Injured child gets 11.5 million euros

damienirel

Who else thinks the phrase "Jesus wept" is being over-used here?

prinz

Seachmall wrote: »

It's absurd. It's punishing people for being human.

What's absurd is suggesting that someone who causes an accident through negligence should be completely innocent of any wrongdoing simply because not everyone can be caught doing the same thing.

Seachmall

prinz wrote: »

What's absurd is suggesting that someone who causes an accident through negligence should be completely innocent of any wrongdoing simply because not everyone can be caught doing the same thing.

Because the negligence you're suggesting is part of human nature.

People react to stimuli. Your phone beeps. You react. It's unavoidable.

You're suggesting punishing people for being human.

micropig

h2005 wrote: »

Considering the state of the child do you really think she is sitting on her arse all day? Would bringing in a nurse be cheaper? Its 4 years since the accident I`d imagine she has some experience by now but have no clue of her qualifications do you?

No that's why I'm asking, but I know she's not bright - she drove her child in the car without insurance


It's not about being cheaper, it's about providing the best care for the child. Money is no longer an issue.

So, again..with the money available to provide the best care round the clock, what will she be doing all day...driving him to appointments??

PrincessLola

How badly disabled is he? I mean is the child only physically disabled? Or is he mentally disabled too?
Because if he's only physically disabled then that doesn't mean he's going to have a "meaningless" existence for the rest of his life, it won't be easy but he could still have a life.

Anyway, even though it was the mother's fault I'd say she'd give up every penny in a heartbeat to reverse what happened.

damienirel

Bottom line is the mother was/is an idiot - who has got very unlucky/lucky.
This money won't change the fact that she's an idiot nor will it give the boy the use of his limbs again.

Lawyers take care of themselves - they're the ones laughing.

prinz

Seachmall wrote: »

Better than the alternative of jailing people for having innate reactions to stimuli.

So again I ask, if I take my eyes off the road for a second to check out a woman and in doing so knock and kill x number of people you don't think I should have any case to answer.. Just hop back in my car and say, 'I'm only human' and head home.

micropig

prinz wrote: »

So again I ask, if I take my eyes off the road for a second to check out a woman and in doing so knock and kill x number of people you don't think I should have any case to answer..

You'd be grand, once the woman was hot:pac::pac:

Seachmall

prinz wrote: »

So again I ask, if I take my eyes off the road for a second to check out a woman and in doing so knock and kill x number of people you don't think I should have any case to answer..

You had a lapse in concentration. You're human. It's unavoidable.

You're making a solid argument as to why we shouldn't drive, not as to why we should outlaw minute instances of innate human flaws.

kevin65

h2005 wrote: »

I`m curious what people think her punishment should be?

Me too, there is a lot of sh*t talk in this thread about how this woman should be 'punished'.

damienirel

kevin65 wrote: »

Me too, there is a lot of sh*t talk in this thread about how this woman should be 'punished'. Enlighten me...

I reckon she should be punished with 11 million quid because thats what she got.

Thrill

micropig wrote: »

So, again..with the money available to provide the best care round the clock, what will she be doing all day...driving him to appointments??

You are making the assumption that carers and doctors are going to be around 24/7.

Nowhere have I read that this will be the case.

prinz

Seachmall wrote: »

You had a lapse in concentration. You're human. It's unavoidable....

So is that a yes? Even if I knock down and kill say 4 kids? It was unavoidable and I'm free to go....

h2005

micropig wrote: »

No that's why I'm asking, but I know she's not bright - she drove her child in the car without insurance


It's not about being cheaper, it's about providing the best care for the child. Money is no longer an issue.

So, again..with the money available to provide the best care round the clock, what will she be doing all day...driving him to appointments??

You have no clue how bright she is.
The child`s mother and grandmother are the carers.
What if the mother caring for the child is whats best for the child?
You are hilarious.

Seachmall

damienirel wrote: »

I reckon she should be punished with 11 million quid because thats what she got.

She got nothing.

I'm pretty sure that has been explained numerous times.

prinz wrote: »

So is that a yes? Even if I knock down and kill say 4 kids? It was unavoidable and I'm free to go....

What's the alternative?

Jail you for being human?

Being human; the greatest crime against humanity known to man.

kevin65

damienirel wrote: »

kevin65 wrote: »

Me too, there is a lot of sh*t talk in this thread about how this woman should be 'punished'. Enlighten me...

