€11.5 million settlement as a result of uninsured driver

Reg'stoy

RoverJames wrote: »

I'd be surprised if she doesn't take the odd (annual) break in the sun tbh.

And the other 50 weeks of the year, when she has to look in the eye of her son, that she as a result of her actions, has left needing 24/7 care; should be a walk in the park.

I thinks it's sad that some people are viewing this as a lottery win for the mother and son involved.

bohsfan

As has been mentioned by some, yet ignored by others, this fund exists so that innocent third parties who are injured by uninsured drivers can claim compensation.

This child was an innocent party here. He will need constant, and expensive, medical care for the rest of his life. I'd imagine that all of these projected costs have determined the size of the payout.

Now, this case is complicated by the fact that the guilty party is his own Mother. But that doesn't change the facts. This woman has ruined her life and that of her son and extended family with her actions. I'm sure she would happily give back the 11.5 million, and more, to turn back the clock.

If the injured party was in the other car, there would be an entirely different reaction to this story.

Also- this article is a bit short on content, so it is impossible to comment too much on it without it being pure speculation.

seamus

Max Power1 wrote: »

If the mother is reckless via being an alcoholic, the son suffers.
If the mother is reckless via being a gambling addict, the son suffers.
If the mother is reckless via making bad choices in life, the son suffers.

Why is this any different??

Because this can be corrected now. In all of the above cases (except the last one), there are methods to move in and improve the lot of the son.

You're allowing her existence to cloud your opinion. If she had been killed in the accident, would it then be OK to give him money for his care? What about if he was already over 18?

It can be considered a "quirk" that a fund exists for these scenarios - after all, if the mother had dropped her son on his head causing the same injuries, she'd get no payout. However, the fund does exist for cases exactly like this, so there's no basis on which to deny an innocent party access to rightful compensation.

langdang

Some of the attitudes on here are disgraceful, OK there are cases of "arranged accidents" that are frauds (whiplash, mental trauma etc) and lead to higher premiums for us honest average joes - but to suggest you'd consider deliberately making a child quadriplegic on a ventilator for a "handy wad a cash, wha" is a disgrace.

However, I definitely see the merit in there being external control or supervision of the money as a fund for the kid, as suggested by johntegr.

Johntegr wrote: »

I reckon she'll be an even bigger idiot with being in control of such a settlement.
That money should be locked away and they should have to appeal to have money drawn from it to go towards caring for the son.
The mother and the rest of the family definitely shouldn't see a sniff of it.

seamus

As pointed out in another thread, this money will not be given to his parents. It is held in trust by the courts and the parents must apply to the courts to have funds released, what the money is being used for, etc.

Once the child turns 18, he applies to have the remainder of the fund released to him.

I was awarded a small amount when I was 12, and this is how it worked for me.

TheZ

langdang wrote: »

Some of the attitudes on here are disgraceful, OK there are cases of "arranged accidents" that are frauds (whiplash, mental trauma etc) and lead to higher premiums for us honest average joes - but to suggest you'd consider deliberately making a child quadriplegic on a ventilator for a "handy wad a cash, wha" is a disgrace.

However, I definitely see the merit in there being external control or supervision of the money as a fund for the kid, as suggested by johntegr.

There will be external control of the money - the child will most likely be made ward of court and courts look after the money on his behalf

Annabella1

seamus wrote: »

11.5m over fifty years = €220k per year.

Hiring nursing care for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year must cost at least €150k/year. Even if she covers 12 hours a day, you would still be looking at €100k/year. Then you have medical equipment, drugs, scans, operations, and so on and so forth.

That kind of money will probably allow them to buy a property that it suited for his needs and provide her the freedom to look after him without having to worry about working. But that's probably about it. I think it's a little naive to picture her having exotic foreign holidays and driving expensive sports cars on the back of this award.
The money means that he won't have to live in poverty for the rest of his life, it's just incidental that his mother will share in that existence for the rest of hers. Not much consolation for her I imagine.

