Injured child gets 11.5 million euros

manutd

tbh wrote: »

her punishment is that for the rest of her life, she has to live with the fact that she caused a crash which crippled her son.

I wouldn't swap for five times the amount.

I know where you coming from, but she was driving without insurance, i have no sympathy for her but do for the boy.

It's just me and for everyone else who pay out for insurance will feel the pain with increase insurance policy.

UrbanSea

I can't get over this. This is truly unbelievable.

The mother is uninsured. She's responsible for the crash, yet gets away scott free. If it was another car who crashed into her, uninsured and had a momentary lapse in concentration, they'd be in prison for 5+ years.


Such a joke the legal system is here. Just because she is his mother doesn't mean she should be treated differently

doubletrouble?

when we renew our car insurance something like 2% goes towards the MIBI to cover uninsured drivers. everyone pays this levy as far as i know. right we get the story about the kid being paid €11.5m which i think is a bit excessive but what about the payments made to the other occupants of the car she hit in total these would far exceed the €11.5m also i'd love to know what penalties she received for careless/dangerous driving and being uninsured.is she off the road?.

phasers

will the settlement pay for a carer or will the mother also claim carer's allowance do you think? not judging just wondering.


I just saw the ma on the news smiling for photographers standing next to her son. Looked a bit weird given the circumstances.

seamus

prinz wrote: »

The mother was solely at fault. There is no way she should benefit to the tune of a single cent from this, if the mother is full time carer, and the settlement is going towards rewarding her for that care, I think that's wrong tbh.

Tbh, for every minute of the rest of her life that she's going to spend caring for the son she has crippled, I imagine she would glady give up every penny she takes from the fund if it would give the child back his future.
It would take an exceptionally cold-hearted woman to see this settlement and think, "Woohoo, party time!".

In reality if you consider that the child will need 24/7 care for at least fifty years, along with the associated medical equipment and building modifications, I'm not sure if there would be any money left over for the parents to "benefit" from, aside from day-to-day expenses.

Being paid a subsistence to spend every waking moment of the rest of your life caring for the person you crippled, sounds like a punishment to me, not a reward

Seachmall

manutd wrote: »

i have no sympathy for her but do for the boy.

The boy isn't in a wheelchair because she didn't have insurance. He's in a wheelchair because the mother had an accident. Possibly an accident that could happen to any of us (without more details we can't know exactly what happened).

Now she has to live with the fact that a single split-second lapse of concentration has destroyed her sons life, which has absolutely nothing to do with her having insurance or not.

I don't see how anyone couldn't have sympathy for her.

manutd

Biggins wrote: »

Well for a start, because if you don't its a criminal offence.
You should be buying independent insurance if only to help stop draining the state and other companies of such funds?

The sad thing is that some people couldn't give a f*ck about it been a criminal offence, but have no problem suing for money and people of Ireland who do pay for insurance pay for it.

tbh

UrbanSea wrote: »

I can't get over this. This is truly unbelievable.

The mother is uninsured. She's responsible for the crash, yet gets away scott free. If it was another car who crashed into her, uninsured and had a momentary lapse in concentration, they'd be in prison for 5+ years.


Such a joke the legal system is here. Just because she is his mother doesn't mean she should be treated differently

I've been thinking about this.

Say it was another uninsured driver that crashed into the car, I'd have no problem with the child being awarded the money. the fact that it was his mother that caused the crash doesn't change the fact that the child is an innocent victim. The money isn't going on large screen TVs and swimming pools, it's to provide care for him for the rest of his life - so I've no problem with the award.

the fact that it was his mother that caused the crash muddies the water slightly, but looking at it logically:

• She's his full time carer - sending her to prison just hurts the child
• She caused the crash - far greater punishment than any prison sentence
• It's not like she's going to be benefitting materially from the award - she can't spend it any way she wants, even if she wanted to, as the money is managed by the courts

so while it is a strange situation, I'd have to say that the courts did the right thing all round.

phasers

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

UrbanSea

Seachmall wrote: »

The boy isn't in a wheelchair because she didn't have insurance. He's in a wheelchair because the mother had an accident. Possibly an accident that could happen to any of us (without more details we can't know exactly what happened).

Now she has to live with the fact that a single split-second lapse of concentration has destroyed her sons life, which has absolutely nothing to do with her having insurance or not.

