Don't bother insuring you car.......

podge3

I know its terrible about what's happened to the child but this award is just wrong IMHO. From yesterdays Indo:

IrishIndependent wrote:

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.

Business

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.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? I own a car, I insure it. I don't drive cars I'm not insured in. I don't know anything about this family and feel sorry for what has happened to them but the mother broke the law. I'm paying for this award as is every other law abiding citizen who insures their motor vehicle.

axer

podge3 wrote: »

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? I own a car, I insure it. I don't drive cars I'm not insured in. I don't know anything about this family and feel sorry for what has happened to them but the mother broke the law. I'm paying for this award as is every other law abiding citizen who insures their motor vehicle.

I know, let the child suffer for he knew the risk he was taking by travelling in an uninsured car without restraining himself into his seat properly! :rolleyes:

Amberjack

I think this is crazy allright - the mother put the child's life in danger, so should the child not be taken off her and given to someone else, along with the 2.9 m?

ilovelamp2000

Very clever this.

Mother nearly kills her kid then gets a family member to sue her on behalf of the child because she wouldn't be liable to pay anything and the family win a small fortune to look after the child.

Only in Ireland.

homerhop

bonerm wrote: »

it's the taxpayer footing the bill

Not exactly correct there, every insurance company pays into a slush fund for such claims. So even if you are in an accident with someone who is uninsured there is a fund there to cover you.

Gary ITR

I would imagine not a cent of this will be paid out until the child turns 18 and I'm sure the child would give it all back just to be able to live a normal life

Mr. Incognito

Well actually no. The child will never reach the legal age of majority as he is severely mentally handicapped and will never have the legal standing to claim it personally. It will be held on trust for him for life and the trustees will discharge it immediately.

Anyway, it's a bit of an unusual one alright isn't it.

Still though, how do you think his mother feels?

Gary ITR

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Still though, how do you think his mother feels?

Wouldn't imagine she feels that great and I'd say she'd rather it didn't happen and not have the money. We all do stupid things from time to time without realising the consequences, just some people are more stupid than others.

ilovelamp2000

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Well actually no. The child will never reach the legal age of majority as he is severely mentally handicapped and will never have the legal standing to claim it personally. It will be held on trust for him for life and the trustees will discharge it immediately.

Anyway, it's a bit of an unusual one alright isn't it.

Still though, how do you think his mother feels?

Like she won the Lotto ?

Joey the lips

I was talking about this in the pub only yesterday. Was trying to figure how to construct a question without seeming hartless. It deos seem like a jackass situation. I dont insure my self. I crass my car and I effectivly sue the state on my childs behalf.....

My frinds say its not the childs fault..Yes I agree! My friends say the child needs care yes i agree! but why is his parernts effectivly gaining from there wrong? It baffles me.

Let me explain it another way. I have a disabled child. The hospital do not know why my child is disabled. The pregnancy was perfect the child was developing but I have a disabled child. Can I sue the state for care? No! Can I sue the doctors insurence? No! Why because the doctor was not neglagent!

So the way I judge this is this. The state has laws. No insurence no driving! So the state is not neglagent! the driver ignored this! The driver is at fault. So why should I when I am not neglagient pay out for this.

If I fail to maintain my house I am in breach of my insurence on my home. My insurence does not cover me! If I fail to get insurence on my car the guards will take my car and bring me to court......


Yes there is an insurence fund that everyone pays into this is obv where it all lies and this is who the parents sued. but to be honest. while I seriously pity the child i think this suitation is backward and I have to agree. paying 2k a year makes a mockery of what i pay.

axer

Joey the lips wrote: »

I was talking about this in the pub only yesterday. Was trying to figure how to construct a question without seeming hartless. It deos seem like a jackass situation. I dont insure my self. I crass my car and I effectivly sue the state on my childs behalf.....

They did not sue the state. The uncle on behalf of the child sued the mother and the MIBI.

Joey the lips wrote: »

My frinds say its not the childs fault..Yes I agree! My friends say the child needs care yes i agree! but why is his parernts effectivly gaining from there wrong? It baffles me.

The fund will be for the childs gain only.

Joey the lips wrote: »

Let me explain it another way. I have a disabled child. The hospital do not know why my child is disabled. The pregnancy was perfect the child was developing but I have a disabled child. Can I sue the state for care? No! Can I sue the doctors insurence? No! Why because the doctor was not neglagent!

Massive flaw in your argument. In this case it is clear why the child is now disabled.

Joey the lips wrote: »

So the way I judge this is this. The state has laws. No insurence no driving! So the state is not neglagent! the driver ignored this! The driver is at fault. So why should I when I am not neglagient pay out for this.

