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

Profiler

podge3 wrote: »

Nor are they any worse off than if she had paid her insurance premium like the rest of us law-abiding citizens.

The real nub of the issue IMHO is that they have ended up in the same financial position as if she were fully insured.

I fail to see how anyone in that family is no worse off as a consequence of this incident.

sesna

Profiler wrote: »

I fail to see how anyone in that family is no worse off as a consequence of this incident.

+2.9 million euro and saved money on having no insurance.

Liam Byrne

PeakOutput wrote: »

that 4month old kid is not innocent?

Parents are responsible for their children.

PeakOutput wrote: »

you know that if you the driver of a car you are passenger in causes a crash and they are at fault you can claim damages from them right? it dosnt matter that you were a passenger or in the other car their negligence caused you harm.

Yes, you can claim damages from them.

But (a) you should not be able to claim from anyone else and (b) if you're knowingly a passenger in an uninsured car you have contributed and should not be entitled to claim from those of us who do pay our insurance.

Profiler

omahaid wrote: »

the mother who does cause the disability does get €2.9 million.

The mother does not get €2.9m :rolleyes:

omahaid wrote: »

And before anyone points out that it is the child who gets the money, I suspect that it is the parents who spend it on behalf of the child.

The €2.9m is not given to the parents to spend. The money is paid to the county registrar not to the parents.

axer

sesna wrote: »

+2.9 million euro and saved money on having no insurance.

does not equal a blind and severly brain damaged child that this mother will be taking care of and dealing with the guilt for the rest of her life. I would rather not have the 2.9m than to be in her situation.

Profiler

sesna wrote: »

+2.9 million euro and saved money on having no insurance.

The mother does not get €2.9m. What part of that don't you understand.

Liam Byrne

axer wrote: »

I would rather not have the 2.9m than to be in her situation.

She deliberately and knowingly put herself and her child in that situation.

Profiler

Liam Byrne wrote: »

She deliberately and knowingly put herself and her child in that situation.

Ridiculous and utterly preposterous.

The mother did not deliberately put herself or her child in danger.

axer

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Yes, you can claim damages from them.

But (a) you should not be able to claim from anyone else and (b) if you're knowingly a passenger in an uninsured car you have contributed and should not be entitled to claim from those of us who do pay our insurance.

The child is an innocent party in this. Passengers cannot be held liable for the actions of the driver since they are not in control of the car - definitely not a 4 month old passenger anyway.

RGS

All passengers in vehicles are entitled to compensation for the negligence of the driver, be it caused by an uninsued driver or insured driver. However the MIBI do have the defence of reasonable knowledge:
clause 5.2 of the 2009 agreement:

Where at the time of the accident the person injured or killed or who sustained damage to property knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that there was not in force an approved policy of insurance in respect of the use of the vehicle, the liability of MIBI shall not extend to any judgement or claim either in respect of injury or death of such person.

In this incident the child was 4 mths old and therefore was a totally innocent victim.

Just to affirm the position the money is lodge in court and will be administered by the court and in all likelihood the child may be made a ward of court, with the court determining the best interests of the child.

axer

Liam Byrne wrote: »

She deliberately and knowingly put herself and her child in that situation.

Now I know you are just trolling. What you are suggesting is that this woman purposely drove her car into a tree causing injuries to her child so that she could make a claim against the MIBI.

sesna

Profiler wrote: »

The mother does not get €2.9m. What part of that don't you understand.

I understand it perfectly, and the fact that indirectly the mother will benefit much more from the +2.9 million than if the child received nothing

PeakOutput

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Parents are responsible for their children.

obviously this one wasnt is that the childs fault?

Yes, you can claim damages from them.

that is what is happening this is how it is done, the mibi is there to cause as little inconvenience to the agrieved party in the event they have been hurt by an uninsured driver.

But (a) you should not be able to claim from anyone else

you cant

(b) if you're knowingly a passenger in an uninsured car you have contributed and should not be entitled to claim from those of us who do pay our insurance.

prior knowledge of everything is taken into account when the settlements are decided


so ....ehhhhhh /debate

as was said earlier the mibi was not set up for this particular case it was set up for the thousands of other cases every year that dont involve one car and a mother and her baby. this case sure is wierd and the potential for abuse is out there and has now been shown(not saying this case was abuse assuming the parents dont get control of the money) but the potential for it has been shown so im sure that will be sealed up if it needs to be

this one case does not even come close to being a reason that the mibi should not exist

Profiler

sesna wrote: »

I understand it perfectly, and the fact that indirectly the mother will benefit much more from the +2.9 million than if the child received nothing

How has the mother benefited either directly or indirectly from this?

I'm just going to copy and paste what I posted previously.