Nonsense...This poor child will undoubtably get a medical card(on medical grounds) regardless of this settlement which means the state picks up some of the cost

Presume the legal team walk away with a couple of mill..

seamus

Annabella1 wrote: »

Nonsense...This poor child will undoubtably get a medical card(on medical grounds) regardless of this settlement which means the state picks up some of the cost

Some.

Presume the legal team walk away with a couple of mill..

Legal costs are awarded separately.

Kewreeuss

Thank you Bohsfan,
I was reading to see if someone would explain the logic of how the settlement came about. not the value but what the process was.
It still seems daft that in this specific case but thats the way it works.
She will have to live with what she caused to her son, granted with the money to be able to look after him.
I am sure there are hundreds of parents with children who have disabilities who don't have the benefit of a payout and have to depend on the services of the Dept of Health.
I wonder would she have got more or less had she been insured or had the accident been caused by another car?

TheZ

Annabella1 wrote: »

Nonsense...This poor child will undoubtably get a medical card(on medical grounds) regardless of this settlement which means the state picks up some of the cost

Presume the legal team walk away with a couple of mill..

It is a huge settlement but there would have been actuaries involved on both sides etc They calculate loss of earnings over lifetime, medical costs, rehab etc and there will be pain and suffering element

11.5m is not 220k a year for fifty years
prudently invested it should generate at the least 3% per year which is €345,000 (this would be taxed) and leaving capital intact

On the other hand who would swap places with that kid for the money? Nobody.

Guy:Incognito

TheZ wrote: »

On the other hand who would swap places with that kid for the money? Nobody.

There are plenty of severely disabled people born with their conditions through no fault of anyone that could probably do with 11m to get them through life.

seamus

TheZ wrote: »

11.5m is not 220k a year for fifty years
prudently invested it should generate at the least 3% per year which is €345,000 (this would be taxed) and leaving capital intact

To the best of my knowledge, money held in trust by the courts is invested in government bonds.

So it'll probably be worth nothing in about five years' time

ShadowHearth

I still don't understand.

She coused accident
She had no insurance
She ( technically son, but she is his guardian and I am prety sure, that before he turns 18, she will be in full managment of money) gets 12million as compensation from insurance company.

I am not being ignorant, and yes, it's still a sad thing too see a child hurt, but how the feck does all this makes sence?!

Voodoomelon

I'm confused, why is any insurance company, bar a health insurance company, paying for an accident for which the driver was not insured? (except for the other unfortunate car in the accident)

If I had no insurance and hit a wall and paralysed myself, do I get my treatment paid for?

ShadowHearth

Reg'stoy wrote: »

And the other 50 weeks of the year, when she has to look in the eye of her son, that she as a result of her actions, has left needing 24/7 care; should be a walk in the park.

I thinks it's sad that some people are viewing this as a lottery win for the mother and son involved.

Shouldn't she be punished for doing that to her son and work her tits off to pay for all medical bills and only get the right benefits that disabled people get?

Admit it it. It all looks very damn stupid and unfair from the side. Instead of being punished for being a stupid and careless, she get help of 12mill.

the culture of deference

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I still don't understand.

She coused accident
She had no insurance
She ( technically son, but she is his guardian and I am prety sure, that before he turns 18, she will be in full managment of money) gets 12million as compensation from insurance company.

I am not being ignorant, and yes, it's still a sad thing too see a child hurt, but how the feck does all this makes sence?!

Its nonsense.

This sounds like a new scam the ROMA thought of.

bohsfan

Voodoomelon wrote: »

If I had no insurance and hit a wall and paralysed myself, do I get my treatment paid for?

No. This has been answered numerous times in this very thread.

Zubeneschamali

Voodoomelon wrote: »

If I had no insurance and hit a wall and paralysed myself, do I get my treatment paid for?

That's not the situation. If you were getting a lift, the driver hit a wall, you got paralysed and he turned out to be uninsured, that's the situation.

ShadowHearth

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's not the situation. If you were getting a lift, the driver hit a wall, you got paralysed and he turned out to be uninsured, that's the situation.