THE STATE IS NOT PAYING OUT HERE!!!

Joey the lips wrote: »

Yes there is an insurence fund that everyone pays into this is obv where it all lies and this is who the parents sued. but to be honest. while I seriously pity the child i think this suitation is backward and I have to agree. paying 2k a year makes a mockery of what i pay.

So you think the child should suffer as a result of this? The child did nothing wrong unless you think he should have strapped his 4 month old body better into his baby chair and made sure the driver had insurance before stepping foot in the car.

What this boils down to is:
The child is a victim of an uninsured driver. If the driver had been insured then the child would have gotten a compensation payment regardless that the mother was driving the car insured.

This is what the MIBI is for.

Joey the lips

axer wrote: »

This is what the MIBI is for.

Yes it would seem so. That is obvious. However I still do not agree with it. But having said that the child needs all the care going.

PeakOutput

as has been pointed out this has nothing to do with the tax payer

this is one particular scenario that makes the mibi seem stupid if you get hit by an uninsured car you will be very thankfull for its existence

also the mibi do everything they can to chase the money from the liable party

they wont take absolutely everything but if they think they can reclaim a significant portion of the settlement they will chase it down so the mother may be paying for the rest of her life

Gary ITR

Joey the lips wrote: »

I was talking about this in the pub only yesterday. Was trying to figure how to construct a question without seeming hartless. It deos seem like a jackass situation. I dont insure my self. I crass my car and I effectivly sue the state on my childs behalf.....

My frinds say its not the childs fault..Yes I agree! My friends say the child needs care yes i agree! but why is his parernts effectivly gaining from there wrong? It baffles me.

Let me explain it another way. I have a disabled child. The hospital do not know why my child is disabled. The pregnancy was perfect the child was developing but I have a disabled child. Can I sue the state for care? No! Can I sue the doctors insurence? No! Why because the doctor was not neglagent!

So the way I judge this is this. The state has laws. No insurence no driving! So the state is not neglagent! the driver ignored this! The driver is at fault. So why should I when I am not neglagient pay out for this.

If I fail to maintain my house I am in breach of my insurence on my home. My insurence does not cover me! If I fail to get insurence on my car the guards will take my car and bring me to court......


Yes there is an insurence fund that everyone pays into this is obv where it all lies and this is who the parents sued. but to be honest. while I seriously pity the child i think this suitation is backward and I have to agree. paying 2k a year makes a mockery of what i pay.

I see you points but look at it this way, I'm crossing the street and I'm mown down by an uninsured driver, I'm entitled to compensation for my injuries. This child id no different, the fact that it was his mother that caused the accident is irrelevant. The child does not deserve to suffer.

WRT a disabled child being born, there was a case in the last couple of weeks where a mother sued her Doctor for over prescribing anti-depressants while she was pregnant causing her child to be disabled. So it seems if a cause can be defined then people can sue

omahaid

I dont fully understand car insurance tbh. It I don't have insurance, and I get sued and lose, why am I not liable to pay? Should the mother not be made pay along with the MIBI?

axer

omahaid wrote: »

I dont fully understand car insurance tbh. It I don't have insurance, and I get sued and lose, why am I not liable to pay? Should the mother not be made pay along with the MIBI?

Has the parents who had to leave their jobs to care for the child got €2.9m?

PeakOutput

omahaid wrote: »

I dont fully understand car insurance tbh. It I don't have insurance, and I get sued and lose, why am I not liable to pay? Should the mother not be made pay along with the MIBI?

what if you earn 100K a year, have a wife and 3 kids, get hit by a stolen car driven by an unemployed homeless guy and you are injured to the extent you cant work anymore ever. there is no mibi, how much money do you think you will get off the unemployed homeless guy?

omahaid

Ah wait, PeakOutput answered my question. The MIBI pursue the money afterwards.

PeakOutput

axer wrote: »

Has the parents who had to leave their jobs to care for the child got €2.9m?

no

and the mibi will chase the offending parties for payment were they can

omahaid

PeakOutput wrote: »

what if you earn 100K a year, have a wife and 3 kids, get hit by a stolen car driven by an unemployed homeless guy and you are injured to the extent you cant work anymore ever. there is no mibi, how much money do you think you will get off the unemployed homeless guy?

My question was, if I am hit by a guy earning 100K a year, does the money solely come from the MIBI or does it come part from the rich guy that hit me and the MIBI.

omahaid

axer wrote: »

Has the parents who had to leave their jobs to care for the child got €2.9m?

The mother was found liable was she not? Will the MIBI chase after the €2.9 million?