The parents have to be spend considerably more time caring for their disabled child than they would have had to have done were it not injured.

This would curtail how much time they have for each other or any other children they might have.

It will prevent a normal social life for parents and child, restrict free time for parents and child, restrict holidays for parents and child, restrict schooling for parents and child.

When the child is 18 it will not leave home go off and have it's own life, own job, or its own family.

You should also bear in mind the €2.9m is not put into the parents current account for them to spend as they wish.

The money is administered by the court and the court has to satisfied that the money is being spent appropriately.

Given all of that, please explain to me how that Mother benefited either directly or indirectly from this?

sesna

Profiler wrote: »

Given all of that, please explain to me how that Mother benefited either directly or indirectly from this?

Agree with all the above. The family are better off as a result of the payout, not the injury. The €2.9 million will ease the burden of caring for a disabled child much more than a €0 million euro payout would have.

The mother is lucky we have an MIB fund that was in a position to give 2.9 million even when she was negligent with her insurance.

Profiler

sesna wrote: »

Agree with all the above. The family are better off as a result of the payout, not the injury. The €2.9 million will ease the burden of caring for a disabled child much more than a €0 million euro payout would have.

The mother is lucky we have an MIB fund was in a position to give 2.9 million even when she was negligent with her insurance.

The care for the child is better provided for however the family is not better off.

The mother's luck is not the issue here. The injured child is the one who is lucky that there is an MIB fund.

m@cc@

Surely the basis of law in any case, is that the defendant should have done something differently, whether it be negligent or deliberate. What could the insurer have done differently?

astrofool

Well, she's lucky she was driving in a car uninsured when her lack of parental skills caught up with her.

Had she simply dropped the baby and caused brain damage, there would be no €2.9m for her.

Pete4779

Dear Sirs,

It's sets a great precedent as well for those others with diabled children to drive them into a wall; state compo is the best compo. As social and medical services get cut, why bother claiming disability allowance for a few hundred a month when you can win €3 million and move to Switzerland getting the best care.

I am more than happy to pick up the tab,


Yours,


Motorist, taxpayer and clearly all-round idiot.

Ickle Magoo

Profiler wrote: »

You claimed they benefited from this accident, I pointed out how I felt that they as a family are not in fact better off compared to how they were prior to the accident.

Rather than acknowledge that you instead compare them to other families who live with a person of disability? You've moved the goalposts considerably there in your race to the bottom.

Moreover the money is not a slush fund and to describe is as such is quite sad really, it shows how little you know.

I can't believe you don't think they will benefit in any way, had the child been belted and had the driver been insured what would the situation be?

Profiler wrote: »

Where has all this care and consideration for the injured child come from? You were mid rant about how the mother and the system are a disgrace and now all of a sudden the child's welfare is the important thing :rolleyes:

Welcome to life, sometimes it's greatly inequitable!

I wasn't in mid rant about anything & I always said the child's welfare comes first, it's a complete lie to suggest otherwise - that's why I strap my kids in and pay for car insurance. I think it unbelievable that driving illegally has entitled this family to claim nearly €3million for injuries caused by their own negligence in the first place, that situation seems completely perverse, I can still feel for the child and want them to have the best possible care while shaking my head in disbelief at the absurdity of the system, you know. :rolleyes:

kmick

I hope the parents dont get to administer the money thats all I can say. Anyone who does not tie their child via child seat should be charged with grevious bodily harm. Fine if they kill themsleves not wearing a seatbelt but a small baby should have someone looking out for them. Im holding back here because I dont know the full details but this makes me mad.

Profiler

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I can't believe you don't think they will benefit in any way, had the child been belted and had the driver been insured what would the situation be?

I've asked you demonstrate how they have benefited from the accident. You couldn't/wouldn't

I pointed out the negative consequences of this incident, I asked you to weight each of the consequences I pointed out (and it is by no means a comprehensive list) and then tell me how this family are better off again you either couldn't or wouldn't.

Being better off is not simply a matter of how much money you have in a bank or a trust fund. If life to you is measurable to you only by money then there is no reasoning with you.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I wasn't in mid rant about anything & I always said the child's welfare comes first, it's a complete lie to suggest otherwise - that's why I strap my kids in and pay for car insurance. I think it unbelievable that driving illegally has entitled this family to claim nearly €3million for injuries caused by their own negligence in the first place, that situation seems completely perverse, I can still feel for the child and want them to have the best possible care while shaking my head in disbelief at the absurdity of the system, you know.

