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

P.C.

Onkle wrote: »

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

Personal injuries.

You can not claim for damage to your vehicle or property.

bladebrew

i dont understand how the mother could not benefit from this they obviously cant give €2.9m to a 4 year old,but he should have the money to pay for his care which would be given to his parents?!!?,
then the mother would surely spend it herself

i do feel sorry for the child but this is absolute madness,a mother is supposed to care for her child,if something happens to the child through her actions its her fault,

and what about the poor child killed yesterday on his way to school with his mother,can his father sue the mother for killing his child,i dont understand where they draw a line?

Eoin

bladebrew wrote: »

i do feel sorry for the child but this is absolute madness,a mother is supposed to care for her child,if something happens to the child through her actions its her fault,

Yes it is her fault - and she was sued for it.

bladebrew wrote: »

and what about the poor child killed yesterday on his way to school with his mother,can his father sue the mother for killing his child,i dont understand where they draw a line?

That's not comparable.

unkel

argosy2006 wrote: »

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,

The insurance company isn't paying out. Because the driver had no insurance. In this situation, an institution called MIBI pays out. This institution is paid for by all motorists who pay for their insurance. You and me are paying for this

Del2005

argosy2006 wrote: »

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,

I love the way people think that insurance companies are bottomless pits of money. Every cent that insurance companies pay out comes from our premiums. Then they have to pay their staff and rent. After all that they still need to make a profit to pay a dividend to their shareholders, who are the only people that insurance companies care about.

If they have to pay €2.9 million out to everyone who willfully(sp?) drove illegally with their unrestrained child in the back we'd all be paying thousands for our insurance.

unkel

Just a thought. There is no mention of having a driving license in any of the articles linked so far. Disislave is a Bulgarian name, is it? If so, she might have learned to drive here and as such have a full Irish license. She might have learned to drive in Bulgaria. At he time of the accident Bulgaria was not part of the EU and driving on a Bulgarian license would have equalled driving without a driving license in this country.

JHMEG

unkel wrote: »

Just a thought. There is no mention of having a driving license in any of the articles linked so far. Disislave is a Bulgarian name, is it? If so, she might have learned to drive here and as such have a full Irish license. She might have learned to drive in Bulgaria. At he time of the accident Bulgaria was not part of the EU and driving on a Bulgarian license would have equalled driving without a driving license in this country.

I'm sure the defence looked at all options.

I just hope it hasn't opened the door to the idea of everyone who is uninsured and involved in a car accident suing MIBI (through a 3rd party).

Cuddlesworth

I wonder if she is going to bother getting insurance now that she is 2.9m up? I wouldn't if I was her. Clearly no benefit in doing it.

I would like to know one thing. Why weren't they put into a council house, put onto the dole and given disability for the child. Plenty of other people in the country have had to do this and last I checked it wasn't them that crippled their child for life.

Eoin

We don't even know if either parent is responsible for administering the fund, so you can't assume she is "2.9m up".

unkel

JHMEG wrote: »

I just hope it hasn't opened the door to the idea of everyone who is uninsured and involved in a car accident suing MIBI (through a 3rd party).

There's nothing new in this case. This door has always been open. I have a vague recollection of a case involving an uninsured motorbike driver

Here - took me about 14s to google it. Have some popcorn and cream crackers while reading it

Paralysed uninsured biker seeks payout
Share
Print
Email
Text Size Normal
Large
Extra Large
Ads by Google
Accident Claims Advice

Call Sinnott Solicitors 01 4062862 Irelands Leading Claims Specialists

www.sinnottsolicitors.ie
Allianz Auto Insurance

Buy Online & Get A 10% Discount Protect Your Pride And Joy!

Allianz.ie/Car
How Much Could I Claim?

Injured? Not your fault? Find out how much compensation you can get

www.claim.ie
Van Insurance

Competitive Van Insurance quotes from Irelands leading Broker.

www.mikemurphyinsurance.ie


Sunday July 24 2005
LARA BRADLEY
HE WAS blatantly riding a motorcycle without any insurance and while on a provisional licence.