ShooterSF

Ignoring the civil case is there mention of what happened in the criminal case for the mother driving uninsured and neglecting to strap her child in?

Mrmoe

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ignoring the civil case is there mention of what happened in the criminal case for the mother driving uninsured and neglecting to strap her child in?

I hope she goes to prison for a long while as she basicly gave her child a life sentence.

Coriolanus

omahaid wrote: »

My question was, if I am hit by a guy earning 100K a year, does the money solely come from the MIBI or does it come part from the rich guy that hit me and the MIBI.

The MIBI would be named in the case, and likely the initial payment would come from their coffers. Once the first case was disposed of the MIBI would then take a case against the 100kayear man to recoup as much of the payout as possible. Afaik the courts have the power to place an order on your salary etc, so it might take the MIBI a few years to get the money back, but if you're that rich, they'll sure get it.

blueser

homerhop wrote: »

Not exactly correct there, every insurance company pays into a slush fund for such claims. So even if you are in an accident with someone who is uninsured there is a fund there to cover you.

And where do you think those insurance companies get that money to pay into that slush fund?

Dudess

axer wrote: »

I know, let the child suffer for he knew the risk he was taking by travelling in an uninsured car without restraining himself into his seat properly! :rolleyes:

Yes, because that's exactly what the OP said.

The little boy's mother didn't insure the car - and the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland was deemed liable for this (sweet Jesus...) I think that's the personal responsibility the OP is referring to.

PeakOutput

Dudess wrote: »

and the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland was deemed liable for this

not really, the woman was deemed liable, she was uninsured, the mibi pays and chases her. thats what they are there for and thats why a portion of everyones insurance premium goes to them

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

homerhop wrote: »

Not exactly correct there, every insurance company pays into a slush fund for such claims. So even if you are in an accident with someone who is uninsured there is a fund there to cover you.

That's not always the case.

My cousin was hit by an uninsured driver. No injuries involved. The woman was in an SUV and my cousin was in a fiat chiqichento. Insurance company couldn't/wouldn't do anything, my cousin had to pay for the damages herself. Police said they were powerless too. Could give the uninsured woman a warning. Like wtf?

A while back my brother crashed his lexus, he went to claim and the insurance company wouldn't pay him the worth of the car. They were pitching about 2-3K less than what it was worth.

Insurance in this country is operated by scum. They want your money, but you will be a long time waiting and will be put off by the long and horrible process of claiming...

Red_Marauder

If my house was being repossessed, and I had a low income, and I screwed up enormously by damaging my child, would I consider sueing myself to provide my four year old kid with as good a future as money could buy him as some sort of recompense for his wasted life?

Yes.

Coriolanus

Cain Green Symphony wrote: »

That's not always the case.

My cousin was hit by an uninsured driver. No injuries involved. The woman was in an SUV and my cousin was in a fiat chiqichento. Insurance company couldn't/wouldn't do anything, my cousin had to pay for the damages herself. Police said they were powerless too. Could give the uninsured woman a warning. Like wtf?

Afaik, you have to instigate proceedings against the MIBI and the uninsured yourself, via a solicitor that you have retained. Your insurance company and the guards don't have anything to do with the process. (well maybe the guards, if they're called to give statements if they were called to the scene)

A while back my brother crashed his lexus, he went to claim and the insurance company wouldn't pay him the worth of the car. They were pitching about 2-3K less than what it was worth.

Depends what he thought it was worth. Again, afaik only, but the worth of the car isn't judged by it's replacement value, since the replacement price included a dealers/individuals profit from the sale. The value is intrinsic to the car itself. Replacement price = Value + Sellers Profit.

citizen_p

its more fooked up that the uncle thought all this up...."listen kid....you want some money and to get back at mommy and daddy"

PeakOutput

Cain Green Symphony wrote: »

My cousin was hit by an uninsured driver. No injuries involved. The woman was in an SUV and my cousin was in a fiat chiqichento. Insurance company couldn't/wouldn't do anything, my cousin had to pay for the damages herself.

im sorry but this dosnt sound like the entire story. its black and white. you are hit by an uninsured car you do one of two things, claim off the mibi(there is an excess it was around 50euro) or if you have comp you claim of your own insurance pay your excess and your bonus is not affected.

Police said they were powerless too. Could give the uninsured woman a warning. Like wtf?

its up to the police weather or not they prosecute their decision makes no difference in weather or not your cousin gets her money

so either she didnt tell you the whole story or she needs to get onto the mibi

A while back my brother crashed his lexus, he went to claim and the insurance company wouldn't pay him the worth of the car. They were pitching about 2-3K less than what it was worth.

in your brothers opinion it was worth 2-3K more. in the INDEPENDANT engineers opinion who has no vested interest either way it wasnt.....so who should you believe?

