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
12467…10

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    ShadowHearth
    Registered Users Posts: 22,929 ✭✭✭✭ShadowHearth


    Indricotherium wrote: »
    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.

    i dont know, maybe he would be safer, because so far mummy is quite shiet at looking after the child.


  • Options
    #93
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Indricotherium wrote: »
    What service does it do the public or indeed the child in this situation to lock up the mother?.

    So do we stop punishing anyone for not havign insuranc and/or causeing a crash and injuring people? Or just ones that injure members of their own familes.


  • Options
    #94
    él statutorio
    Registered Users Posts: 1,259 ✭✭✭él statutorio


    Indricotherium wrote: »
    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.

    She drove knowingly uninsured and therefore broke the law. Other people would be fined/jailed for doing the same. She should not get special treatment because she is a mother or because of the injuries her child suffered.

    What happened her child was a tragedy but as regards her crime, irrelevant.

    She should be prosecuted the same as everyone else who drives uninsured.


  • Options
    #95
    keithclancy
    Registered Users Posts: 9,222 ✭✭✭keithclancy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    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.

    Forget the bregrudgery, what kind of example does this set for people.

    Would you have the same opinion if it was man driving his adopted child to school ?


  • Options
    #96
    él statutorio
    Registered Users Posts: 1,259 ✭✭✭él statutorio


    keithclancy wrote: »
    Forget the bregrudgery, what kind of example does this set for people.

    Would you have the same opinion if it was man driving his adopted child to school ?

    Or someone driving their neighbours kid to school?

    The child deserves every penny IMHO. For him it was a terribly unfortunate accident.

    The mother should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    seamus wrote: »
    The award isn't for her, it's for her son.

    Why should her son have to suffer for the rest of his life because his mother's an idiot?

    Not to sound like a complete heartless bastard the woman was negligent and almost caused the death of her son. As well as that she could have killed and completely innocent third party.

    Wouldn't it have been better to remove the child from her care althougher and place him in state care. I'm sure it wouldn't cost anywhere near 11 million.


  • Options
    #98
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Deleted User wrote: »
    ...........

    You have to be a seriously uneducated bumbling fool to think the mother will be taking holidays........

    You don't think she'll be off on the odd holiday or two?


  • Options
    #99
    wonski
    Registered Users Posts: 13,687 ✭✭✭✭wonski


    I think everyone here missed the fact, that even if she was insured, we would pay for it. And 11 millions awarded, plus court costs, and solicitors, would be big hit for insurance company involved. Now, would they let this figure go that high? MIBI operates money they get for free, they don't haggle to much i believe. The kid deserves it, anyway, and i feel deeply sorry for him.
    I think it is time for garda to set up some checkpoints around schools (it is slow moving traffic anyway), and see what the parents are up to. Seen kids jumping around a car every time pass local school...

    Also, what speed was she doing, and what lack of concentration was it?
    She obviosly lacked more than just a concentration, what an outstanding mother... Won't say what i really think, don't want to get a ban...


  • Options
    #100
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    Wouldn't it have been better to remove the child from her care althougher and place him in state care.
    Would that have been better for the child?

    Regardless of the circumstances, she didn't set out to intentionally injure her son. So it's a wild leap to assume that taking a child from his family into state care is doing right by that child.

    Should we make this law? Every child injured by their parent should be taken by the state?

    If you think that the child would be better off in state care, then feel free to make a complaint to the dept of social welfare, who can move in and assess whether she's fit to look after her child. But I'm sure you already know what the answer to that is.

    Nobody here has any basis on which to believe that this woman is unfit to look after her child to the extent that the state should step in. She didn't intentionally endanger her child.


  • Options
    #101
    Vertakill
    Registered Users Posts: 2,262 ✭✭✭Vertakill


    Deleted User wrote: »
    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.

    The mother has clearly shown she is a bad mother and she's been grossly negligent when it comes to the safety and well-being of her child - that alone is nearly enough for child services to take away your kid without there ever having to be an accident like this.

    Let's say, god forbid, this mother was flying along and ran into you and you were maiimed for life, as well as the kid...

    Would you want her to be prosecuted for driving around uninsured and hitting you and ruining her son's life and possibly yours? I know I would.

