Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

€11.5 million settlement as a result of uninsured driver

Options
13567…10

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Johntegr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 326 ✭✭Johntegr


    Voodoomelon wrote: »
    So the child is essentially claiming €11m odd for his uninsured driver, who is actually his mother. I see.
    Essentially. However I don't think he would have been able to sue his mother through her. So he'd have sued her through another adult. That settlement figure is due to the legal & medical teams involved and the judges decision.

    I'd be interested in whether there was an out of court settlement figure made or not.

    I know there was for me but it was rejected and let go to court as the judge will never give a settlement lower than what the guilty party offer, but may give more.


  • Options
    #63
    ShadowHearth
    Registered Users Posts: 22,929 ✭✭✭✭ShadowHearth


    Feck, I better stay out of this. If that would be me, then I would put her in to sack and send to Russian sibiria to work for the rest of her life in some coal mines, only tool she would be allowed to use - rusty fork. Then give all the help child needs, but not just a payment of 12mil.

    Looking after the child to be enough of the punishment is rubbish in my books. There are no details on how accsident happened. And if she did not cared enough about child as to be properly insured and pay attention on the road, then who said she cares about child now?


  • Options
    #64
    él statutorio
    Registered Users Posts: 1,259 ✭✭✭él statutorio


    Johntegr wrote: »
    Essentially. However I don't think he would have been able to sue his mother through her. So he'd have sued her through another adult. That settlement figure is due to the legal & medical teams involved and the judges decision.

    I'd be interested in whether there was an out of court settlement figure made or not.

    I know there was for me but it was rejected and let go to court as the judge will never give a settlement lower than what the guilty party offer, but may give more.

    His Grandmother sued his mother on his behalf. (according to the Irish Times)


  • Options
    #65
    Voodoomelon
    Registered Users Posts: 9,662 ✭✭✭Voodoomelon


    CoDy1 wrote: »
    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?

    Where did I say he's not entitled to it? I just summed it up in one sentance.


  • Options
    #66
    Vertakill
    Registered Users Posts: 2,262 ✭✭✭Vertakill


    C4Kid wrote: »
    The results of her actions (having to care for the child )are punishment enough imo, Being a full time carer is tough.

    Again, I reckon the child will have professional care which is where the 11.5m figure has come from so I doubt the mother will have a big a burden as people may think.
    Secondly, if the child is capable of taking full ownership of that money while he's 18, who's to say the mother won't end up getting some of it?

    Imagining her on a personal level, part of me would agree that having her son in this kind of state is tragic and you wouldn't wish it on your worst enemy.

    But looking at it completely from the outside, I think she should be locked up.
    A parent's responsibility is to look after their children and she was negligent on three different occasions where she probably failed to secure him into the car, drove uninsured and also where she got distracted and crashed - all while the poor kid was under her supervision.

    I don't think anyone here could name a single mother that would knowingly drive a car uninsured with their kid in the back seat (most likely without a seatbelt if he managed to hit the front windscreen).

    It's like playing Russian roulette..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Voodoomelon
    Registered Users Posts: 9,662 ✭✭✭Voodoomelon


    Any word on the other parties injuries/damages?


  • Options
    #68
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    If I suffered a momentary lapse of concentration, my car crossed the centre of the road and struck another car head-on and I was uninsured at the time I reckon I'd be in severe trouble.


  • Options
    #69
    Johntegr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 326 ✭✭Johntegr


    Voodoomelon wrote: »
    Any word on the other parties injuries/damages?
    Don't think it said. Just said the child hit the windscreen. So aswell as no insurance she didn't have him in the right seat with the right belt. Or even seated or belted at all. Gross negligence of the child's safety in the highest order.


  • Options
    #70
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    According to the article "He was a rear-seat passenger and was restrained in a booster seat". Can't have been restrained too well really if the poor little chap struck the windscreen.


  • Options
    #71
    Voodoomelon
    Registered Users Posts: 9,662 ✭✭✭Voodoomelon


    RoverJames wrote: »
    If I suffered a momentary lapse of concentration, my car crossed the centre of the road and struck another car head-on and I was uninsured at the time I reckon I'd be in severe trouble.

    I can imagine the headline if it was me.

    Uninsured twenty-something male in a "high powered" german saloon smashes through central reservation gets 5 years, 3 years suspended.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Mr. Presentable
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,496 ✭✭✭Mr. Presentable


    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.

    So, what happens if, heaven forfend, the child dies in the next year? Does the family keep the cash?


  • Options
    #73
    secman
    Registered Users Posts: 6,228 ✭✭✭secman


    There would have been a totally seperate case taken by the DPP against the Mother for wreckless and dangerous driving and having no insurance, but the judge probably took into account her remorse etc and gave her a slap on the wrist. That case probably was heard some years ago, and only now the compo case, as they tend to be drawn out.

