. The settlement is against the MIBI.

Drummerboy08

So who will be paying the €215,000 then?

It is crazy, neither had any insurance but still expect a large sum in the event of a crash?

DonJose

This madness continues everyday in our courts... :mad:

A MAN who was severely brain damaged in an accident in which he was travelling in the back of a van with no passenger seat or safety belt has secured a €3m settlement in the High Court.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/braindamaged-crash-victim-gets-83643m-1635108.html

zulfikarMD

is there any clear-cut guideline for accident cases as to what would be compensation like considering when both parties have insurance or one of them have? how is the claim evaluated?

Mr. Incognito

The courts balance the rights of the individual for whom care will be required for the rest of their life against the profits of the insurance companies and generally, and in my opinion, make awards for these people who will need the care. It's an accident, I don't mind paying an extra X in my premium to cover this, it could be me, you or any of our loved ones someday.

As for the large award for death that's to cover the loss of the breadwinner.

Sure it's imperfect from time to time to subsidise these people but personally I think it's a hell of a lot better than having uncared for vegtables and destitute families as a result of a car accidents.

Cookie_Monster

As heartbreaking as it is for the family members of both parties there is no way they should be getting any money. Both men openly flouted the law and put themselves and others in unnessicary danger by not having insurance.

Crap like this is one of the reasons insurance remains so stupidly high in this country.

Drummerboy08

Im thinkin about doing something crazy like sitting out the sunroof, steering with my feet, while driving my car away from the insurance companies office, just after cancelling my policy. Hopefully i'll have a horrible accident, but survive to sue whoever put the road down, whover made me buy a car with a sunroof, whoever invented the runners i was wearing at the time, and the HSE for not having an ambulance on the scene within 60 seconds.

Madness i tells ya.:eek::rolleyes:

tin79

i can understand this one. the motorcyclist was involved in fatal crash with an uninsured driver, and as such the liabilty of the uninsured "vehicle" driver is covered by the MIBI. Whether the motorcyclist had insurance himself legally doesnt matter in this case.

if the motorcyclist had third party insurance and the liability was with the uninsured vehicle driver then his claim would still be with the MIBI.

Cookie_Monster

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The courts balance the rights of the individual for whom care will be required for the rest of their life against the profits of the insurance companies and generally, and in my opinion, make awards for these people who will need the care.

There has to be some responsibility on the individual though. In this case he made the choice to travel unsecured in the back of the van knowing fully what would happen in an accident (i.e. thrown around as unsecured, high probability of serious injury)

Cookie_Monster

tin79 wrote: »

i can understand this one. the motorcyclist was involved in fatal crash with an uninsured driver, and as such the liabilty of the uninsured "vehicle" driver is covered by the MIBI. Whether the motorcyclist had insurance himself legally doesnt matter in this case.

Surely it does if the motorcyclist was the one who caused the crash?

I'm not saying he did, I'm saying "what if?"

PeakOutput

tin79 wrote: »

i can understand this one. the motorcyclist was involved in fatal crash with an uninsured driver, and as such the liabilty of the uninsured "vehicle" driver is covered by the MIBI. Whether the motorcyclist had insurance himself legally doesnt matter in this case.

if the motorcyclist had third party insurance and the liability was with the uninsured vehicle driver then his claim would still be with the MIBI.

yep pretty much

there are going to be downsides to having an organisation like the mibi

in general it helps people who are completely faultless who were involved in an accident with uninsured drivers

as for the large settlement it was probably under some sort of advisement from the personal injury assesment board

Cookie_Monster

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Im thinkin about doing something crazy like sitting out the sunroof, steering with my feet, while driving my car away from the insurance companies office, just after cancelling my policy. Hopefully i'll have a horrible accident, but survive to sue whoever put the road down, whover made me buy a car with a sunroof, whoever invented the runners i was wearing at the time, and the HSE for not having an ambulance on the scene within 60 seconds.

Madness i tells ya.:eek::rolleyes:

Can I come then I can sue all of the above and you aswell:pac:

PeakOutput

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Surely it does if the motorcyclist was the one who caused the crash?

I'm not saying he did, I'm saying "what if?"

IF the motorcyclist was at fault he would not have been entitled to claim anything

in that case the fact that the other guy had no insurance would be irrelevant and he would claim off the mibi

basically insurance and settlements like this are civil matters not having insurance is a legal matter for the police. so if either of the drivers survived it would be up to the police to prosecute them for driving without insurance. the insurance companies/mibi would still have to deal with the claim either way

Mr. Incognito

There has to be some responsibility on the individual though

It's called contributory negligence- if you read the facts of the case the settlement will be reduced by a percentage factor to take account of the fault or the blame if you will of the injured party.