So when Martin Woods from Co Louth crashed and was paralysed for life almost four years ago it was just fortunate that he did not maim or kill anyone else.

But the 23-year-old is now taking a test case to the European Commission to try and force a change in Irish law that would oblige the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland to give him a multimillion euro payout in compensation for his injuries.

If he succeeds, he will open the floodgates for other uninsured motorists to claim from a fund which was originally set up to recompense the innocent victims of uninsured road users.

The move would inevitably lead to a hike in insurance premiums for law-abiding motorists, a possibility that did not seem to overly concern Mr Woods last week.

He said: "Compensation has to come from somewhere and that is what insurance is for. I had every intention of getting insurance, but I wasn't able because I was working all the time.

"It was the day that was in it, having a day off work, that made me go out on the bike without insurance. I didn't re ally think I was doing any thing too wrong. Now I just have to try and make the best of my life."

Mr Woods was 19 years old and his brother Stephen was 18 when the two crashed at Clogher Head, Co Louth on September 14, 2001. The nation had been given the day off work to mourn the victims of the 9/11 attacks on New York. Neither brother had passed a test at the time.

Mr Woods claims that he was "just trying out" a new Honda 400cc motorbike, but it was not the first time the teenager had taken the powerful bike out on the public road uninsured.

He was just a few miles from home when his brother sped up behind him, overtook and did a U-turn causing the crash. Mr Woods was catapulted from his bike into a parked car. His brother escaped with a broken leg, but Mr Woods suffered serious injuries that mean he will never walk again.

During a three-month stay in the Mater Hospital, Dublin Mr Woods made the shocking discovery that his younger brother was also uninsured. He said: "I said to him, 'I'll have to get compo for this off your insurance'. He said, 'Sure, I've no insurance'. At the time it was the least ofmy worries."

Mr Woods suffered numerous broken bones and damage to his spinal cord that left him paralysed from the shoulders down. He has the use of his arms, but is now entirely dependent on his mother Mary. He said: "I can't describe the anguish and mental torture that these events have caused to me and my family. Imagine the pain I felt as it gradually dawned on me what my life now was and would become. I have suffered rage, denial and despair. The physical pain, though shocking, was not the worst."

Stephen Woods was fined for a number of serious offences, including dangerous driving and driving with neither licence nor insurance. Martin Woods has not faced charges for driving without insurance, an offence that carries the ultimate penalty of a six-month jail sentence.

Mr Woods applied for compensation from MIBI, but was turned down as the rules state that motorists who drive while uninsured are ineligible regardless of who is to blame for the collision.

Mr Woods said: "My brother didn't set out to do it, but he is to blame. I am not at fault here at all. My brother knows it was his fault."

Mr Woods has chosen not to sue his brother as "he has nothing". Instead he hopes a formal complaint to the European Commission will lead to a change in Irish law forcing the fund to pay him €2m.

Mr Woods said: "An award of financial compensation would not give me back my health and youth, but would go a long way to givingme back some level ofindependence and restoring my dignity."

Ironically, Mr Woods would have been entitled to compensation if the crash had happened anywhere northof the Border - just 25miles away.

Solicitor Alison McGrath said: "The purpose of the EU directive is to compensate blameless victims of uninsured drivers.

"The Irish government introduced a clause excluding blameless drivers who were also uninsured.

"The position is different in Britain, where someone in Martin's position would be entitled to compensation."

The MIBI fund is entirely paid for by law-abiding Irish drivers who pay a levy of six per cent on their motor insurance to sustain it. The most recent figures show the fund paid out an incredible €70m to victims of uninsured drivers in 2003.

Last week the European Commission issued a "reasoned opinion" formally asking the Irish State to "amend its legislation on insurance cover for blameless drivers of uninsured vehicles".

MIBI are seeking legal advice on how to respond to this. Chief executive John Casey said: "The cost of the mayhem caused by uninsured drivers comes directly from the premiums paid by the law abiding 95 per cent of the motoring population who pay their insurance regularly.

"Should this case succeed there will certainly be an implication for insurance premiums, though I imagine this may not be too severe as the chances of two uninsured drivers crashing into each other are relatively low."

