Injured child gets 11.5 million euros

micropig

It doesn't even seem this judgement is in the best interests of the child. Free lifetime medical care would have been more beneficial

According to the Irish Times

While stressing the settlement in this case was "excellent" as it was expected to meet all Cullen's lifelong care needs, Ms Justice Irvine said the continuing failure to enact laws providing for period payment orders involved injustice as some catastrophically injured persons would run out of funds for their care.

A second though lesser injustice due to the absence of legislation was that some catastrophically injured persons would die earlier than expected resulting in a "windfall" for their next of kin, she said.

Motorist

Over the top award even for the horrific injuries sustained.

I presume the mother who was driving the car will be prosecuted for dangerous driving given the accident. She should have her licence taken away from her. What a scumbag driving around without insurance.

doubletrouble?

tbh wrote: »

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.

you do have a point in that it was her son and she has to live with it for the rest of her life.. but i can tell you this if it was mine i'd be livid screaming for the death penalty.
as already pointed out it was going to happen either way. but take step back. she made a deliberate decision and in doing so drove her car illegally. as soon as she turned on the ignition she knew exactly what she was doing. there was no mistake no error.
tbh i dont want to get into a tit for tat with you. i've already had the unpleasant experience of being hit by an uninsured driver and i hope to god you never have to.
after watching the news again it looked like someone asked the mother to smile, but in saying that it didn't appear as if she had some sort of remorse for what she did.
just curious about the solicitors fees: who exactly pays that, i somehow suspect it'll be enormous.

h2005

doubletrouble? wrote: »

you do have a point in that it was her son and she has to live with it for the rest of her life.. but i can tell you this if it was mine i'd be livid screaming for the death penalty.
as already pointed out it was going to happen either way. but take step back. she made a deliberate decision and in doing so drove her car illegally. as soon as she turned on the ignition she knew exactly what she was doing. there was no mistake no error.
tbh i dont want to get into a tit for tat with you. i've already had the unpleasant experience of being hit by an uninsured driver and i hope to god you never have to.
after watching the news again it looked like someone asked the mother to smile, but in saying that it didn't appear as if she had some sort of remorse for what she did.
just curious about the solicitors fees: who exactly pays that, i somehow suspect it'll be enormous.

Seriously?

newcavanman

Kosseegan wrote: »

The MIBI can now sue the mother to get the money back. If you look at the lust of published judgements you will see numerous cases where the MIBI obtain judgement against uninsured individuals. Aside from that it is an offence to drive withouit insurance and being convicted of doing so can result in jail.

Does anyone really think this woman will ever see the inside of a jail? not a chance . In this country, we reward incompetence . My wife works in a special needs school, and if you saw what some parents have to deal with, and no carers allowance for them . This woman says she was " distracted " by her child ? welcome to the real world. She was an uninsured driver, she should go to jail, full stop . Whilst i have great sympathy for her child, the simple fact is , that she was criminally irresponsible and is now being rewarded with a job for life . Of course one major consolation is that, im sure she will now have a properly adapted car, and will have enough money to pay her insurance from now on

dvpower

newcavanman wrote: »

Whilst i have great sympathy for her child, the simple fact is , that she was criminally irresponsible and is now being rewarded with a job for life .

Only the most twisted mind could reach this conclusion.

IM0

so an uninsured mother cripples her son and they get 11.5m between them

*chicing*

$$
v

newcavanman

dvpower wrote: »

Only the most twisted mind could reach this conclusion.

Not twisted at all. Simply stating a fact . Many other families end up with children requiring huge amounts of care, through no fault on the parents part . This woman was hugely careless . One of the main concerns all such parents have, is the financial security of their children, should anything happen to them . In this womans case, that is no longer an issue. She and her children will never have financial worries again.
I have seen comments earlier today, where people have queried whether they should bother getting insurance, when apparently those who dont bother to ensure they are properly covered, get equal benefits . This is the legacy of judgements such as todays .

marxcoo

basically a nice loophole in order for someone to sue the mother while at the same time making her the beneficiary seeing as she is the main caregiver. Very odd case.

JonathanAnon

My blood was boiling listening to their solicitor on the news saying that (paraphrasing) "it was only right that some of the 11.5 million would be paid to people who have provided care to Cullen since the accident"...

Given that the mother seems to have a new found sense of what is "right", I would like to ask her is it "right" that those fees for her negligence on both accounts (i.e. i) not having insurance and ii) not driving with due care) be paid by other drivers who DID insure their cars...

The judgements in this case and the case involving the guard yesterday shows that our "justice" system treats certain people differently...

UglyBolloxFace

First of all, let me say that I sympathise with the poor lad of course, and I also sympathise with the mother to a certain degree.

But the fact of the matter is this - if she had have been a law-abiding citizen, i.e. not driven without insurance, then her child would not be paralysed.

It really is as simple as that.

extra-ordinary_

ffs this is a long thread.

The victim here is the child...his life ruined. The child suffered injury due to a momentary lapse in concentration of the driver of the vehicle he was travelling in.
The fact that the driver was uninsured or that it was his mother, didn't cause the injury.
To say she shouldn't have been driving in the first place is totally irrelevant and does nothing to help the victim here. The law deals with what has happened and not what should or shouldn't have happened.
To put the mother in prison only victimises the child even more.

There are payments made by the insurance bureau all the time. this one only notable for the amount involved.

A tragic story, mother and son's life changed forever - due to a 'momentary lapse in concentration'. But for the grace of god...

IrishHomer

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

First of all, let me say that I sympathise with the poor lad of course, and I also sympathise with the mother to a certain degree.

