Learner driver loses damages claim against Dublin Bus

omega666

Insteresting to know that if you get rear ended dosent always mean your
in the right. Maybe she trying to pull a fast one and get a few bob from the claim or maybe she honestly thought the light was red


Learner driver loses damages claim against Dublin Bus

15/02/2011 - 14:42:23
An unaccompanied learner driver, who for no apparent reason “stood on her brakes” at a green traffic light, has lost a €38,000 damages claim against Dublin Bus.

Bukola Balogun, a 35-year-old mother of two, told the Circuit Civil Court today that when she stopped at what she claimed was a red light, she had been rear-ended by a double decker bus.

Ms Balogun, of Paddock Place, Adamstown, Lucan, Do Dublin, said she had injured her back and leg in the accident. She had suffered acute pain for three weeks after the June 2004 accident.

She said she experienced intermittent pain for another eight months prior to full recovery.

Ms Balogun told Dublin Bus solicitor Gerard O’Herlihy she had been driving to Sunday church with her two children on June 27, 2004, when she saw traffic lights on the Navan Road – Ratoath Road junction change to amber.

“I slowed down to stop and had just come to a halt when I was struck from behind by the bus,” she said. “The back of my car was damaged but the children, aged 7 and 9, were unharmed.”

Dublin Bus mechanic Simon Kirwan said he had collected the bus to bring it back to the garage for repair and had been driving behind Ms Balogun’s car when she suddenly jammed on her brakes as she approached a green light.

He said there was no apparent reason for the sudden stop and no hint of an emergency. He hit the back of Ms Balogun’s car.

Taxi-driver Mark Quinn, who said he had since qualified as a solicitor, told the court he was driving behind the bus and could see Ms Balogun’s car in front of it.

They were the only three vehicles on the road at the time and he had a clear view of the traffic lights which were green. Ms Balogun’s car had stopped suddenly, consistent with the brakes being jammed on.

Circuit Court President, Mr Justice Matthew Deery, dismissed Ms Balogun’s claim and awarded costs against her. He said the weight of evidence favoured the version given on behalf of the bus company. Ms Balogun had suddenly stopped for no reason of necessity.



Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/learner-driver-loses-damages-claim-against-dublin-bus-493613.html#ixzz1E8fhNCef

colm_mcm

If it was a scam, I'm glad she didn't get a payout, however if I'd ran into the back of her I'd be told that I'm supposed to leave a sufficent gap between myself and the car in front in case of an emergency stop.

The fact that the taxi driver could see past a bus and see the car would suggest the bus was well behind?

Eric Cartman

Im glad she got nothing, quite obviously a scam or somebody who hadnt a clue how to drive

ShamoBuc

If it was a scam, charges should be brought against her! She brought her children along for the ride!!!

Cookie_Monster

It took them nearly 7 years to decide on something minor like that :eek:

CiniO

I don't like that verdict.
Whether the reason for stopping was, bus driver shouldn't hit her.

Beside it's someone's word against someone's word.
No one else except from this three know if there was green or red light.

How do you know that taxi driver wasn't bus driver's friend?

furtzy

Hopefully charged with driving unaccompanied as well

gbee

colm_mcm wrote: »

If it was a scam,?

goolge the name ... Facebook

Guy:Incognito

CiniO wrote: »

How do you know that taxi driver wasn't bus driver's friend?

So do we dismiss witnesses as possible friends of one party in all cases now?

CiniO

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So do we dismiss witnesses as possible friends of one party in all cases now?

No. But pretty much there's bus driver's word against her word.
And only one witness.

Maybe it's true. Maybe there really was green light. Who knows.

Anyway, why all the blame is at her side, I don't understand.

Lady with 2 kids in the back, braking suddenly just to do insurance scam, because of being hit by a bus? I can't believe it.

Do you believe there would be a mother with 2 kids in the car which would brake intentionally to be hit by a bus?

Maybe she just made a mistake, and thought there was red even if there was green. Hmm. It happens. People make mistakes while driving.

But what about bus driver? Why didn't he manage to stop, if he saw the car stopping?

gbee

CiniO wrote: »

Do you believe there would be a mother with 2 kids in the car which would brake intentionally to be hit by a bus??

Absolutely, and obviously the judge, who saw both parties in court, thought so too.

alexmcred

Cinio with kids being involved there is a higher chance of a big payout. Now I'm not saying that's the case here but from people I know in the insurance assessor business whenever kids are involved chances of payout increase dramatically

Eric Cartman

CiniO wrote: »

Do you believe there would be a mother with 2 kids in the car which would brake intentionally to be hit by a bus?