But Mr Casey stressed there are moral as well as financial implications to Mr Woods' case as it is "wholly inequitable" that a person who "has not bothered to insure" should be entitled to compensation paid for by those who abide by the law.

linky

JHMEG

unkel wrote: »

There's nothing new in this case. This door has always been open. I have a vague recollection of a case involving an uninsured motorbike driver

Should have used the word precendent. That case with the motorbike is a bit different... he was the driver and is not eligible under MIBI rules.

JHMEG

eoin wrote: »

We don't even know if either parent is responsible for administering the fund, so you can't assume she is "2.9m up".

His uncle, William McHale, sued the child's parents. So we really don't know what the story is.

P.C.

unkel wrote: »

There's nothing new in this case. This door has always been open. I have a vague recollection of a case involving an uninsured motorbike driver

Here - took me about 14s to google it. Have some popcorn and cream crackers while reading it



linky

This:

But Mr Casey stressed there are moral as well as financial implications to Mr Woods' case as it is "wholly inequitable" that a person who "has not bothered to insure" should be entitled to compensation paid for by those who abide by the law.

is the important bit.

L1011

P.C. wrote: »

Personal injuries.

You can not claim for damage to your vehicle or property.

You can, if the uninsured vehicle causing the accident is identified; although the protocol is that if you have fully comp insurance, your insurer pays rather than MIBI, without affecting your NCB.

There's excesses, etc, all detailed in the actual MIBI agreement:
http://mibi.ie/fileadmin/documents/members_site/mibi_agreements/Signed_MIBI_Agreement_29_Jan_09.pdf

Gary ITR

Just as I asked that question last night I remembered my company making a claim against the MIBI when I was hit by a stolen car.

parsi

nipplenuts wrote: »

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.

I don't think that the mother is a beneficiary of her wrongdoing. She now has a severely disabled child that will require constant care.

It is somewhat similar to cases where minors sue their own parents (who have insurance) in car crashes.

AugustusMinimus

parsi wrote: »

I don't think that the mother is a beneficiary of her wrongdoing. She now has a severely disabled child that will require constant care.

It is somewhat similar to cases where minors sue their own parents (who have insurance) in car crashes.

The mother is quite clearly a beneficiary of the court's ruling.

She should get jailtime IMO but this would not benefit the poor child.


That young fella who got injured on the bike deserves no payout at all. Its a bloody disgrace to the rest of us who pay insurance on time every year. How he can give the excuse that he was working is just a bloody joke. He had the time enough off work to ride his bike though.

Profiler

LookBehindYou wrote: »

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 ?

To not provide a fund which pays for the care the child clearly needs for the rest of it's life is to punish the child for the mothers actions.

Therefore punishing the child twice.

We can be sure that the €2.9m approved by the court will be structured in such a way that the money benefits the child the most and not the parents.

Profiler

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

The mother is quite clearly a beneficiary of the court's ruling.

It's not clear to me how she benefits?

Can you explain that one to me?

AugustusMinimus

Profiler wrote: »

It's not clear to me how she benefits?

Can you explain that one to me?

Isn't it obvious that if the child didn't win the court case, the costs of bringing up the injured child would fall on the parents ?

Due to the case win, prob not a penny of the cost of bringing up the injured child will fall on this woman.

Profiler

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Isn't it obvious that if the child didn't win the court case, the costs of bringing up the injured child would fall on the parents ?

Due to the case win, prob not a penny of the cost of bringing up the injured child will fall on this woman.

The child did nothing wrong to leave it without a decent level of care would be to penalise the child twice.

The child is entitled to sue the person responsible for it's losses what is clouding your judgement here is that the mother was at fault.

The parents have to deal with the fact that their actions caused the clearly very serious injuries and have to care for the child for the rest of their lives.

The money awarded is for the child's care and child's care only.

AugustusMinimus

Profiler wrote: »

The child did nothing wrong to leave it without a decent level of care would be to penalise the child twice.

The child is entitled to sue the person responsible for it's losses what is clouding your judgement here is that the mother was at fault.

