Injured child gets 11.5 million euros

kevin65

damienirel wrote: »

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!

Yes, perhaps I believe the money will be in trust and used to pay for all documented medical expenses which this child will have rather than believing the mother is receiving a cheque to spend at her discretion. When the actor Christopher Reeve broke his neck and became quadraplegic he was in a similar situation wrt care and it cost him a fortune.

micropig

Seachmall wrote: »

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.

If she had insurance, I would have more sympathy for her, as it shows she took all due care when deciding to take her child out in the car

seamus

Seachmall wrote: »

What's the alternative?

Jail you for being human?

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

To be fair Seachmall, I think the point is that in most other cases, someone who caused a serious accident while driving uninsured would almost certainly be charged with at least two offences:

- Dangerous driving
- Driving without insurance

Dangerous driving is an offence because it acknowledges that driving is an inherently risky activity which requires the driver to exercise a higher level of caution than you would otherwise expect, including actively working to avoid momentary lapses in concentration.
While you can say from time to time that "to err is human", at the same time the human erred when another human may not have. In this case, she should not have allowed herself to become distracted. It was avoidable.

It may be the case that she has already been charged with these offences, or it may be the case that the DPP have decided not to push ahead on the basis that there is no punishment which could be handed down that would have a greater effect than what's already happened to her.

In reality most people wouldn't get a custodial sentence for what she did anyway.

Dudess

Prinz, checking out a woman is something you can control, your concentration being broken by your kid making noises about animals on the road isn't. Weak comparison.

Seachmall

prinz wrote: »

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.

Are we talking about momentary lapses in concentration or perving for an extended period of time?

If the former, then it's human nature. Outlawing human nature is too 1984 for my liking.

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.

No need to resort to emotional arguments.

Thoie

When I heard this, my initial thoughts were "FFS".

However, after doing some maths, I worked out that if, for example, a carer costs €20 per hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for maybe another 60 years. That comes to €10.5 million.

Now, the mother and grandmother are looking after him, so that sum isn't going to be needed for the first, say, 30 years. But it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the cost of carers could double to €40 per hour (or more) in 30 years time, which would balance out. Plus, there'll be other expenses in the intervening years (though there'll also be interest earning on the capital). So while it looks like a fantastical amount of money, it probably just about works out.

The pity is that we, as a country, can't afford to dedicate that amount of money to other unfortunates who may also need extensive care.

micropig

prinz wrote: »

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.

& then hire them to be the carer for any paraplegic survivors:p

micropig

Thoie wrote: »

When I heard this, my initial thoughts were "FFS".

However, after doing some maths, I worked out that if, for example, a carer costs €20 per hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for maybe another 60 years. That comes to €10.5 million.

Now, the mother and grandmother are looking after him, so that sum isn't going to be needed for the first, say, 30 years. But it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the cost of carers could double to €40 per hour (or more) in 30 years time, which would balance out. Plus, there'll be other expenses in the intervening years (though there'll also be interest earning on the capital). So while it looks like a fantastical amount of money, it probably just about works out.

The pity is that we, as a country, can't afford to dedicate that amount of money to other unfortunates who may also need extensive care.

So we're paying this to the mother who caused the accident...and who said the mother won't benefit?

and if we're not, with 24 hour care, nothing stopping her from getting a job.

Thrill

micropig wrote: »

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

Not necessarily on doctors and carers being around 24/7 so the mother can sit on her ass.

Seachmall

seamus wrote: »

While you can say from time to time that "to err is human", at the same time the human erred when another human may not have.

But we're talking about instances where near everybody in that instance would err.

Examples,

Phone rings. Attention is diverted.
Hot person walks by. Attention is diverted.
Gravel hits windscreen. Attention is diverted.

Responses to these things are innate in all of us, universal among everybody. They could only be split second lapses of concentration but that's enough time to wipe out a family.

It's not like somebody is intentionally and consciously diverting their attention, it's a reaction to stimuli that is unavoidable.

UrbanSea

His mum is kind of hot

Dudess

Seachmall wrote: »

prinz wrote: »

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.