I don't see how anyone couldn't have sympathy for her.

She was an uninsured driver. I have zero sympathy for her, it's the boy I have sympathy for. He has a pathetic existence for the rest of his life due to the negligence of his mother. If she had no insurance she should not have been driving.

tbh

phasers wrote: »

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

distracted by animals at the side of the road apparently. There but for the grace of god, etc.

Seachmall

UrbanSea wrote: »

She was an uninsured driver. I have zero sympathy for her, it's the boy I have sympathy for. He has a pathetic existence for the rest of his life due to the negligence of his mother. If she had no insurance she should not have been driving.

If she was insured would she have your sympathy?

mikemac1

Afaik, two percent of every motor insurance premium is set aside and goes to the MIBI

So everyone with a motor insurance policy will be partially paying for cases such as these

Two per cent isn't a lot but for with every motor policy in the State, the national fund soon builds up

I'm happy to be corrected but I'm pretty certain I read two percent for this

UrbanSea

tbh wrote: »

I've been thinking about this.

Say it was another uninsured driver that crashed into the car, I'd have no problem with the child being awarded the money. the fact that it was his mother that caused the crash doesn't change the fact that the child is an innocent victim. The money isn't going on large screen TVs and swimming pools, it's to provide care for him for the rest of his life - so I've no problem with the award.

the fact that it was his mother that caused the crash muddies the water slightly, but looking at it logically:

• She's his full time carer - sending her to prison just hurts the child
• She caused the crash - far greater punishment than any prison sentence
• It's not like she's going to be benefitting materially from the award - she can't spend it any way she wants, even if she wanted to, as the money is managed by the courts

so while it is a strange situation, I'd have to say that the courts did the right thing all round.

That's a good argument, but the law is the law. At the end of the day she has her freedom, while her son is confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life, able to do nothing for himself.

That money may be used for other full time carers, she may not be his main carer after that award. This is mere speculation however.

libra02

I did not hear any mention as to payout for the occupants of the other car she hit. Did they receive any compensation as she must have done some serious damage to them and their car also.

I was shocked when I heard this €11.5 million - shocking. I feel so sorry for the poor child but still she caused this to her son and she walks away from court scott free. Anyone else be doing jail time, face splashed across every national newspapers being called a monster and worse.

I hope that evry single penny of this has to be accounted for and shown it is going to her son's care and and not an excuse for her to be jetting off on holidays for a "break" from the care and stress.

tbh

UrbanSea wrote: »

She was an uninsured driver. I have zero sympathy for her, it's the boy I have sympathy for. He has a pathetic existence for the rest of his life due to the negligence of his mother. If she had no insurance she should not have been driving.

agreed on this point - driving yourself without insurance is bad enough, but driving your child without insurance is criminally selfish and irresponsible.

UrbanSea

Seachmall wrote: »

If she was insured would she have your sympathy?

Yes, because she would have been driving legally.

Ellis Dee

How sad for the child! If the court had not made the award, most or all of which will be spent on the 24-hour care that the boy will need for the rest of his life, the health/social welfare service would have had to bear the cost of looking after him, so the net result is essentially the same: society pays. But the only alternative - to just let him die - is pretty unacceptable, isn't it?:cool:

This underscores the need for Ireland to change the car insurance system and adopt the same practice as in Finland and Sweden, where a car can not be registered until it has insurance cover and the insurance, which is specific to the car irrespective of who drives it, remains in effect (whether or not the premiums are paid) until a policy is taken out with another company or the car is verifiably taken off the road and its licence plates surrendered. That way, there is virtually no such thing as an uninsured car and the police need devote zero time to checking car insurance.

stovelid

At the end of the day, the child was an innocent victim of the situation and needs lifelong care.

I feel for the mother in some way to be honest even thought she is wrong to have not had insurance. It's certainly her "fault" (the black-and-white ascertainment of which being the holy grail of any AH discussion of a tragedy involving children, of course) but many of us suffer lapses of concentration every day that thankfully don't have horrible consequences and she has to live with her mistake on her conscience for the rest of her life.

seamus

libra02 wrote: »

I did not hear any mention as to payout for the occupants of the other car she hit. Did they receive any compensation as she must have done some serious damage to them and their car also.

