Injured child gets 11.5 million euros

drkpower

Motorist wrote: »

I would say not looking at the road is dangerous driving. I would say not looking at the road (to such an extent the vehicle travels across the road and a head on collision occurs) on a national primary road where the usual travelling speed of vehicles is approx. 80kmp/h is certainly dangerous driving.

So the 20mph has nothing to do with it then?!

Would you consider it dangerous driving to not look at the road for any period of time regardless of the circumstances?

Motorist

drkpower wrote: »

So the 20mph has nothing to do with it then?!

Would you consider it dangerous driving to not look at the road for any period of time regardless of the circumstances?

I would say on a national primary road, the speed was likely to be far in excess of 20mph.
Only the garda forensics team and people involved in the collision know more accurately what speed she was travelling at.

Not looking at the road directly ahead occurs every day in driving such as checking blind spots, etc. Not looking at the road for a significant period of time is dangerous driving, in my opinion. A significant period of time would include losing situational awareness to such an extent that you cross onto the opposite side of the road.

How do you suppose a child restrained managed to be projected into the windscreen? In your opinion, will this woman take a case taken against the manufacturer of the booster seat ?

Capt'n Midnight

Statistics show that in the UK, uninsured drivers are responsible for around 160 fatalities and 23,000 injuries to road users every year.

IRISH DRIVERS PAID out almost €59 million in 2010 as a result of uninsured drivers and hit and runs. ... The MIBI did manage to recover almost €6 million last year by taking uninsured drivers to court. However, the difference in the money paid and the money recovered must by covered by other Irish drivers.Last year 15 people were killed by uninsured and hit and run drivers

http://www.axa.ie/general/axa-latest-news.aspx

According to AXA Claims figures, you have a 1 in 20 chance of coming into contact with an uninsured driver. The Motor Insurance Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) has stated that approximately 100,000 vehicles in the state are currently uninsured. In 2010 the MIBI were notified of *2232 claims in relation to uninsured drivers.

Uninsured driving has been a thorn in the side of honest policyholders for many years with claims involving uninsured drivers adding on average *€45 to the cost of the average motor insurance premium each year.

In the UK
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/motors/2011/0629/1224299725080.html

Last week Britain introduced a law making it an offence to own an uninsured vehicle – even if kept in a garage or permanently parked up. Until now it had only been an offence to drive an uninsured vehicle.

The high level of evasion speaks for it's self
Detection should be fairly easy with all the CCTV on the M50 and other roads and the cameras in Garda cars.

NB. if you ever borrow someone else's car read the policy first in case the conditions are different to last year / the last company you were with.



Have to agree that this case doesn't send the right signal about driving without insurance.

Has the license been endorsed.
If there is a fine to pay is it substantially greater than the insurance would have been, - in the past boy racers have been fined fractions of what the saved by getting insured !
Should people caught without insurance have to redo the driving test, including the lessons ?

one wonders what her new premium would be ?

BostonB

I seriously doubt, there's any worse punishment than their current situation. Or indeed any punishment that would do anything except punish the child further. As such I'm baffled why people are fixated on punishing them further.

That I don't really understand the payment. If thats the intent of the fund, or if the state can't provide for them.

drkpower

Motorist wrote: »

I would say on a national primary road, the speed was likely to be far in excess of 20mph.
Only the garda forensics team and people involved in the collision know more accurately what speed she was travelling at.

Not looking at the road directly ahead occurs every day in driving such as checking blind spots, etc. Not looking at the road for a significant period of time is dangerous driving, in my opinion. A significant period of time would include losing situational awareness to such an extent that you cross onto the opposite side of the road.

How do you suppose a child restrained managed to be projected into the windscreen? In your opinion, will there this woman take a case taken against the manufacturer of the booster seat ?

But your assertion earlier was that driving over 20mph amounted to dangerous driving; have you reconsidered?

How long does it take to cross the opposite side of the road while driving at 100kph (presumably the limit)?

I have no idea how the seat was projected; i dont know what speed it takes for that to happen.

Motorist

drkpower wrote: »

But your assertion earlier was that driving over 20mph amounted to dangerous driving; have you reconsidered?

How long does it take to cross the opposite side of the road while driving at 100kph (presumably the limit)?

I have no idea how the seat was projected; i dont know what speed it takes for that to happen.

You asked at what speed can spinal cord damage occur. I asserted at around 20mph.

As for the "massive spinal cord damage" this particular child suffered which resulted in quadriplegia, I would say a speed in excess of that would be necessary.

I find it interesting that the other occupant's seatbelts restrained them successfully, yet this child was thrown into the windscreen from his booster seat. Something is amiss.