    The family will probably have to move house now to acquire a long term wheelchair suitable solution for the child. I know of a similar case some years ago and when the child was 23 she sold the specially build wheelchair accessible house in leafy mount Merrion and moved out of the country ! Parents were left homeless ! Revenge is best served cold !!

    Secman


  • Options
    #74
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Mr. Presentable wrote: »
    So, what happens if, heaven forfend, the child dies in the next year? Does the family keep the cash?
    No, the money dies with him, it goes back to MIBI or something.


  • Options
    #75
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


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

    The other 50 weeks?
    She'll hardly take the two week holiday surely?


  • Options
    #76
    Vertakill
    Registered Users Posts: 2,262 ✭✭✭Vertakill


    RoverJames wrote: »
    If I suffered a momentary lapse of concentration, my car crossed the centre of the road and struck another car head-on and I was uninsured at the time I reckon I'd be in severe trouble.

    Yeah you'd be looking at jail time I reckon.

    There's loads of similar cases where the driver makes bad choices and either maims or kills his/her passengers... and if they survive, the book is usually thrown at them - and that's when the driver is insured!!
    The reason being, the driver assumes responsibility for the passengers so she is responsible for that kid's well-being while in that car and she put it in jeopardy by not being insured and not fastening him in properly.

    If she was insured, we wouldn't be having this debate - it would just be another tragedy on Irish roads.

    We'll wait and see what happens with the mother RE a punishment, if there even is one.

    I would have absolutely no objections whatsoever to this kid getting that money for his medical care and treatment, I'd go as far as congratulating the ruling seeing as none of this was the kid's fault and he'll need that money to just live.... provided the mother is justifiably punished.

    If she gets away scot free by waving the mother card in front of everyone, I'll be seriously p!ssed.


  • Options
    #77
    ShadowHearth
    Registered Users Posts: 22,929 ✭✭✭✭ShadowHearth


    And again. Grandmother Sued mother while having a cup of coffee. It was planed to get that in court and get that money. After that court mother and grandmother will take money ( untill lad is 18, I know I know, but in 12 years you can do a lot with 12 mils ) and go home. Both will take care after child, while having a cup of coffee, again. It will be a good thing if they will take care of him in the first place! In my books it is a loophole and taking advantage of the system.
    It was not like insurance company came I and said: well I know it is devastating accsident, so we will help you and your child out.

    I understand if she would have friends child, which she was taking to school. Then she would have been in jail, child would get 12mil. It would be the right thing and I doubt anyone would even say a word against it. That's how this fund is intended to be used.


  • Options
    #78
    Compton
    Registered Users Posts: 3,157 ✭✭✭Compton


    Jesus thats disgraceful. The mother should be jailed - simple as.


  • Options
    #79
    Voodoomelon
    Registered Users Posts: 9,662 ✭✭✭Voodoomelon


    Vertakill wrote: »
    If she gets away scot free by waving the mother card in front of everyone, I'll be seriously p!ssed.

    Part of me thinks yup, you're right.
    But it is a serious punishment looking at that child every day, knowing you're the one that did "that".

    Dunno If I could go on myself, she'll have a pretty horrible life for the rest of her days.

    But then again, a clear message needs to be sent about uninsured driving, I detest it.


  • Options
    #80
    Vertakill
    Registered Users Posts: 2,262 ✭✭✭Vertakill


    Voodoomelon wrote: »
    Part of me thinks yup, you're right.
    But it is a serious punishment looking at that child every day, knowing you're the one that did "that".

    Dunno If I could go on myself, she'll have a pretty horrible life for the rest of her days.

    But then again, a clear message needs to be sent about uninsured driving, I detest it.

    100% agree. It is going to be horrible for the mother and it's going to be horrible for the kid too.

    However, there are plenty of drunk drivers out there that have killed/maimed people and have been jailed for a long time AND still have to live with the fact they've maimed/killed someone as well for the rest of their lives.

    While it may not be nice, she really has to be punished to send a message to people.

    If everyone adapted her attitude, we'd all have to pay 10k/year for fully comp just to balance the books for all the claims that go through the MIBI.


    EDIT: I didn't realise this dates back so long ago - well I very much doubt she's going to be punished so late in the day now.


  • Options
    #81
    ShadowHearth
    Registered Users Posts: 22,929 ✭✭✭✭ShadowHearth


    Emm lads. What about that fella who had 7 people in passat? He crashed and all of them died. I am pretty sure fund or insurance company payed to victims families and right so. Thought the driver is in court for it now.
    Now let's look at this situation. Drivers fault, no insurance. She is not in jail.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Compton
    Registered Users Posts: 3,157 ✭✭✭Compton


    ShadowHearth wrote: »
    Emm lads. What about that fella who had 7 people in passat? He crashed and all of them died. I am pretty sure fund or insurance company payed to victims families and right so. Thought the driver is in court for it now.
    Now let's look at this situation. Drivers fault, no insurance. She is not in jail.


    It really is as simple as this.