    The amount of people driving around uninsured is bad enough as it is without making a judgement like this that'll encourage more of it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    bohsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 417 ✭✭bohsfan


    ShadowHearth wrote: »
    So now mother is sued and still is a guardian to that child." and get ls authority over the funds.

    How many times in this thread has it been mentioned that the money will be put in trust by the courts and administered by them until the child turns 18?

    Still, would hate for something like that to get in the way of your opinion...

    And what was all that before about cups of coffee?


  • Options
    #103
    Vertakill
    Registered Users Posts: 2,262 ✭✭✭Vertakill


    bohsfan wrote: »
    How many times in this thread has it been mentioned that the money will be put in trust by the courts and administered by them until the child turns 18?

    Still, would hate for something like that to get in the way of your opinion...

    And what was all that before about cups of coffee?

    In fairness, 18 is only 8 years away for the kid... 11.5m won't be gone in 8 years.
    So there's every possibility that the mother could get her hands on some of that money in the future if the kid allows it.


  • Options
    #104
    Mr. Presentable
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,496 ✭✭✭Mr. Presentable


    wonski wrote: »
    and what lack of concentration was it?

    Likely it was her mobile.


  • Options
    #105
    ShadowHearth
    Registered Users Posts: 22,929 ✭✭✭✭ShadowHearth


    seamus wrote: »
    Would that have been better for the child?

    Regardless of the circumstances, she didn't set out to intentionally injure her son. So it's a wild leap to assume that taking a child from his family into state care is doing right by that child.

    Should we make this law? Every child injured by their parent should be taken by the state?

    If you think that the child would be better off in state care, then feel free to make a complaint to the dept of social welfare, who can move in and assess whether she's fit to look after her child. But I'm sure you already know what the answer to that is.

    Nobody here has any basis on which to believe that this woman is unfit to look after her child to the extent that the state should step in. She didn't intentionally endanger her child.

    Why state? Grandmother sued doughter for accsident, so grand mother would have demanded to be a guardian too. Of they got 12mil I am prety sure she would get child custody too.

    So far situation is: child, mother and grandmother went to court. All came back from court back home with 12mil and no one punished for it. If that does not sound quite off the standards of being normal, then I don't know wrf is going In the world now and what is normal.


  • Options
    #106
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Mr. Presentable wrote: »
    Likely it was her mobile.

    The RTE reporter said the child brought animals to her attention or something like that, so she was looking at animals presumably.


  • Options
    #107
    bohsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 417 ✭✭bohsfan


    Vertakill wrote: »
    In fairness, 18 is only 8 years away for the kid... 11.5m won't be gone in 8 years.
    So there's every possibility that the mother could get her hands on some of that money in the future if the kid allows it.

    Of course there is. And just as much of a chance that she won't see a penny. That's a choice for the child to make down the line.

    There's a big difference between that situation and insinuating that they Mother can sit back from tomorrow with the money in her bank account.


  • Options
    #108
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    ShadowHearth wrote: »
    Why state? Grandmother sued doughter for accsident, so grand mother would have demanded to be a guardian too. Of they got 12mil I am prety sure she would get child custody too.
    Why would she get custody? The amount awarded is down to the lifetime costs of caring for the child. They don't represent the level of negligence of the mother or anything like that.

    You still haven't answered the question anyway of whether the child would be better off away from his mother. Of course you can't answer that question because you haven't a clue. If we were take away every child who was injured as a result of their parents' mistakes, more than half of the country would end up in state care.

    The only question is whether the mother is unfit on an ongoing basis to look after her child. A single incident isn't enough to draw conclusions. Everyone makes mistakes, sometimes they're huge.


  • Options
    #109
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Devils advocate:

    She tried to commit suicide by going head on with another car, fails, and gets the state to pay for her mistake.

    What happened to the person this mad lunatic crashed into?

    Also, what is his mental state now? Will he be forever in her care until she dies, or will be be able to decide on things himself?


  • Options
    #110
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    bohsfan wrote: »
    ......... insinuating that they Mother can sit back from tomorrow with the money in her bank account.

    Where are those insinuations?


  • Options
    #111
    ShadowHearth
    Registered Users Posts: 22,929 ✭✭✭✭ShadowHearth


    seamus wrote: »
    Why would she get custody? The amount awarded is down to the lifetime costs of caring for the child. They don't represent the level of negligence of the mother or anything like that.