When you're hit by an uninsured driver, your own insurance company pays your compensation.

tbh

UrbanSea wrote: »

That's a good argument, but the law is the law. At the end of the day she has her freedom, while her son is confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life, able to do nothing for himself.

That money may be used for other full time carers, she may not be his main carer after that award. This is mere speculation however.

would that be in the best interest of the child tho? The quality of mercy is not strained...

libra02 wrote: »

I

I hope that evry single penny of this has to be accounted for and shown it is going to her son's care and and not an excuse for her to be jetting off on holidays for a "break" from the care and stress.

as has been repeatedly said, she doesn't have control of the money - it's controlled by the courts. I imagine the family will have to apply to the courts to have bills discharged.

manutd

tbh wrote: »

I've been thinking about this.

Say it was another uninsured driver that crashed into the car, I'd have no problem with the child being awarded the money. the fact that it was his mother that caused the crash doesn't change the fact that the child is an innocent victim. The money isn't going on large screen TVs and swimming pools, it's to provide care for him for the rest of his life - so I've no problem with the award.

the fact that it was his mother that caused the crash muddies the water slightly, but looking at it logically:

• She's his full time carer - sending her to prison just hurts the child
• She caused the crash - far greater punishment than any prison sentence
• It's not like she's going to be benefitting materially from the award - she can't spend it any way she wants, even if she wanted to, as the money is managed by the courts

so while it is a strange situation, I'd have to say that the courts did the right thing all round.

well the people in Ireland who do insurance their car, are going to pay the cost. I know it the boys fault nor do i know was it the mothers fault or not, but 11m is one big amount, when you think of it.

dvpower

UrbanSea wrote: »

I can't get over this. This is truly unbelievable.

The mother is uninsured. She's responsible for the crash, yet gets away scott free. If it was another car who crashed into her, uninsured and had a momentary lapse in concentration, they'd be in prison for 5+ years.


Such a joke the legal system is here. Just because she is his mother doesn't mean she should be treated differently

She hardly got away scott free - her child is now quadriplegic.

prinz

seamus wrote: »

Being paid a subsistence to spend every waking moment of the rest of your life caring for the person you crippled, sounds like a punishment to me, not a reward

But that's the thing, she crippled him by her actions. Now if you compare that to the children who were disabled etc through the actions of negligent doctors etc.. where is the balance. They too need 24/7 carers. They too have parents who need to be there constantly. Why is this case deserving of a higher compensation than those given that in this case it was the parent who caused it?

A settlement yes. A record breaking settlement? No.

Captain Darling

Was she third party on another car i wonder and mistaken that she could have been insured on this car?

HigginsJ

Seachmall wrote: »

If she was insured would she have your sympathy?

No

UrbanSea

tbh wrote: »

would that be in the best interest of the child tho? The quality of mercy is not strained...



as has been repeatedly said, she doesn't have control of the money - it's controlled by the courts. I imagine the family will have to apply to the courts to have bills discharged.

It's difficult to say without all the facts. I heard that his mother and his grandmother are full time carers.

It's a difficult topic. It may be against the child's interests, but it is not in the interest of the law. This case may set an incredibly poor example to deter drivers without insurace.

I wouldn't mind, but if she was caught driving without insurance she would get a ban and a fine. I heard no mention of this happening after the accident, though that may be through my own ignorance

Dudess

The momentary lapse of concentration is completely human - any driver who says they've never succumbed to it for even a nanosecond is lying.
Driving without insurance though...

But she is being punished more than enough.

libra02 wrote: »

I hope that evry single penny of this has to be accounted for and shown it is going to her son's care and and not an excuse for her to be jetting off on holidays for a "break" from the care and stress.

I for one have no reason whatsoever to believe she'd do that - why do you consider it a possibility?

Also, a break once in a blue moon is hardly unreasonable for someone who is caring full-time and permanently for a disabled person.

micropig

This women has proven she is not a responsible adult-by knowingly driving her child without insurance

Yet the state leaves a vulnerable & disabled child in her care.


I don't begrudge the child the money, it will be needed for their care and the accident was not their fault, but I would have reservations about leaving the child in the care of it's mother

UrbanSea

dvpower wrote: »

She hardly got away scott free - her child is now quadriplegic.

I meant in the terms of the law.