Insurance in this country is operated by scum. They want your money, but you will be a long time waiting and will be put off by the long and horrible process of claiming...

you are either with the worst insurance company in the world, believe everything you read in the red tops or,and this is the most likely one, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about

Profiler

Rosco1982 wrote: »

Very clever this.

Mother nearly kills her kid then gets a family member to sue her on behalf of the child because she wouldn't be liable to pay anything and the family win a small fortune to look after the child.

Only in Ireland.

No not only in Ireland it's a point of law that operates in most countries.

As the child is under the age of 18 it can not institute the legal proceedings itself so a family member has to.

As the mother was the negligent then the mother can not on behalf of the child sue herself.

So a family member has to sue on the child's behalf, for some reason the father was not the "litigation friend" so that is why it was the uncle.

Nothing "clever" or dodgy going on here at all.

Profiler

Mousey- wrote: »

its more fooked up that the uncle thought all this up...."listen kid....you want some money and to get back at mommy and daddy"

:rolleyes:

As the child is under the age of 18 it can not institute the legal proceedings itself so a family member has to.

As the mother was the negligent then the mother can not on behalf of the child sue herself.

So a family member has to sue on the child's behalf, for some reason the father was not the "litigation friend" so that is why it was the uncle.

Nothing "clever" or dodgy going on here at all.

Red_Marauder

Mousey- wrote: »

its more fooked up that the uncle thought all this up...."listen kid....you want some money and to get back at mommy and daddy"

I think that's a completely naive view of what is going on here in fairness... I wouldn't be surprised if the parents were completely in favour of this for their kid.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

PeakOutput wrote: »

im sorry but this dosnt sound like the entire story. its black and white. you are hit by an uninsured car you do one of two things, claim off the mibi(there is an excess it was around 50euro) or if you have comp you claim of your own insurance pay your excess and your bonus is not affected.

This isn't up for debate, it's what happened. What you chose to believe doesn't bother me...

Profiler

Cain Green Symphony wrote: »

This isn't up for debate, it's what happened. What you chose to believe doesn't bother me...

Sorry but those who know a little about the system find your "story" difficult to believe.

I'd choose to believe that either you or your cousin (or both) are being to say the least "economical" with the truth.

PeakOutput

Cain Green Symphony wrote: »

This isn't up for debate, it's what happened. What you chose to believe doesn't bother me...

no no its what you say happened after hearing the story from your cousin

knowing the laws and rules and agreements its hard to believe that this is exactly what happened

if

your hit and your not at fault

you can prove or your insurance company can prove the other person was uninsured

you dont have comprehensive insurance

the cost of the damage is over the mibi excess(which i made a typo about in the last reply its around 500 not 50)

then the mibi deals with your damage. not your insurance company, the mibi

ilovelamp2000

Profiler wrote: »

No not only in Ireland it's a point of law that operates in most countries.

As the child is under the age of 18 it can not institute the legal proceedings itself so a family member has to.

As the mother was the negligent then the mother can not on behalf of the child sue herself.

So a family member has to sue on the child's behalf, for some reason the father was not the "litigation friend" so that is why it was the uncle.

Nothing "clever" or dodgy going on here at all.

I'm well aware of what happens when instituting proceedings on behalf of a child. Neither the mother nor father could sue in this instance.

It is clever.

Profiler

Rosco1982 wrote: »

I'm well aware of what happens when instituting proceedings on behalf of a child. Neither the mother nor father could sue in this instance.

It is clever.

It's nothing to do with being clever.

It is a legal instrument that ensure a child does not go without compensation.

Moreover it also ensures that the person who caused the injury/loss can't influence either to court or the plaintiff unduly.

It's not clever it's right.

podge3

Dudess wrote: »

Yes, because that's exactly what the OP said.

The little boy's mother didn't insure the car - and the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland was deemed liable for this (sweet Jesus...) I think that's the personal responsibility the OP is referring to.

Exactly.

Obviously something like this could happen to anyone i.e. we are in an accident where a family member is severely injured. However I would NEVER drive uninsured on my own, let alone with other family members in the car. Not only was this woman uninsured, it is also alleged that the child seat was not properly restrained so she may have contributed on the double to this catastrophe.

I don't wish to be hard on the mother as I'm sure she feels guilty enough herself. However I don't see why I should have to pay for her mistakes. People need to wise up before they get behind the wheel of a car.