Capt'n Midnight

CamperMan wrote: »

your insurance premiums will go up. to help with payouts like this

2.5 million cars so about €4.60 each

But that would happen whether she was insured or not.


http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/50502/motor-insurance-up-three-per-cent

The Government levy on all non-life insurance policies has increased from three per cent to five per cent,” says director of policy Conor Faughnan. “This alone adds nearly €12 to the average policy and more to the higher value ones. It is one more straw on the camel’s back for motorists already suffering tax increases on fuel and road tax.”

....
AA Ireland also surmises that the €127 million claims bill from last October’s floods is bound to affect non-life assurance premiums across the board over coming months.

“In a period of just two years we experienced four of the most destructive weather events recorded in this country at a cost to insurers of almost €900 million. If we take a rough figure of 3.1 million non-life insurance policies for Ireland, this would equate to an increase of €290 per policy if absorbed in one single year,” calculates Faughnan.

You might say that this would be spread across other types of insurance but the reality of the situation is that car insurance will have to adsorb external costs. And of course all those fraudulent claims.


Anyone remember the PMPA levy too ?


So if you took out the brokers cut, the govt levy, the VAT, the uninsured drivers you could create a pay per mile basic insurance funded by an increase in fuel tax. Perhaps you could claim a tax rebate if you had no claims ?

drkpower

Motorist wrote: »

You asked at what speed can spinal cord damage occur. I asserted at around 20mph.

As for the "massive spinal cord damage" this particular child suffered which resulted in quadriplegia, I would say a speed in excess of that would be necessary.

I find it interesting that the other passengers seatbelts restrained them successfully, yet this child was thrown into the windscreen from his booster seat. Something is amiss.

You said that driving a vehicle into an oncoming car (and at a speed which results in the projection of an unrestrained child into the windscreen and causes massive spinal cord damage (which you later clarified to mean 20/30mph or so) was dangerous driving. But in fairness, you seem to be moving a bit from that position.

The booster seat issue does seem unusual; i would hope that a booster seat, properly restrained to the seat, should be capable of withstanding a collision at reasonable speeds (or at least i would hope so).

Motorist

drkpower wrote: »

You said that driving a vehicle into an oncoming car (and at a speed which results in the projection of an unrestrained child into the windscreen and causes massive spinal cord damage (which you later clarified to mean 20/30mph or so) was dangerous driving. But in fairness, you seem to be moving a bit from that position.

The booster seat issue does seem unusual; i would hope that a booster seat, properly restrained to the seat, should be capable of withstanding a collision at reasonable speeds (or at least i would hope so).

In my opinion, driving a vehicle into an oncoming car and at a speed which results in the projection of an unrestrained child into the windscreen and causes massive spinal cord damage due to a "lapse" in concentration is driving in a manner which is dangerous to the public.

You asked what speed causes spinal cord injury. I clarified in general that speed to be 20 to 30 mph to cause minor spinal cord injury of no great consequence.

Separately the speed which resulted in massive spinal cord damage resulting in quadriplegia in this particular case is different, and in my opinion far in excess of that. The factor of speed should not of course be taken alone, but rather in context of everything else happening. I do not think driving at 100mph on an empty motorway at night is dangerous driving.

Good night.

Madd Finn

Seachmall wrote: »

Insured or uninsured she took the same risk and showed the same level of regard for her son as any mother who drivers their children to school.

WHAT?????

Never mind her "Can't pay, won't pay" attitude to insurance. How come the child hit the windscreen with such force that he was rendered quadruplegic? Doesn't sound to me like he was properly secured into a car seat/seat belt.

Which is also against the law BTW, as well as being damn negligent.

Bullseye1

If this poor unfortunate child was crossing the road and was knocked down by a careless driver who had no insurance people would be saying throw away the keys. Why is this situation any different. We have a dangerous driver without insurance causing serious injuries to a child. She should be in jail.

BeerWolf

I'm not following... the grandmother is the one suing, who exactly is she suing ?

ResearchWill

BeerWolf wrote: »

I'm not following... the grandmother is the one suing, who exactly is she suing ?

The child as a minor can not sue in his own name, usually the mother sues as "mother and next friend" but as the mother is the defendant she can not also be the next friend so a close relative or guardian is named, I do not know why it was not the father, he may not be around or if the car was his and he was the insured while not driving he may also have had to be a named defendant, to be honest I'm only guessing why the father was not the next friend. The defendants listed would more than likely been mother and MIBI.

Just checked the courts listing it was the father and MIBI that are defendants, so it maybe that the car was insured by the father but driven by the mother.

Nulty

Have you seen pictures of the mother!?

On the right (obv)

BeerWolf

ResearchWill wrote: »

The child as a minor can not sue in his own name, usually the mother sues as "mother and next friend" but as the mother is the defendant she can not also be the next friend so a close relative or guardian is named, I do not know why it was not the father, he may not be around or if the car was his and he was the insured while not driving he may also have had to be a named defendant, to be honest I'm only guessing why the father was not the next friend. The defendants listed would more than likely been mother and MIBI.