Yes I do , I would state why I believe this but racism and sexism are against the rules here.

Alanstrainor

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Yes I do , I would state why I believe this but racism and sexism are against the rules here.

They are most definitely against the rules.

Any sexist remarks at all and people get banned.

deceit

In my opinion even if she did jam on for no reason at all the bus driver should be at a sufficient distance to stop in all situations as think about it what if the women hits a pole and stops dead that bus is going to make mince meat of a car. Every bus thats been behind me though never once have they been too close though so I think could have been she jammed on and the driver wasnt paying full attention. This is one thing i really hate when people are too close behind me. I always just slow down too a crawl if they do and leave them too decide to overtake or pull back.

paddydriver

Ye think if her name was Mary Murphy would the judge have ruled different?

Guy:Incognito

I never said either way whether she did it lookign for a claim. She could well be just a really crap driver and another example of why learner drivers need to be clamped down on for driving unaccompanied.

It was ridiculous seeing people just sent on their way with a bit of a telling off on the RTE program.

jhegarty

furtzy wrote: »

Hopefully charged with driving unaccompanied as well

It doesn't say which provisional she was on. So may not apply.

Tragedy

Guys, some of you need to make a distinction between the damages claim(unsuccessful) and a separate claim for damage to car. I get the distinct impression that one was paid with no quibble.

happymondays

Tragedy wrote: »

Guys, some of you need to make a distinction between the damages claim(unsuccessful) and a separate claim for damage to car. I get the distinct impression that one was paid with no quibble.

Not sure how they could claim damage to the car was the bus drivers fault yet the personal injury claim wasnt?
Are they not tied together.

slimjimmc

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I never said either way whether she did it lookign for a claim. She could well be just a really crap driver and another example of why learner drivers need to be clamped down on for driving unaccompanied.

It was ridiculous seeing people just sent on their way with a bit of a telling off on the RTE program.

+1
But that would require a change of law. Currently there are no powers to prevent someone continuing their journey even after been caught driving unaccompanied.
Can be done easily enough but it takes will power and it takes time to get the i's dotted and t's crossed before it can become legislation, followed by the usual "I need my car for work/school/etc, go catch some real criminals" whinging, but so what.

Muckie

Delighted, this scammer was seen for what she was.
I whole heartly believe she put her children in danger for a
"nice tap".

Could you imagine what the driver of the bus went thru.
A mark against him on he's licence.

I once meet a "similar Miss" in her people carrier coming the wrong way
round a round about, early one sunday morning.

One of the scarest moments since i've being driving,
A great crack down on theses drivers and enforcements of the laws.
But until then, every day on the roads is an adventure!

Guy:Incognito

slimjimmc wrote: »

+1
But that would require a change of law. Currently there are no powers to prevent someone continuing their journey even after been caught driving unaccompanied..

But within the current laws theres scope to summons and fine people. You'd think even for the cameras they would have clamped down and not just sent them on their way.

There was the woman with the kids not seatbelted in the car, who then threw rubbish on the ground. That alone should have meant the Gards hitting her with any fines they can, but they sent her on her way. It's ridiculous.

snickerpuss

bluewolf wrote: »

It most certainly does apply on any provisional

It happened in 2004 when the rules were different.

DonJose

omega666 wrote: »

Circuit Court President, Mr Justice Matthew Deery, dismissed Ms Balogun’s claim and awarded costs against her.

At least something good came out of it.

slimjimmc

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

But within the current laws theres scope to summons and fine people. You'd think even for the cameras they would have clamped down and not just sent them on their way.

There was the woman with the kids not seatbelted in the car, who then threw rubbish on the ground. That alone should have meant the Gards hitting her with any fines they can, but they sent her on her way. It's ridiculous.

Fines and summons are issued afterwards, not on the spot at the scene. Even if the Garda didn't mention that a penalty would be issued doesn't mean she actually got away scot free. Can you be absolutely certain the Garda didn't take her details and that the clip wasn't edited?

Guy:Incognito

slimjimmc wrote: »

Fines and summons are issued afterwards, not on the spot at the scene. Even if the Garda didn't mention that a penalty would be issued doesn't mean she actually got away scot free. Can you be absolutely certain the Garda didn't take her details and that the clip wasn't edited?

I spose it may be possible but the program should have been used to show the Gardai punishing people not seeming to let them away scot free.

Plus, in general we are not hearing of many people being fined or getting points for driving unaccompanied and people dont seem to be being deterred from doing it. The perception is the Gards are doing nothing (whether they are or not is a different matter) and thats a problem.

Esel

I think this was posted in a separate thread on Tuesday?