The parents have to deal with the fact that their actions caused the clearly very serious injuries and have to care for the child for the rest of their lives.

The money awarded is for the child's care and child's care only.

Everything you said doesn't mean the award in the case doesn't benefit the woman though. Without the award, she would be out of pocket in future for the care of this child. With this award, she is not.

I have no problem with the child having an adequet amount of care going into the future. The child did nothing wrong and deserves proper care.

Personally, I believe she deserves jailtime, although this too would prob be to the detrement of the poor child.

Profiler

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Everything you said doesn't mean the award in the case doesn't benefit the woman though. Without the award, she would be out of pocket in future for the care of this child. With this award, she is not.

What you fail to understand is that this is not about the mother or her out of pocket expenses. It is about the child.

The court is concerned only with the child's welfare, which is the only concern the court should have... and the only one you or I should have too.

AugustusMinimus

Profiler wrote: »

What you fail to understand is that this is not about the mother or her out of pocket expenses. It is about the child.

The court is concerned only with the child's welfare, which is the only concern the court should have... and the only one you or I should have too.

I know. I never questioned that.

But you are missing the point that this clearly DOES benefit the mother, wether or not the court thought of this or not.

You asked me how it benefitted the mother and I showed you how it does.

Your question was:

Profiler wrote: »

It's not clear to me how she benefits?



Can you explain that one to me?

My simple answer is that she doesn't have to pay anything now for the upbringing of her injured son, where without the settlement, she would have. SImple.

Having a look on the net, the cost of bringing up a child is somewhere around the €125,000 mark. Bringing up a handicapped son would prob cost far more than this estimate.

Profiler

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

My simple answer is that she doesn't have to pay anything now for the upbringing of her injured son, where without the settlement, she would have. SImple.

Simple - yes

Correct - No!

It's clear that this family did not have the means to support this injured child themselves. As such the court held that to best protect the child a sum of money had to be awarded in the child's best interest.

You appear to be suggesting that the court should punish the child, on top of the punishment it suffered when it was injured, just so it can punish the mother.

AugustusMinimus

Profiler wrote: »

Simple - yes

Correct - No!

It's clear that this family did not have the means to support this injured child themselves. As such the court held that to best protect the child a sum of money had to be awarded in the child's best interest.

You appear to be suggesting that the court should punish the child, on top of the punishment it suffered when it was injured, just so it can punish the mother.

WHere am I saying this.

I'm clearly saying that the woman benefits from this ruling and no more.

You are doing nothing but putting words in my mouth.

Please explain to me how the woman, DOES NOT benefit from this ruling. Its clear she would be out of pocket without it.

Profiler

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Having a look on the net, the cost of bringing up a child is somewhere around the €125,000 mark. Bringing up a handicapped son would prob cost far more than this estimate.

€125,000? Over 18 to 21 years that is cheap!

I've seen care packages that cost £250,000 a year. Those are for children left severely physically and mentally disabled.

€2.9m over the course of a projected life expectancy of 65 years is not quite the amount of money people might perceive it to be.

Profiler

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

WHere am I saying this.

I'm clearly saying that the woman benefits from this ruling and no more.

You are doing nothing but putting words in my mouth.

She has a disabled child and you claim that she is benefiting from an award to the child?

Is that not the crux of your problem here?

AugustusMinimus

Profiler wrote: »

€125,000? Over 18 to 21 years that is cheap!

I've seen care packages that cost £250,000 a year. Those are for children left severely physically and mentally disabled.

€2.9m over the course of a projected life expectancy of 65 years is not quite the amount of money people might perceive it to be.

My figures as stated was to rare a child. I then pointed out it would clearly cost more for a handicapped child.

On this basis, the woman is saving a lot of cash from this ruling.

AugustusMinimus

Profiler wrote: »

She has a disabled child and you claim that she is benefiting from an award to the child?

Is that not the crux of your problem here?

You seem to have some warped logic that the award of the cash caused the injuries to her son.

You need to seperate out the two incidents completely.

You know what, I'm not going to argue anymore as you clearly are ignoring my point.