Just checked the courts listing it was the father and MIBI that are defendants, so it maybe that the car was insured by the father but driven by the mother.

No, I mean the grandmother is suing her daughter - why is it the state that is giving the compensation, taking into account the mother was uninsured to begin with?

Sorry if I'm being a tad ignorant here...

ResearchWill

BeerWolf wrote: »

No, I mean the grandmother is suing her daughter - why is it the state that is giving the compensation, taking into account the mother was uninsured to begin with?

Sorry if I'm being a tad ignorant here...

Ok first of all the child is the plaintiff, the grand mother is named as next friend, in fact as I pointed out the courts services web site say that the defendants are the father and the MIBI. The state are not paying out the MIBI or in reality all the motor insurers are paying out. Usually what happens in an MIBI claim the MIBI nominate an insurance company to do the claim. But it seems to me that as the father was named as defendant he must have had insurance on the car, but as wife was not covered then it became an MIBI claim. More than likely the insurance company paying out are the ones the father was covered with that's the usual anyway.

Mint Sauce

Slightly puzzled by all this as well on how this payment has worked.

Putting that aside though, I feel for the kid, I feel for the mother in terms of her lapse has left her kid quadrapledgic. In terms of that, whether she was insured or not, her momentary lapse has caused this, will propbably stay with her and haunt her for the rest of her life.

CaliforniaDream

I have to say, seeing a photo of the child brought tears to my eyes.
I don't know why, he just has a sweet face. I feel for him that he'll never have a normal life.
I hope the compensation makes it easier for him at least. As to who should be his carer, that's not for me to judge. If something benefits the child then I agree with it.

It also makes me glad I don't have kids because I can't imagine what I'd do in this situation.

gerryo777

Motorist wrote: »

Mr Shatter is not his wife. Did he force his wife to drink alcohol and then get behind the wheel of a car?

The same as this kid is not his mother.

Did he force his mother to drive with no insurance?
Should he suffer more because she didn't?

gerryo777

BeerWolf wrote: »

No, I mean the grandmother is suing her daughter - why is it the state that is giving the compensation, taking into account the mother was uninsured to begin with?

Sorry if I'm being a tad ignorant here...

The state is not giving the compensation.

latenia

I find it really disturbing the way the media report these cases in Ireland; all the mother and son needed was a giant novelty cheque and it could have been a lotto win being covered. Given the circumstances of the incident a smiling photocall outside the courts was completely inappropriate.

I also think the award should be based on whatever the child's needs are for the rest of his life, say €100k per annum or something like that. What if he dies in a couple of years? Then the mother hits payola big time. Conversely, what if we experience hyperinflation? €10M could be worth peanuts.

branbee

The opinions in this thread remind me of the thread about the dog who bit the thiefs hand. Some people wouldn't "praise" the dog because "what if it was a child he did it to", but now when it comes to this case the people talking about how the mother shouldn't be punished won't look at it objectively as if it was their child that woman injured.
Btw it purely coincidental that Im comparing the mother to a dog here!

As for the money, people keep saying she'll have to live with it forever and that's punishment enough, if my child suffered any injury due to my own mistakes going to court for money would be the last thing on my mind- but if i did end up in court etc and was glad of the settlement for his care and all the rest you would not see me posing outside like that. The embarrassment of what id done to my own child and the circumstances in which it occurred would make me do everything in my power to hide away from that. I know they probably asked for the photo but she really didn't have to pose for one. Not saying she's wrong for doing it, just can't fathom how she can.

DonQuay1

phasers wrote: »

what does 'lapse in concentration' actually mean? Was she fiddling with the radio or something?

Actually, my thoughts turn to her driving ability and her honesty.

- Did she just have one lesson (and was not capable to drive at all - as a result)? and any learner driver shouldn't be on the road without another person with a full licence beside them anyway?

- Has she ever done a test and if not - how many years has she been driving without doing one? If she has never done one - is this because she would not be capable of passing? and any learner driver shouldn't be on the road without another person with a full licence beside them anyway?

- Did she fail her test so is not capable of driving and any learner driver shouldn't be on the road without another person with a full licence beside them anyway?

Why are we to believe someone that who got behind the wheel of a 'lethal weapon' - after breaking a number of laws to do so - is telling the truth about her 6 year old 'distracting' her? The child can hardly say 'that's what happened'!!!

Was she reaching for a smoke? Fiddling with the radio? Or from my personal obs. on the Mickey Marbh Dual Carraigeway most days of the week -with infants strapped in and not ...... doing make-up whilst driving at speed!??!! Blaming a six year old and casually posing for photos whilst extolling the qualities of the poor child whom you've very badly crippled for life is also a tad sick!!