The taxi driver had since qualified as a solicitor, making him an 'officer of the court'. I'm sure the judge would give a lot of weight to his evidence because of this.

coylemj

Esel wrote: »

I think this was posted in of Ireland. a separate thread on Tuesday?

The taxi driver had since qualified as a solicitor, making him an 'officer of the court'. I'm sure the judge would give a lot of weight to his evidence because of this.

Being an officer of the court does not add weight to his evidence, everyone is equal before the law. Judges and juries make their own minds up about witnesses and whether they are telling the truth or not based on their demeanour in the witness box. Whether he or she is an 'officer of the court' would count for nothing.

Every ambulance-chasing solicitor in the country is technically an 'officer of the court', including the solicitor who represented that woman who slammed on the brakes at a green light with a bus coming behind her.

Cabaal

furtzy wrote: »

Hopefully charged with driving unaccompanied as well

Agreed,
She was breaking the law and decided to fight the law...the law won regarding the claim and hopefully she was fined for driving on her own.

As for it being a scam..kinds were fine and pain for 8 months and she wanted 38k dispite the fact all witnesses confirmed the light was green. A scam that backfired thankfully. Bloody compo culture!

Wolverine_1999

I think, probably no fault of her own, she already had scam as her middle name on her birth date.

Unless it was a case of road rage and she was trying to "outbreak" the bus.. thats a whole other story :rolleyes:

Esel

coylemj wrote: »

Being an officer of the court does not add weight to his evidence, everyone is equal before the law. Judges and juries make their own minds up about witnesses and whether they are telling the truth or not based on their demeanour in the witness box. Whether he or she is an 'officer of the court' would count for nothing.

So, a motorist charged with a motoring offence (not speeding; no machine evidence) states on oath that he did not commit the alleged offence. The prosecuting garda testifies that he did. No other witnesses. Cases like this happen regularly. Who does the judge believe? Not the motorist....

finnigan

i do not know the area where this incident happened.

but in Adamstown, where this girl lives, is a set of lights, and people stopping here at a green light is a regular occurance.

the lights here have arrows for left and straight ahead.

They see the left turn arrow go to red and stop, even though straight through still has a green arrow.

some people just dont watch the roads, thats how accidents happen.

not everyone is out to scam but some do try to take advantage of a situation where they are in the wrong.

chancers like this need to hit in their pocket when found out, might make em think twice about trying to claim damages for their own incompetence.

just my tuppence worth

ciaran76

It happened on the Navan road.

PCPhoto

Esel wrote: »

So, a motorist charged with a motoring offence (not speeding; no machine evidence) states on oath that he did not commit the alleged offence. The prosecuting garda testifies that he did. No other witnesses. Cases like this happen regularly. Who does the judge believe? Not the motorist....

in a situation like that with neither person having a previous history - the judge would have to strike out proceedings - if both people offer testimony the judge cannot choose one over another unless they believe that someone is lying....more often than not the judge will strike out, if the judge fails to strike out then most of the time they will side with the officer - I've been in court where a number of officers have testified under oath and the version they all gave was too similar (even phrases were the same), it was glaringly obvious that they were not telling the truth but in the end the judge sided with them.

(before anyone asks I'm referring to a number of Garda Compo claims which I have been in court for - where the gardai were enhancing their story in an effort to get more money - which works......before anyone says I'm Garda bashing ....EVERY WEEK I see non gardai do the exact same, even since PIAB was set up)

Back on topic of the OP - from seeing the girl in court I do not think she was intentionally trying to scam, she seemed like a nice intelligent innocent girl - who simply made a mistake, but was either too embarrassed to admit her mistake or believed her error was the correct choice and convinced herself (meaning she actually thought it was a red light - hit the brakes - car/bus crash..boom)

I do think the Bus driver was driving too close and without due care and attention but this situation could happen to anyone, someone in front of you suddently jams on it takes a sec or two to realise whats happening - if you are lucky you have sufficient distance to stop - but chances are the person behind you cant see any of this and wont have sufficient time/space to stop - so an accident will happen anyway.

(there was a recent scam where two cars driving in tandem ...first one would jam on the brakes, second one jams on the brakes and stops or lightly hits the first car .... car behind the second car hits the back of the second car and is completely at fault in the eyes of the law....first car drives away and is never seen again leaving car3 to pay damage and compo to car2 and its occupants)

anyway - I'm going waaay off topic - what is needed to curb this culture of compo from car crashes is a combination of things:

Personally I'd like all vehicles fitted with tachographs - in the event of an accident if the person was speeding at the time of an accident then the person is not covered and takes the full hit....this will result in less drivers speeding if they understand the ramifications of their policy.

proper review of the roads and speeds attached to them - some roads are automatically reduced in speed when a motorway is created nearby which is stupid, the road itself has not changed so why reduce the limit ..... so commuters will use the motorway (and get hit with a toll fee).