The difference between this case and other cases of damage/injury by uninsured drivers is that the uninsured in this case is IMHO "benefiting" from the accident in which she herself was the uninsured driver. I imagine that the large sum of money awarded will be available immediately for help with looking after the child and to either build a new house or adapt their existing dwelling etc etc. The award will thus help the parents cope with the difficulties they now face and yet the woman was uninsured . Why should any of us insure our car in that case?

Profiler

podge3 wrote: »

I don't see why I should have to pay for her mistakes.

You are not paying for her mistakes.

Those of us (myself incuded) who pay for motor insurance are paying so that the child does not go without a sufficient level of care.

podge3

Profiler wrote: »

You are not paying for her mistakes.

Everyone who pays car insurance is paying for her mistake and that includes me.

The whole thing just seems wrong to me. What if she had injured the child at home? Who could she sue then?

PeakOutput

podge3 wrote: »

Obviously something like this could happen to anyone i.e. we are in an accident where a family member is severely injured. However I would NEVER drive uninsured on my own, let alone with other family members in the car. Not only was this woman uninsured, it is also alleged that the child seat was not properly restrained so she may have contributed on the double to this catastrophe.

your looking at this the wrong way, the mibi is not there to protect the person who drove without insurance, that just happens to be a short term undesired result of why it is there. it is there to protect the people the irresponsible uninsured driver hurts. does this child deserve nothing just becuase its mother is an irresponsible idiot?

However I don't see why I should have to pay for her mistakes.

your not it makes no difference to you either way

The award will thus help the parents cope with the difficulties they now face and yet the woman was uninsured . Why should any of us insure our car in that case?

if no1 insures their car then there are no insurance companies and therefore no mibi basically.

look at this way. social welfare does not pay out childrens benefit (or whatever it is called) to irresponsible single parents who dont bother working and have never contributed a day in their lives so that they can live a happy and normal life. they do it so that the innocent children can

Dinkie

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I think that's a completely naive view of what is going on here in fairness... I wouldn't be surprised if the parents were completely in favour of this for their kid.

I agree. It would be one way of getting the money required to help their son.

I would like to know were any legal proceedings taken against the mother for driving uninsured without restraining her child properly. In my mind that is child abuse and illegal. Consequently I have no sympathy at all for the mother.

Mistakes happen. Getting into and driving a car KNOWING you are uninsured is not a mistake. It is simply wrong.

I would never, ever drive a car without insurance, and would refuse to get into a car if I knew the driver wasn't insured (I do realise the child didn't have this option!!)

Profiler

Dinkie wrote: »

I would never, ever drive a car without insurance, and would refuse to get into a car if I knew the driver wasn't insured (I do realise the child didn't have this option!!)

Do you ask all drivers of any car you get into to produce insurance documents?

The car might have a valid policy but that policy might not cover the driver!

Red_Marauder

Dinkie wrote: »

I would never, ever drive a car without insurance, and would refuse to get into a car if I knew the driver wasn't insured (I do realise the child didn't have this option!!)

I agree with your post but I just wonder about this bit. I was driven to school as a kid in a car that had no seat belts in the back seats. There is risk attached to almost eveything. Kids do horse riding, swim in lakes that may be polluted, pet strange dogs, pick up mice, fall off their bikes on the street, fall off the garage roof - I wouldn't change any of that.

I think the mother was wrong to not have her kid belted up, but we don't know what she was thinking that morning, where she was, or what the situation was. She now has a child with special needs, she's paying a price too, and personally I don't think she necessarily deserves anything further than that, including blame.

podge3

PeakOutput wrote: »

your not it makes no difference to you either way

Indeed it does make a difference to me as a portion my insurance premium goes to the MIBI and therefore funds this award.

Red_Marauder

podge3 wrote: »

Indeed it does make a difference to me as a portion my insurance premium goes to the MIBI and therefore funds this award.

How much?

Dinkie

Profiler wrote: »

Do you ask all drivers of any car you get into to produce insurance documents?

The car might have a valid policy but that policy might not cover the driver!

I said if I knew the driver was uninsured.

Red_Marauder - I do feel for the mother. When I was growing up we didn't have any back seat seat belts either - it was virtually unheard of. But it has been law for a few years now.

It is not easy having a disabled child, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. It is both exhausting, frustrating and upsetting for the parents. But I see a lot of people driving kids in cars and the kids have no seatbelts on or are not in safety harnesses and are standing up between the two front seats. Sometimes there can be 4-5 kids squished into a back seat. Personally I consider that bad parenting.

On the other side, I know of a case where the baby seat saved her childs life in a crash.

I have no quibbles the son being awarded that money. They probably need the money to give the son the care he needs... and the parents the help they need.

podge3

Red_Marauder wrote: »

How much?

IIRC it is said that uninsured drivers add about 10% onto our premiums.