It's never black and white and it's pretty much on the judges interpreation but there's a pretty long line of precedent for car crashes.

tomcollins97

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The courts balance the rights of the individual for whom care will be required for the rest of their life against the profits of the insurance companies and generally, and in my opinion, make awards for these people who will need the care. It's an accident, I don't mind paying an extra X in my premium to cover this, it could be me, you or any of our loved ones someday.

As for the large award for death that's to cover the loss of the breadwinner.

Sure it's imperfect from time to time to subsidise these people but personally I think it's a hell of a lot better than having uncared for vegtables and destitute families as a result of a car accidents.

Fair enough it is an accident but why do any of us bother to get insurance if you will be compensated anyway in the event of an accident?

zulfikarMD

tomcollins97 wrote: »

Fair enough it is an accident but why do any of us bother to get insurance if you will be compensated anyway in the event of an accident?

Are we not legally bound to have insurance and carry a valid license?

I have had accident in Nov-2007 on N7 while traveling to Limerick. I have lost my mother and mother-in-law same day. We all were wearing seat belts and unfortunately as per doctors cause of death for both my mother and mother-in-law was seat belt. Now going by this judgement by doctors would anyone not wear a seat belt? Also, despite of both parties insured still my case is hanging. Just for my satisfaction driver who crashed into my car was pleaded guilty 2-3 weeks back and handed 2 years jail and 2 years driving ban on irish roards.

PeakOutput

tomcollins97 wrote: »

Fair enough it is an accident but why do any of us bother to get insurance if you will be compensated anyway in the event of an accident?

i think your missing the point

person a crashes into person b

person a is at fault, person b is entitled to compensation

weather or not person b has insurance or not is irrelevant unless the gardai decide to prosecute

now it turns out person a has no insurance, this must be confirmed by the gardai and it is then up to them to prosecute

now because person b is innocent in this accident if there was no mibi he would be left high and dry(weather or not he had no insurance, had tpf+t or had comp and was seriously injured_

the existence of the mibi and the agreements in place between them and insurance companies allow for this possiblility and allow person b to be, rightly, compensated for the accident they did not cause

if person a gets away scot free that is the guards fault

in the op's case the person who caused the accident was uninsured and died so they dont have anyone to prosecute

the motorcyclist not having insurance would be equally liable to prosecution if he was alive but he isnt

PeakOutput

zulfikarMD wrote: »

I have had accident in Nov-2007 on N7 while traveling to Limerick. I have lost my mother and mother-in-law same day. We all were wearing seat belts and unfortunately as per doctors cause of death for both my mother and mother-in-law was seat belt. Now going by this judgement by doctors would anyone not wear a seat belt? Also, despite of both parties insured still my case is hanging. Just for my satisfaction driver who crashed into my car was pleaded guilty 2-3 weeks back and handed 2 years jail and 2 years driving ban on irish roards.

what has that got to do with the op?

if you want advice or an insight into why it might be stalling then we need more info

its not unusual for an insurance company to wait for the outcome of a court case before settling

why were they stalling are you disputing the amount they are offering? have they made an offer

without more information a statement like the above means little accept obviously that a tragedy occured and im sorry for your loss

you will notice the op incident happened in 2001 and was only resolved this week??

zulfikarMD

PeakOutput wrote: »

what has that got to do with the op?

if you want advice or an insight into why it might be stalling then we need more info

its not unusual for an insurance company to wait for the outcome of a court case before settling

why were they stalling are you disputing the amount they are offering? have they made an offer

without more information a statement like the above means little accept obviously that a tragedy occured and im sorry for your loss

you will notice the op incident happened in 2001 and was only resolved this week??

I am just putting my arguments againt OP's following comment nothing more. Apologise for putting more information then necessary. And I didn't notice OP's incident happened in 2001.

Originally Posted by tomcollins97 View Post
Fair enough it is an accident but why do any of us bother to get insurance if you will be compensated anyway in the event of an accident?

Top Dog

PeakOutput wrote: »

person a crashes into person b

person a is at fault, person b is entitled to compensation

And in a situation where both person a and person b have decided for their own reasons to flaunt the law and not bother with insurance? To give a firm 2 finger salute to all of us who actually do bother to stump up for insurance? Personally I think they should have to live/die by the conscious decisions they've made in their lives.

Bogger77

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

As heartbreaking as it is for the family members of both parties there is no way they should be getting any money. Both men openly flouted the law and put themselves and others in unnessicary danger by not having insurance.