I reckon she should be punished with 11 million quid because thats what she got.

She did not get the money, the child did.

micropig

Thrill wrote: »

You are making the assumption that carers and doctors are going to be around 24/7.

Nowhere have I read that this will be the case.

She has €11.5 million fund to hire private carers, doctor & nurses (whatever the child needs) around the clock



What else is the 11.5 million for, if it's not for the childs care?

Thrill

PrincessLola wrote: »

How badly disabled is he? I mean is the child only physically disabled? Or is he mentally disabled too?
Because if he's only physically disabled then that doesn't mean he's going to have a "meaningless" existence for the rest of his life, it won't be easy but he could still have a life.

Now a quadriplegic, he cannot breathe without assistance from a ventilator. He is being cared for on a 24 hour basis by both his mother and grandmother.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=78240615

micropig

h2005 wrote: »

You have no clue how bright she is.
The child`s mother and grandmother are the carers.
What if the mother caring for the child is whats best for the child?
You are hilarious.

Yeah, because driving your child in an uninsured vehicle shows the height of intelligence :rolleyes:


She didn't care for the child properly when he was fit & healthy, what makes you think she is capable of caring for a disabled child?

h2005

micropig wrote: »

Yeah, because driving your child in an uninsured vehicle shows the height of intelligence:rolleyes:

It shows neither intelligence or lack of

prinz

Seachmall wrote: »

Jail you for being human? Being human; the greatest crime against humanity known to man.

Can't give a straight answer I see. I have to say that just about takes the biscuit for the greatest load of cobblers I've seen on this site.

damienirel

kevin65 wrote: »

She did not get the money, the child did.

Yeah and whats he supposed to spend 11.5 mill on?
You'd be very naive or dumb to think she won't benefit from this?

You my friend live in la-de-da land where everybody is kind & honest and loving!
The world needs more people like you!

Seachmall

micropig wrote: »

Yeah, because driving your child in an uninsured vehicle shows the height of intelligence :rolleyes:


She didn't care for the child properly when he was fit & healthy, what makes you think she is capable of caring for a disabled child?

You seem to think her having insurance would somehow have prevented this accident.

That's not what insurance does. She took the exact same risk regardless if she had insurance or not.

prinz wrote: »

Can't give a straight answer I see.

I can, but I think pointing out how absurd the alternative is benefits my position.

h2005

She didn't care for the child properly when he was fit & healthy, what makes you think she is capable of caring for a disabled child?[/QUOTE]

How do you know that? She was involved in a car crash it happens every day of the week are all people involved in car crashes bad parents?

micropig

Seachmall wrote: »

You seem to think her having insurance would somehow have prevented this accident.

That's not what insurance does. She took the exact same risk regardless if she had insurance or not.
I can, but I think pointing out how absurd the alternative is benefits my position.

She should not have been driving the car. Is that difficult to understand?

prinz

Seachmall wrote: »

I can, but I think pointing out how absurd the alternative is benefits my position.

Absurd is thinking I can kill four kids because I was busy checking out my phone/a girl/animals beside the road and you don't think there should be any consequences whatsoever for that. I'm sure you'd be happy to send the man/woman who wipes out your family under similar circumstances home with a clap on the back and 'sure we're only human'. Utter daftness.

Thrill

micropig wrote: »

She has €11.5 million fund to hire private carers, doctor & nurses (whatever the child needs) around the clock



What else is the 11.5 million for, if it's not for the childs care?

I'm not going to make assumptions on how the money will be spent. The simple fact is, I don't know.

Neither do you.

micropig

h2005 wrote: »

How do you know that? She was involved in a car crash it happens every day of the week are all people involved in car crashes bad parents?

No but driving without insurance with your child in the care is not fantastic parenting, no matter what spin you try to put on it. She should not have been on the road.

Seachmall

micropig wrote: »

She should not have been driving the car. Is that difficult to understand?

I agree she should not have been driving the car.

But the reason she should not have been driving the car has no relation to why she crashed.

If, hypothetically, she had insurance everything in all probability would have panned out the same.

So attributing her not having insurance to her being involved in the accident, and by extension her competence in taking care of her child, is a non-sequitur.

micropig

Thrill wrote: »

I'm not going to make assumptions on how the money will be spent. The simple fact is, I don't know.

Neither do you.

So we can't assume the money is for the childs care??............