So pretty much she is using a loophole in this situation?

bohsfan

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Shouldn't she be punished for doing that to her son and work her tits off to pay for all medical bills and only get the right benefits that disabled people get?

Admit it it. It all looks very damn stupid and unfair from the side. Instead of being punished for being a stupid and careless, she get help of 12mill.

'She' is getting nothing directly. The courts will administer the funds unitil the child turns 18. Through claiming funds for being a carer she may see some of the money for this. But she is caring for the lad after all.

The fact of whether she should be punished for driving uninsured is a separate issue, and one that was not covered in the article.

ShadowHearth

bohsfan wrote: »

'She' is getting nothing directly. The courts will administer the funds unitil the child turns 18. Through claiming funds for being a carer she may see some of the money for this. But she is caring for the lad after all.

The fact of whether she should be punished for driving uninsured is a separate issue, and one that was not covered in the article.

Right. If she had only third party insurance, then she/her son would get same benefits and 12mil?

bohsfan

ShadowHearth wrote: »

So pretty much she is using a loophole in this situation?

It's not a 'loophole'- these kind of situations are the very reasons this fund exists

C4Kid

I'll be the first to admit what I thought of the situation immediately after reading the article but I've copped on since.

The results of her actions (having to care for the child )are punishment enough imo, Being a full time carer is tough.

What good is €12m if You can't enjoy it? it's going to be used for the most part the keep the the poor lad alive, that's all.

Johntegr

seamus wrote: »

As pointed out in another thread, this money will not be given to his parents. It is held in trust by the courts and the parents must apply to the courts to have funds released, what the money is being used for, etc.

Once the child turns 18, he applies to have the remainder of the fund released to him.

I was awarded a small amount when I was 12, and this is how it worked for me.

Now that you mention it the same worked for me.

I reckon if the child reaches 18 they'll then have control of the money. If anything were to happen while they're an adult, the family wont get any of the settlement even if it were left in his will.

Johntegr

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Right. If she had only third party insurance, then she/her son would get same benefits and 12mil?

Yep. The child would have to sue through an adult. Think it's called next of friend or something from what I remember when I was in an accident and I sued the party at fault through my mother as I was under 18 at the time. Essentially he'd be suing his own mother but her insurance company would carry the settlement

bohsfan

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Right. If she had only third party insurance, then she/her son would get same benefits and 12mil?

The 11.5 million was the result of the claim. This would stand regardless of where the claim should come from.

In this case, the claim will come from the uninsured driver fund. In the case you have stated, some of it would have come from the insurance company (up to a limit) and the balance from elsewhere.

Voodoomelon

So the child is essentially claiming €11m odd for his uninsured driver, who is actually his mother. I see.

CoDy1

Voodoomelon wrote: »

So the child is essentially claiming €11m odd for his uninsured driver, who is actually his mother. I see.

Christ! The poor child did not ask for is mother to do this to him. He is an innocent third party getting compensation from the MIBI not an insurance company.

Have you read the article/thread at all?

Cuddlesworth

Voodoomelon wrote: »

If I had no insurance and hit a wall and paralysed myself, do I get my treatment paid for?

If you were a passenger, then yes you would. In the same way you could claim off the insurance if he was. The issue here is the fact that there never seems to be a appropriate punishment for those caught abusing the system after a horrific accident.

TheZ

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

There are plenty of severely disabled people born with their conditions through no fault of anyone that could probably do with 11m to get them through life.

Yes but you are comparing apples and oranges.

This kid was injured in a car accident and in that situation there is a fund to cover injuries caused by uninsured drivers - in this case it was his mother but that is irrelevant as far as the law on this is concerned.

If the same accident happened while he was on a bicycle ridden by his mother then he would get nothing because there is no insurance requirement or uninsured drivers fund.

If you think law on this is wrong then that's a different matter - should somebody not be able to claim from uninsured driver where they are related to them or they are friends with them or where they knew they had no insurance.

There are very few people (if any) who go around crashing into walls and paralysing themselves or their kids to claim insurance money. In theory somebody with comprehensive insurance could deliberately crash with the intention of breakng their child's back to claim the insurance but somehow people don't do that