    You still haven't answered the question anyway of whether the child would be better off away from his mother. Of course you can't answer that question because you haven't a clue. If we were take away every child who was injured as a result of their parents' mistakes, more than half of the country would end up in state care.

    The only question is whether the mother is unfit on an ongoing basis to look after her child. I doubt it.

    I answered that question, you just did not read it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,381 ✭ [Deleted User]


    keithclancy wrote: »
    Forget the bregrudgery, what kind of example does this set for people.

    Would you have the same opinion if it was man driving his adopted child to school ?
    Yes I would because I don't differentiate between father and mothers and I certainly don't stoop to the pathetic level of differentiating adopted children. Weird fuking question.
    RoverJames wrote: »
    You don't think she'll be off on the odd holiday or two?

    No more than the normal person. The fund wont pay for holidays and she's not earning. If someone treats her to a week in spain, does it make her a bad person?


  • Options
    #113
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    the_syco wrote: »
    ..........

    Also, what is his mental state now? Will he be forever in her care until she dies, or will be be able to decide on things himself?

    According to the reporter the judge spoke to him in court and learned he was well into computers etc.


  • Options
    #114
    Francie Barrett
    Registered Users Posts: 16,378 ✭✭✭✭Francie Barrett


    No one has a problem with the money being awarded to the kid. What people have an issue with is the negligence of the mother. If I took the roads uninsured with my child in the back, the least I would expect is a custodial sentence for causing such an accident. Secondly, I would have questions about how restrained this child was. Was the car seat too big/small for the child? Was the child restrained properly, etc?

    This country is a joke - we have crazy people driving around uninsured, with no tax, no MOT's, no licences, etc. and instead of putting them in prison, we're handing out pathetically small fines.


  • Options
    #115
    Max Power1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,272 ✭✭✭✭Max Power1


    seamus wrote: »
    Would that have been better for the child?

    Regardless of the circumstances, she didn't set out to intentionally injure her son. So it's a wild leap to assume that taking a child from his family into state care is doing right by that child.

    Should we make this law? Every child injured by their parent should be taken by the state?

    If you think that the child would be better off in state care, then feel free to make a complaint to the dept of social welfare, who can move in and assess whether she's fit to look after her child. But I'm sure you already know what the answer to that is.

    Nobody here has any basis on which to believe that this woman is unfit to look after her child to the extent that the state should step in. She didn't intentionally endanger her child.
    Negligence perhaps?
    No insurance, reckless driving. Wilful neglect etc all come to mind


  • Options
    #116
    sitja
    Registered Users Posts: 206 ✭✭sitja


    Has the driver had any sort of conviction for this.. surely its dangerous driving.. I am aware she has to deal with her mistake for the rest of her life.. yet i disagree with the payment.. Im sure if it was a young male driver who had a "lapse of concentration" today we would be hearing about a lad getting sentenced to about 5 years..


  • Options
    #117
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    ShadowHearth wrote: »
    I answered that question, you just did not read it.
    No you didn't. I asked you if being taken away from its mother would be better for the child.

    You didn't answer that, you just twaddled some nonsense about there being a grandmother in the loop.


  • Options
    #118
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Deleted User wrote: »
    ...........


    No more than the normal person. The fund wont pay for holidays and she's not earning. If someone treats her to a week in spain, does it make her a bad person?

    A bad person? Who said anything about her being a bad person?


  • Options
    #119
    bohsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 417 ✭✭bohsfan


    RoverJames wrote: »
    Where are those insinuations?
    ShadowHearth wrote: »
    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.

    Clear enough for you?


  • Options
    #120
    ShadowHearth
    Registered Users Posts: 22,929 ✭✭✭✭ShadowHearth


    bohsfan wrote: »
    Clear enough for you?

    Read all my post, instead of taking stuff out of context.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    ShadowHearth
    Registered Users Posts: 22,929 ✭✭✭✭ShadowHearth


    seamus wrote: »
    No you didn't. I asked you if being taken away from its mother would be better for the child.

    You didn't answer that, you just twaddled some nonsense about there being a grandmother in the loop.
    Same read all my posts, last page up top.


Advertisement