Motorist

DonQuay1 wrote: »

Actually, my thoughts turn to her driving ability and her honesty.

- Did she just have one lesson (and was not capable to drive at all - as a result)? and any learner driver shouldn't be on the road without another person with a full licence beside them anyway?

- Has she ever done a test and if not - how many years has she been driving without doing one? If she has never done one - is this because she would not be capable of passing? and any learner driver shouldn't be on the road without another person with a full licence beside them anyway?

- Did she fail her test so is not capable of driving and any learner driver shouldn't be on the road without another person with a full licence beside them anyway?

Why are we to believe someone that who got behind the wheel of a 'lethal weapon' - after breaking a number of laws to do so - is telling the truth about her 6 year old 'distracting' her? The child can hardly say 'that's what happened'!!!

Was she reaching for a smoke? Fiddling with the radio? Or from my personal obs. on the Mickey Marbh Dual Carraigeway most days of the week -with infants strapped in and not ...... doing make-up whilst driving at speed!??!! Blaming a six year old and casually posing for photos whilst extolling the qualities of the poor child whom you've very badly crippled for life is also a tad sick!!

"Momentary lapse in concentration" is the worst bs euphemism I've ever come across. She has proven herself to be an incompetent care giver thus far. The pictures of her were a disgrace.

ResearchWill

Motorist wrote: »

"Momentary lapse in concentration" is the worst bs euphemism I've ever come across. She has proven herself to be an incompetent care giver thus far. The pictures of her were a disgrace.

While I agree about the pictures, the blame for them lies squarely at the feet of the photographers. I think all lawyers should advise their clients not to pose for photographs outside the court, but human nature takes over.

In relation to lapse of attention, she says she was distracted by her child, I for one will admit I have been distracted while in a car driving by less important things than a child, does that make me an unfit person to mind children, it seems in the mind of a lot of people on here, I would be incompetent. All I can say for myself is there but for the grace of God go I.

Motorist

ResearchWill wrote: »

While I agree about the pictures, the blame for them lies squarely at the feet of the photographers. I think all lawyers should advise their clients not to pose for photographs outside the court, but human nature takes over.

In relation to lapse of attention, she says she was distracted by her child, I for one will admit I have been distracted while in a car driving by less important things than a child, does that make me an unfit person to mind children, it seems in the mind of a lot of people on here, I would be incompetent. All I can say for myself is there but for the grace of God go I.

It was also in addition to the fact she was driving around uninsured. If there had been no accident but she was stopped the guards and lost her licence, how would she have taken the child to school, got around, etc. Driving without insurance is what I would expect 18 year old gob$hites with no cop on to be doing or scumbags. Also as mentioned previously, it was most unusual that her child managed to be thrown from the booster seat into the windscreen while everyone elses seatbelts managed to restrain them from more serious injury.

billybudd

ResearchWill wrote: »

While I agree about the pictures, the blame for them lies squarely at the feet of the photographers. I think all lawyers should advise their clients not to pose for photographs outside the court, but human nature takes over.

In relation to lapse of attention, she says she was distracted by her child, I for one will admit I have been distracted while in a car driving by less important things than a child, does that make me an unfit person to mind children, it seems in the mind of a lot of people on here, I would be incompetent. All I can say for myself is there but for the grace of God go I.

I 100% agree with your post apart from the bolded bit, it shows a complete lack of awareness and in my opinion a lack of respect to her child, any decent person would have avoided this picture out of due remorse even though it was a accident and although something like this should not destroy your life as it was just a terrible accident it shouldnt be something to be grinning about in a newspaper.

Bruthal

ResearchWill wrote: »

In relation to lapse of attention, she says she was distracted by her child, I for one will admit I have been distracted while in a car driving by less important things than a child, does that make me an unfit person to mind children, it seems in the mind of a lot of people on here, I would be incompetent. All I can say for myself is there but for the grace of God go I.

Everyone has, except the perfect drivers in the thread here of course. They are guaranteed never to crash, and/or never to have an accident that is their fault.

Milk & Honey

BeerWolf wrote: »

No, I mean the grandmother is suing her daughter - why is it the state that is giving the compensation, taking into account the mother was uninsured to begin with?

Sorry if I'm being a tad ignorant here...

there is a European Directive requiring the state to have a system for the compensation of persons other than the driver of the offending vehicle injured in road accidents.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:263:0011:0031:EN:PDF

Motorist

robbie7730 wrote: »

Everyone has, except the perfect drivers in the thread here of course. They are guaranteed never to crash, and/or never to have an accident that is their fault.

Or at the very least complicate things further by driving illegally and having no insurance along with other failings.