Are we talking about momentary lapses in concentration or perving for an extended period of time?

If the former, then it's human nature. Outlawing human nature is too 1984 for my liking.

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.

No need to resort to emotional arguments.

Such arguments are so pointless - obviously your judgement would be skewed when you're emotionally involved, but you're not, so it's moot. It's not as if you're doing the equivalent of clapping her on the back and saying "we're only human" anyway - you're literally just making the point it could have happened in a split second because of a barely conscious reflex action.
Not "blamey" enough for the witchfinder generals of the net though...

Thoie

micropig wrote: »

So we're paying this to the mother who caused the accident...and who said the mother won't benefit?

and if we're not, with 24 hour care, nothing stopping her from getting a job.

Well, if you read what I've written, I was assuming the mother/granny would be providing sole care (without payment) for the first 30 years, but that the cost could easily be >€40 per hour for the second 30 years.

Dudess

Seachmall wrote: »

seamus wrote: »

While you can say from time to time that "to err is human", at the same time the human erred when another human may not have.

But we're talking about instances where near everybody in that instance would err.

Examples,

Phone rings. Attention is diverted.
Hot person walks by. Attention is diverted.
Gravel hits windscreen. Attention is diverted.

Responses to these things are innate in all of us, universal among everybody. They could only be split second lapses of concentration but that's enough time to wipe out a family.

It's not like somebody is intentionally and consciously diverting their attention, it's a reaction to stimuli that is unavoidable.

Expect this valid point to be ignored by the mob.

Dudess

micropig wrote: »

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??............

Of course we can, as opposed to hoping it will be used for big TVs and bla bla. What's the fake puzzlement about?

seamus

Seachmall wrote: »

It's not like somebody is intentionally and consciously diverting their attention, it's a reaction to stimuli that is unavoidable.

I don't entirely agree. Reaction to stimuli is avoidable. Or at the very least one has conscious control over how they react to these stimuli. Phone rings, I keep driving and pull in when safe. Hot girl, make conscious effort not to look. Gravel hits windscreen, ignore it. I agree that it requires part of your brain to focus on it for a second, but thankfully we have multitasking brains which can make a conscious decision to react or not react, while still focussing on the task at hand.

The reaction is avoidable, however it is also understandable, because in any other case where your guard is down, you will automatically react to the stimuli instead of controlling your actions.

Which is my point about dangerous driving. It's a reflection of the fact that people need to drive with their guard up at all times, so we can't just write off incidents as, "Ah shure it could happen to a nun", we need to consider whether the driver made an avoidable mistake. I would argue in this case that she did.

micropig

Dudess wrote: »

Of course we can, as opposed to hoping it will be used for big TVs and bla bla. What's the fake puzzlement about?

Because I am confused. I assumed the money was for the childs care, but was told not to make assumptions like that:rolleyes:

prinz

Seachmall wrote: »

No need to resort to emotional arguments.

(a) It's not an emotional argument it's a question and (b) it better suited my position, just like they way you consistently refused to answer a yes/no question.

prinz

Seachmall wrote: »

It's not like somebody is intentionally and consciously diverting their attention, it's a reaction to stimuli that is unavoidable.

You don't have to be intentionally and conciously diverting your attention to be held somewhat to account for what happens if you do. Can you not grasp that? You are suggesting I could kill four children entirely through my own fault and not get prison time, not get a suspended sentence, not get a conviction, not even get a fine, not be punished in any way whatsoever because 'I'm only human' is in your eyes a valid legal excuse.

Dudess wrote: »

Not "blamey" enough for the witchfinder generals of the net though...

Dudess wrote: »

Expect this valid point to be ignored by the mob.

Bit rich to thank a post complaining about emotional arguments and then follow it up with the above nonsense. See above about how ludicrous it actually is... we're not talking about burning people at the stake.

hondasam

micropig wrote: »

I don't begrudge the child the money, but why is the child still in the mothers custody?