But the fact of the matter is this - if she had have been a law-abiding citizen, i.e. not driven without insurance, then her child would not be paralysed.

It really is as simple as that.

Someone should grow balls and request under foi what the Guards did in relation to the mother breaking the law and also I'd love to know who her legal team are shrewd operators

looksee

If you divide 11.5m by sixty years (possible lifetime, if unlikely) it works out at just under €5 an hour. (I think, I'm not great at the sums) Now I know that is very simplistic and investments will change the amount, but for someone who will need 24 hour care it doesn't really seem too much.

It does make you wonder how people with relatives or children similarly affected and who were not in a car crash manage to care for them.

Justin10

I had to read the article 3 times before I figured out what was going on.

Am I right in saying that some of the money will be going to pay the mother for looking after her child?

Motorist

looksee wrote: »

If you divide 11.5m by sixty years (possible lifetime, if unlikely) it works out at just under €5 an hour. (I think, I'm not great at the sums) Now I know that is very simplistic and investments will change the amount, but for someone who will need 24 hour care it doesn't really seem too much.

It does make you wonder how people with relatives or children similarly affected and who were not in a car crash manage to care for them.

You're presuming the child will live that long. If the child should die in the next two years, the remainder of the award will go to the mother.

micropig

Rochey18 wrote: »

I had to read the article 3 times before I figured out what was going on.

Am I right in saying that some of the money will be going to pay the mother for looking after her child?

yes, it seems that way as she is the primary carer, along with the childs grandmother

The Davestator

Motorist wrote: »

You're presuming the child will live that long. If the child should die in the next two years, the remainder of the award will go to the mother.

Have you got a link for that as it was the mother who was sued so why would she get a cent if the boy died?

Milk & Honey

tbh wrote: »

the case was taken by the grandfather against the mother. the mother is the childs full time carer, and the family say a significant portion of the award will be used to pay for past care. The money will also be managed by the court.

The case was against the Martin Kennedy. The mother was Margaret Kennedy.

Motorist

The Davestator wrote: »

Have you got a link for that as it was the mother who was sued so why would she get a cent if the boy died?

The case is now over. Should he die prematurely, that money will not go back to the MIBI. It will be inherited by his mother or father or whoever his guardian is. Disgusting system.

NIMAN

This is a strange, and of course, sad case.

Really feel for the young lad, but the accident was caused by a lack of concentration by his uninsured mum.

I don't mind the money going to him, but we are all in effect paying for her stupidity.

And the one thing I really don't understand is why is she entitled to money should he die? Surely the money should only exist to care for him? If he is no longer alive why should his mother become a millionaire, through crippling her own child?

Milk & Honey

The Davestator wrote: »

Have you got a link for that as it was the mother who was sued so why would she get a cent if the boy died?

It wasn't the mother who was sued. The MIBI will get a judgement against her for the money. If he dies within the twelve years after the judgement the MIBI will be able to take back the balance of the money.

run_Forrest_run

I'm baffled and angered by this story, to see the mother nearly parading her son in front of the media outside the court bugged me.
The poor little lad is the innocent victim in this case but I'm baffled, whatever cute arrangement made between the mother and grandfather made to exploit the lame system in this country, I think I'll cancel my insurance tomorrow.

Motorist

NIMAN wrote: »

This is a strange, and of course, sad case.

Really feel for the young lad, but the accident was caused by a lack of concentration by his uninsured mum.

I don't mind the money going to him, but we are all in effect paying for her stupidity.

And the one thing I really don't understand is why is she entitled to money should he die? Surely the money should only exist to care for him? If he is no longer alive why should his mother become a millionaire, through crippling her own child?

The money should of course be paid out on an annual basis. If the child dies, the money should be stopped. This is the rotten system we have here.

prinz

Milk & Honey wrote: »

It wasn't the mother who was sued..

It was the mother, the MIBI pay on her behalf because she's uninsured. Separately the MIBI take a case against her to have a judgement made against her

The system used in court saw the case taken by the child's grandfather - against Ms Kennedy.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0420/largest-settlement-ever-in-high-court-11-5m.html

Do you have any evidence that she wasn't the named defendant?

Milk & Honey

NIMAN wrote: »

This is a strange, and of course, sad case.

Really feel for the young lad, but the accident was caused by a lack of concentration by his uninsured mum.

I don't mind the money going to him, but we are all in effect paying for her stupidity.

And the one thing I really don't understand is why is she entitled to money should he die? Surely the money should only exist to care for him? If he is no longer alive why should his mother become a millionaire, through crippling her own child?

The mother will not become a millionaire because there will be a judgement against her for the full sum with accumulating interest. If she wins the lotto tommorrow the MIBI will want its money.

Motorist

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The mother will not become a millionaire because there will be a judgement against her for the full sum with accumulating interest. If she wins the lotto tommorrow the MIBI will want its money.

The MIBI will not sue unless they can get a substantial amount of money from her. They can't touch the 11.5 million unless the child dies in which she case she would inherit the money. If the child dies more than 5 years from now, the MIBI can not sue due to the statute of limitations.

Milk & Honey

Motorist wrote: »

The MIBI will not sue unless they can get a substantial amount of money from her. They can't touch the 11.5 million unless the child dies in which she case she would inherit the money. If the child dies more than 5 years from now, the MIBI can not sue due to the statute of limitations.

The MIBI always sue and get judgement. The judgement will be good for 12 years from the last acknowledgement or the date of perfection of the order.

Motorist

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The MIBI always sue and get judgement. The judgement will be good for 12 years from the last acknowledgement or the date of perfection of the order.

They won't sue most likely.

shankespony

what a country we live in, we couldn't find that amount during the celtic tiger to give young girls the cancer vaccine!