Crap like this is one of the reasons insurance remains so stupidly high in this country.

there's a levy that is part of every insurance policy, it's 3% I think, it doesn't add a massive amount to the policy quotes for an individual driver.

Drummerboy08

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Can I come then I can sue all of the above and you aswell:pac:

Yeah come on, the more the merrier! Anyone for the rear seats? I'll cut the seatbelts out, and hit the brakes really hard.

I think its crazy. Both had no insurance, rendering thm driving on the road as illegal. What did he expect to happen if he crashed (as it turned out, he did)?

Its cases like this that cause insurance premiums to rocket.

tomcollins97

PeakOutput wrote: »

person a is at fault, person b is entitled to compensation

Why should you be entitled to compensation for any type of accident? If there is no-one to blame who pays this compensation which for some reason your are 'entitled' to? The tax payer??

PeakOutput

Top Dog wrote: »

And in a situation where both person a and person b have decided for their own reasons to flaunt the law and not bother with insurance? To give a firm 2 finger salute to all of us who actually do bother to stump up for insurance? Personally I think they should have to live/die by the conscious decisions they've made in their lives.

and if person b had passengers who did not know he had no insurance do you give them the two fingers too? your simplistic view if applied to the real world affects far far more innocent people negatively than it the currents systems affects criminals positively

PeakOutput

tomcollins97 wrote: »

Why should you be entitled to compensation for any type of accident? If there is no-one to blame who pays this compensation which for some reason your are 'entitled' to? The tax payer??

the law says your are entitled to compensation for loss's incurred that are not caused by yourself. so eh the law says

having worked in claims for almost 3 years(not working there anymore) i never came across an accident were,technically, at least one party was not at fault. i cant think of a situation that the rules of the road do not cover

Top Dog

PeakOutput wrote: »

and if person b had passengers who did not know he had no insurance do you give them the two fingers too? your simplistic view if applied to the real world affects far far more innocent people negatively than it the currents systems affects criminals positively

Person B's passengers would be innocent of any crime, any law flouting and any wrong doing. Thus IMO they'd be entitled to compensation if involved in an accident. 2 entirely different circumstances really.

The way I see it, both drivers are guilty and thus entitled to nothing. If there were innocent parties involved they yes, they'd definitely be entitled to some compensation in an accident.

I fail to see how this view affects any innocent person at all?

MrPudding

Top Dog wrote: »

Person B's passengers would be innocent of any crime, any law flouting and any wrong doing. Thus IMO they'd be entitled to compensation if involved in an accident. 2 entirely different circumstances really.

The way I see it, both drivers are guilty and thus entitled to nothing. If there were innocent parties involved they yes, they'd definitely be entitled to some compensation in an accident.

I fail to see how this view affects any innocent person at all?

So what crimes are the motorcyclist's children guilty of?

MrP

Yakult

To be honest nothing new reading that...

Drummerboy08

tomcollins97 wrote: »

Why should the rest of us pay becasue they/he was stupid enough not to have insurance?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0211/1233867931727.html

€215,000 award for fatal crash

The family and two children of a motorcyclist who died from injuries sustained in a road crash have secured €215,000 in settlement of their High Court action.

Edward Carter (24), Annagh, Gorey, Co Wexford, died after his motorbike was in collision with a vehicle driven by Declan Fleming, also of Annagh, Gorey, on March 26th, 2001, near Hollyfort, Gorey, Co Wexford.

Neither was insured and the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) was joined to the action. The settlement is against the MIBI.

Now, forgive me if im wrong, but both drivers were illegally driving when the accident occurred. If this is correct, this ruling will encourage uninsured drivers to continue driving illegally.

Why does either driver deserve any compensation, when both should not have been on the road?

Top Dog

MrPudding wrote: »

So what crimes are the motorcyclist's children guilty of?

MrP

Maybe he should have considered that before deciding to flout the law.

Fair enough they're not guilty of anything, but they also weren't involved (directly) in the accident. So while it may seem like a cruel opinion, I fail to see how they're entitled to anything at all as a result of their fathers choices.

galwaytt

Top Dog wrote: »

.....The way I see it, both drivers are guilty and thus entitled to nothing.

...first, where does it say that the motorcyclist was at fault ?

If he was not at fault, he (or his estate) is 100% entitled to claim off the car driver for their loss. That the other car driver was uninsured means the MIBI must bear the cost of the award. That is the law, that is why you pay 3% or whatever, MIB levy. It is irrelevant that the motorcyclist was uninsured. Taking he was not at fault, and did have insurance, the MIBI are still liable.

If the motorcyclist was even partially responsible, all that does is mitigate the size of the award, not an award in itself.

The presence of an insurance disc does not offer any protection or divination of, accidents.