    The judges need to impose tougher punishments.


  • Options
    #83
    Atomic Pineapple
    Registered Users Posts: 18,272 ✭✭✭✭Atomic Pineapple


    This is absolutely disgraceful that people who pay for their insurance have to bail this women out of something which was entirely her fault in the first place. Sure she has to look at the child and deal with it daily but that's because of her own fault, no own else's.

    This country is fast becoming a complete and utter joke.


  • Options
    #84
    Reg'stoy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,570 ✭✭✭Reg'stoy


    Mr. Presentable wrote: »
    So, what happens if, heaven forfend, the child dies in the next year? Does the family keep the cash?

    The money has been lodged with the court and can be drawn down on, as needs arise for his welfare, should he die the money can be returned to the central pool by order of the court upon request by the controllers of the uninsured drivers fund.

    The money is not handed over by joke over sized cheque as some here believe. To the best of my understanding, the reason why the fund itself does not make payments over the lenght of his care is that the fund might not exist or have the funds (God forbid) in the future.

    Not knowing the exact circumstances, an extension may be added onto an existing dwelling or he may have to go into full time residential care which will be paid for out of the award. In both situations he will need full time professional care which over his life time will be hugely expensive.

    The award was made to the child personally and was given to improve his quality of life. Neither his mother or grandmother are, I would presume full time medical professionals and it is absurd to suggest that they alone should be forced to look after him.

    In saying all that, I agree that his mother should face some punishment for her actions; but that should not be to the detriment of the childs care.


  • Options
    #85
    Vertakill
    Registered Users Posts: 2,262 ✭✭✭Vertakill


    I know I'm speculating here but surely the MIBI or the family would be making a huge lawsuit toward the manufacturer of the car if what the mother is saying is true and that the kid was securely fastened in the backseat but still managed to be propelled into the front windshield?

    Either that or the mother didn't secure her child and is just lying to safe face and prevent her from being public enemy #1... :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #86
    Atomic Pineapple
    Registered Users Posts: 18,272 ✭✭✭✭Atomic Pineapple


    Vertakill wrote: »
    Either that or the mother didn't secure her child and is just lying to safe face and prevent her from being public enemy #1... :rolleyes:

    Seeing as she felt insurance was unnecessary I'd imagine it's the latter of your suggestions.


  • Options
    #87
    ShadowHearth
    Registered Users Posts: 22,929 ✭✭✭✭ShadowHearth


    Vertakill wrote: »
    I know I'm speculating here but surely the MIBI or the family would be making a huge lawsuit toward the manufacturer of the car if what the mother is saying is true and that the kid was securely fastened in the backseat but still managed to be propelled into the front windshield?

    Either that or the mother didn't secure her child and is just lying to safe face and prevent her from being public enemy #1... :rolleyes:

    So mother has no injuries or minor injuries and a child is scared for life. I am quite sure it's not cars fault. It would even more awesome if she would sue car manufacturer after this is sorted.

    I might over thinking it now, but if grandmother sued mother and can win, then grandmother should be guardian untill child becomes 18? That way child has guardian and mother can be put in to one bedroom apartment behind bars with ****y view. So now mother is sued and still is a guardian to that child." and get ls authority over the funds.

    Sorry, but it is sooo fecked up.


  • Options
    #88
    Max Power1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,272 ✭✭✭✭Max Power1


    Compton wrote: »
    It really is as simple as this.

    The judges need to impose tougher punishments.

    +1
    I think this is the point here that some people on this thread are missing.

    It's the woman's fault, yet she is going to indirectly benefit for maiming the child. Indeed, she has already benefited by avoiding jail time somehow.


  • Options
    #89
    Indricotherium
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,577 ✭✭✭Indricotherium


    I have to say there are some IMO disgusting views being expressed on this thread.

    What service does it do the public or indeed the child in this situation to lock up the mother?

    The child was injured in an accident caused by an uninsured driver and has been awarded compensation due to anyone in that situation.

    Depriving him of a parent hardly serves the public good.

    The number of people implying that the woman in this case has in some way benefited from the accident is really awfull.


  • Options
    #90
    keithclancy
    Registered Users Posts: 9,222 ✭✭✭keithclancy


    The poor kid ... Jesus.

    The mother is a f*cking moron of the highest order.

    AFAIK the money is placed in trust and handed out in payments to cover the cost of care.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,381 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Fuk, what a horrible disgusting race the Irish have become. Some of the comments on here are disgraceful.

    The court will control the money, the mother being sent to prison will do no good to anyone, especially the child, and where do you think this money will be spent? In Ikea? No. Our own health service will be providing the care I assume so it's effectively just moving money from insurance payers to the government.

    You have to be a seriously uneducated bumbling fool to think the mother will be taking holidays, buying cars and just be on easy streak for the rest of her life. Instead of being begrudging ****, look at it as a case of a child having a terrible accident and the community coming together to help. The way the world worked for millennia.


Advertisement