Well comments like "if I was the parents/uncle I'd do exactly the same if I thought it would make life easier for me & mine"

Or "Thanks to the complete incompetency and negligence of the child's mother, the child's family will be considerably better off, that's the bottom line"

Or "It stinks to high heavens that a woman who caused her own child's injuries should be able to give herself and the child a better quality of life than another parent & child in the same position through no fault of their own"

If that's not ranting I'd rather not be around you when you are upset.

Ickle Magoo

No Profiler, you want the goal posts to remain just so, so that you can claim to have a logical position & you are refusing to look at it from any other perspective. Better off isn't just in terms of before and after the crash, only you are talking about the goal-posts ever being there.

A child is disabled because their mother didn't strap them in and then crashed while driving illegally. It is only because she did both of those things wrong that this case even exists.

I would be doing the same in their boat, if the system allows for me to make life easier for my kids or family in any way, I'll take it. If you can't see that the uncle suing on behalf of the child because the guilty party isn't allowed to, so the system can be circumnavigated isn't a bit off, then meh, no speaking to you either.

I love the way you just highlight the bits that suit your argument, lol. That's the sure sign of a ranter, btw.

Profiler

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No Profiler, you want the goal posts to remain just so, so that you can claim to have a logical position & you are refusing to look at it from any other perspective. Better off isn't just in terms of before and after the crash, only you are talking about the goal-posts ever being there.

A child is disabled because their mother didn't strap them in and then crashed while driving illegally. It is only because she did both of those things wrong that this case even exists.

I would be doing the same in their boat, if the system allows for me to make life easier for my kids or family in any way, I'll take it. If you can't see that the uncle suing on behalf of the child because the guilty party isn't allowed to, so the system can be circumnavigated isn't a bit off, then meh, no speaking to you either.

I love the way you just highlight the bits that suit your argument, lol. That's the sure sign of a ranter, btw.

Still waiting for you suggest how the family are better off, but feel free to dodge that again if you want.

Ickle Magoo

Profiler wrote: »

Still waiting for you suggest how the family are better off, but feel free to dodge that again if you want.

I said several times how they are better off. How they are better off than others with handicapped children, how they are better off than others who drive with insurance and are injured, better off than millions whose lives are affected negatively by others criminal behavior - but you just want to cling onto the only argument left that because they now have a disabled child, they couldn't possibly be better off than they were without a disabled child - which isn't an argument anyone has actually made.

Profiler

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I said several times how they are better off. How they are better off than others with handicapped children, how they are better off than others who drive with insurance and are injured, better off than millions whose lives are affected negatively by others criminal behavior - but you just want to cling onto the only argument left that because they now have a disabled child, they couldn't possibly be better off than they were without a disabled child - which isn't an argument anyone has actually made.

You first said in post 58 "Do you really think a parent of a child who is awarded nearly €3,000,000 will not benefit in anyway?! No new home? New car? Nothing?"


You then said said in post 65 "Thanks to the complete incompetency and negligence of the child's mother, the child's family will be considerably better off, that's the bottom line."

So the bottom line is the family is "considerably better off" :rolleyes: marvelous, just lovely.

I suspect at this point you spotted the flaw in your own logic and then added as an after thought the comparison should probably include a like for like situation rather than a "oohhh look at the big cheque full of money... I'm outraged" approach.

Ickle Magoo

Now you are just throwing in assumptions and claiming you know why I post and what I mean - straw & grasp... :rolleyes:

Profiler wrote: »

You claimed they benefited from this accident

Quote me please.

Nowhere do I suggest they benefit from the accident, my posts clearly refer to the payout. A point you are deliberately ignoring to further your own rather peculiar agenda.

From the point after the accident, driving illegally has worked in their favour - they have managed to avoid premiums or full premiums while also taking full advantage of a fund set up, ironically, because of people just like them. Can I put it in any simpler terms....

Profiler

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Now you are just throwing in assumptions and claiming you know why I post and what I mean - straw & grasp... :rolleyes:

Quote me please.

Coming right up... "Thanks to the complete incompetency and negligence of the child's mother, the child's family will be considerably better off, that's the bottom line."

Could YOU put it in any simpler terms? there is no assumptions or straw grasping going on there. You made no reference to the award at all there, you and I know exactly what you mean there.

Seriously you've done enough U-turns at this point you are now arguing with yourself.

Ickle Magoo

That was said on about my third post, well after the point I would have expected most people to grasp the simple point I was making without having to spell out everything I'd already said a couple of posts previously. My first post was a direct reference to the pay out ffs - why be deliberately obtuse & assume all other posts are not?!

You are the one that seems to be clinging onto particular phrases and words while disregarding the rest of peoples posts to try desperately to hold some semblance of a point together. Seriously now, the floor is all yours. :rolleyes:

It think it's a sad case, even sadder that is was completely avoidable and in the end rather ironic *shrug* that's about it.