Some roads are given 80km/h status when its clearly dangerous to drive at that speed - due to sharp bends and frequent bumps/potholes.

gardai on the streets should be enforcing traffic laws - if laws are enforced peoples attitudes will slowly change, I would welcome a system of cameras on traffic lights to catch red light jumpers, I'm pretty sure everyone can admit to breaking a red light at some point, I know I have in the past.

I do like the idea of the speed lottery - if you are under the limit your licence plate goes into a draw so you can win money, if you are over the limit you are fined.....it gives people an incentive to keep below the speed limit.

I'm gonna stop now 'cos this is super long and people probably wont even read it due to its length, besides its kinda turning into a rant.

CabanasBoy

One thing sticks out here.Dublin Bus driver was on his way back to the garage.Empty buses being driven back to garage are usually driven at warp speed!
Is there a possibility the bus driver was tailgating her? I've seen them do it, they will drive on your bumper trying to intimidate you out of the way.
Is there a possibility the taxi driver/solicitor had his own personal agenda?
A bus driver (a so called "skilled" professional) should not have got himself into that situation.

-Chris-

CabanasBoy wrote: »

One thing sticks out here.Dublin Bus driver was on his way back to the garage.Empty buses being driven back to garage are usually driven at warp speed!
Is there a possibility the bus driver was tailgating her? I've seen them do it, they will drive on your bumper trying to intimidate you out of the way.
Is there a possibility the taxi driver/solicitor had his own personal agenda?
A bus driver (a so called "skilled" professional) should not have got himself into that situation.

Do you know something the judge/witness/experts didn't? That's a lot of speculation for an event that already has been adjudicated on...

CabanasBoy

-Chris- wrote: »

Do you know something the judge/witness/experts didn't? That's a lot of speculation for an event that already has been adjudicated on...

No Chris, I don't know anything the judge/witness/experts don't know and tbh this thread is pretty pointless as the matter has already been
adjudicated on.
Have you ever observed a bus "out of service" being driven flat out on urban/ suburban roads? I have, I've seen "out of service" buses overtaking/undertaking other traffic on urban/suburban roads that would earn a driver a ban if caught.
Taxi drivers (fairly or unfairly) have a bit of a rep for being right wing don't they?

Rodin

furtzy wrote: »

Hopefully charged with driving unaccompanied as well

I hope so
Unaccompanied learner drivers are a plague

Pkiernan

Rodin wrote: »

I hope so
Unaccompanied learner drivers are a plague

The incident occurred in 2004. It was not an offence for a Prov Lic holder to drive unaccompanied then.

Rodin

apparently its an offence now, but I see lots of single occupancy L plate drivers
The application of legislation in this country is ridiculous. Sure it'll be grand!!
Wouldn't happen in the north

alastair

CabanasBoy wrote: »

Taxi drivers (fairly or unfairly) have a bit of a rep for being right wing don't they?

Dublin taxi driver with skewed perspective on west African driver - can't see that happening! No sirree...

The whole thing is a cavalcade of unreliable cliches - Crappy learner African woman driver, F1 wannabe empty bus driver, dey-yuk-r-jobs taxi driver. Forum theorists only too happy to ascribe a Nigerian scam on a woman whose kids get hit by a bus. Life's rich tapestry.

-Chris-

CabanasBoy wrote: »

No Chris, I don't know anything the judge/witness/experts don't know and tbh this thread is pretty pointless as the matter has already been
adjudicated on.
Have you ever observed a bus "out of service" being driven flat out on urban/ suburban roads? I have, I've seen "out of service" buses overtaking/undertaking other traffic on urban/suburban roads that would earn a driver a ban if caught.
Taxi drivers (fairly or unfairly) have a bit of a rep for being right wing don't they?

I've seen many types of drivers to many illegal things. We don't know that was the case in this instance though.

You're probably right, as this has been adjudicated on and we don't have any additional information to add, we're just chasing our tails.

alastair wrote: »

Dublin taxi driver with skewed perspective on west African driver - can't see that happening! No sirree...

The whole thing is a cavalcade of unreliable cliches - Crappy learner African woman driver, F1 wannabe empty bus driver, dey-yuk-r-jobs taxi driver. Forum theorists only too happy to ascribe a Nigerian scam on a woman whose kids get hit by a bus. Life's rich tapestry.

That's a fairly good summary. Thread closed.