Where would you like him to be? she is not a bad mother, she made a mistake but she never left the house that morning with the intentions of causing an accident that left her son the way he is.
I know she had no insurance and there is no excuse but it happens, she has paid a very high price for her mistake. If she had insurance the accident would still have happened.
The biggest problem I think is the fact he was not restrained properly and this is a big problem with lots of parents.

Edit I heard on the news today they are giving money to the hospital who looked after him.

Seachmall

seamus wrote: »

I don't entirely agree. Reaction to stimuli is avoidable. Or at the very least one has conscious control over how they react to these stimuli. Phone rings, I keep driving and pull in when safe. Hot girl, make conscious effort not to look. Gravel hits windscreen, ignore it. I agree that it requires part of your brain to focus on it for a second, but thankfully we have multitasking brains which can make a conscious decision to react or not react, while still focussing on the task at hand.

The reaction is avoidable, however it is also understandable, because in any other case where your guard is down, you will automatically react to the stimuli instead of controlling your actions.

Which is my point about dangerous driving. It's a reflection of the fact that people need to drive with their guard up at all times, so we can't just write off incidents as, "Ah shure it could happen to a nun", we need to consider whether the driver made an avoidable mistake. I would argue in this case that she did.

I agree it can be avoidable, but not at all times for all people. Somebody prepared for such instances can probably avoid reacting to most stimuli but of course it's impossible to maintain that mental state for a long period of time without specific training.

I'm sure we've all had cases where we're driving or in the passenger seat when gravel smacks the windscreen and your reaction (or the driver's reaction) is a reflex jump or scream or even swerve.

With training we can prevent those responses, and those responses could result in a lapse of concentration which could result in a fatal accident, but we don't currently have it. Suggesting that having those reactions should be criminalised is outrages.

Not all people can consistently drive with their guard up either. Elderly people, for example, would (I'd imagine) find it more difficult than a 20-something year old. Should they either be banned from driving or allowed to drive as long as they don't respond to the unexpected?

It also all varies from person to person.


And even when trained it takes time to kick in the training. I don't think you'd be able to completely override them (we spent millions of years refining them after all) and it only takes a fraction of a second to lose control.

I just think it's unenforceable, impractical, and ultimately a law against being human.

prinz wrote: »

(a) It's not an emotional argument it's a question and (b) it better suited my position, just like they way you consistently refused to answer a yes/no question.

It's an appeal to emotion.

prinz wrote: »

You don't have to be intentionally and conciously diverting your attention to be held somewhat to account for what happens if you do. Can you not grasp that? You are suggesting I could kill four children entirely through my own fault and not get prison time, not get a suspended sentence, not get a conviction, not even get a fine, not be punished in any way whatsoever because 'I'm only human' is in your eyes a valid legal excuse.

I'm suggesting your falling to respond appropriately is a result of evolution, not a failing of you personally and thus should not be treated as such.

micropig

hondasam wrote: »

Where would you like him to be? she is not a bad mother, she made a mistake but she never left the house that morning with the intentions of causing an accident that left her son the way he is.
I know she had no insurance and there is no excuse but it happens, she has paid a very high price for her mistake. If she had insurance the accident would still have happened.
The biggest problem I think is the fact he was not restrained properly and this is a big problem with lots of parents.

Accident may still have happened, I can't say whether it would or not, but the fact remains, she should never have set out on the journey that morning without it.

It does seem that the child wasn't restrained properly, but I can't find any reports to back this up, but if true, also the mothers responsibility to check/ensure child is properly restrained

Mat the trasher

What happened in after the car crash? Was Margaret Kennedy charged with driving without insurance or failing to insure under aged passengers where correctly restrained?

Dudess

micropig wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

Of course we can, as opposed to hoping it will be used for big TVs and bla bla. What's the fake puzzlement about?

Because I am confused. I assumed the money was for the childs care, but was told not to make assumptions like that:rolleyes:

No you weren't - don't be silly.

To the witch-hunters: you know the way you refute someone inadvertently diverting their attention because of an external stimulus that is outside of their control - think of the way your knees jerked when you saw this story: it's along those lines.

hondasam

micropig wrote: »

Accident may still have happened, I can't say whether it would or not, but the fact remains, she should never have set out on the journey that morning without it.

It does seem that the child wasn't restrained properly, but I can't find any reports to back this up, but if true, also the mothers responsibility to check/ensure child is properly restrained

It is the mothers responsibility and I blame her for this but I also feel sorry for her it is her child and no parent sets out to cause an injury to their child.
It was an accident and no amount of blame is going to undo what happened, I'm sure she has blamed herself every minute of every day since.
I was stopped at lights today and the car in front had a little girl about 4yrs and she was standing between the front seats, this I cannot understand, why people think this is ok.

doubletrouble?

Seachmall wrote: »

Or, had she obeyed the law and had gotten insurance the accident would still have occurred.

so what are we talking/debating about in this thread.is it the fact that the child got the highest payout in the state or the mother drove with no insurance?

dvpower wrote: »

If the child wasn't her own then it would be a whole lot easier for her to deal with what happened. Completely different circumstance.

yep because she'd probably get a lengthy ban and do some jail time. i dont think many people are sitting on the fence on this one. if it was someone else's child the up roar would be different. and if it was my child she did it to.
well just say it's not for posting here and lets be honest most of us would feel the same if it was ours.

micropig

hondasam wrote: »

It is the mothers responsibility and I blame her for this but I also feel sorry for her it is her child and no parent sets out to cause an injury to their child.
It was an accident and no amount of blame is going to undo what happened, I'm sure she has blamed herself every minute of every day since.
I was stopped at lights today and the car in front had a little girl about 4yrs and she was standing between the front seats, this I cannot understand, why people think this is ok.

No amount of blame is going to undo it, but neither will any amount of money..it can only make life more comfortable for the child.


Child standing between seats...more parents who need parenting classes, would they also be seen as blameless if they crashed, I'm sure they wouldn't mean to, but these things happen and all precautions should be taken

Mat the trasher

hondasam wrote: »

I was stopped at lights today and the car in front had a little girl about 4yrs and she was standing between the front seats, this I cannot understand, why people think this is ok.

Funny how the world here works, if 4yr old child was instead an employee and there was a crash killing that employee then, the driver could be charged with negligent manslaughter.

tbh

doubletrouble? wrote: »

Seachmall wrote: »

Or, had she obeyed the law and had gotten insurance the accident would still have occurred.

so what are we talking/debating about in this thread.is it the fact that the child got the highest payout in the state or the mother drove with no insurance?

dvpower wrote: »

If the child wasn't her own then it would be a whole lot easier for her to deal with what happened. Completely different circumstance.

yep because she'd probably get a lengthy ban and do some jail time. i dont think many people are sitting on the fence on this one. if it was someone else's child the up roar would be different. and if it was my child she did it to.
well just say it's not for posting here and lets be honest most of us would feel the same if it was ours.

people go to prison as punishment. Most people would accept she's already been punished far beyond any limits the law would define. there is simply no point on sending her to prison other than some sick pound of flesh mentality. Most drivers caught driving without insurance don't get sent to prison.

prinz

Seachmall wrote: »

I'm suggesting your falling to respond appropriately is a result of evolution, not a failing of you personally and thus should not be treated as such.

If you can't respond to my question and prefer to dismiss it as an appeal to emotion I'm going to assume it's because in that instance you wouldn't accept your own reasoning now as a valid argument, which is where you armchair philosophy falls down. In the real world when doctors, drivers, pilots, fairground workers etc etc suffer lapses in concentration which result in injuries and death.. blaming evolution isn't a satisfactory outcome.

Dudess wrote: »

To the witch-hunters: you know the way you refute someone inadvertently diverting their attention because of an external stimulus that is outside of their control - think of the way your knees jerked when you saw this story: it's along those lines.

Nobody has 'refuted someone inadvertently diverting their attention'. I didn't mean for that to happen isn't a valid excuse for a raft of other crimes and outcomes, I don't see why it should be accepted when it comes to destroying lives in a car by doing something easily avoidable. Somebody stumbles off the road in front of you car.... you didn't mean to hit them. You hit somebody crossing a zebra crossing because you were checking which station your radio was tuned to...very different.