Injured child gets 11.5 million euros

jetfiremuck

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Do you think she should have been jailed, then?

6 months suspended would be no problem for me. why:
1.Negligent in the care of a child.
2.Operating a vehicle while uninsured resulting in a crash ,property damage and injuries.
3. Careless/ driving etc.

She should have had her licence suspended penalty points. As it is she can get insurance, ( after an accident,with a higher premium) without any issues.

jetfiremuck

While im at it. What damages did the other driver get in the accident? From the newspaper photo some pages back that car took a fair hit. Did it have an nct? She had no insurance, worse of all. Was the car even taxed?

firedancer

Motorist wrote: »

Maybe, or maybe it's just a logical extension along with all the other available evidence, of what sort of person she is.

What other available evidence?? The only evidence you have of what kind of person she is came from your snooping her fb page, and she drove without insurance - that's about it. And you make judgement on her on that???

It speaks volumes about you for sure. That's the only 'logical' thing about it.

Motorist

firedancer wrote: »

What other available evidence?? The only evidence you have of what kind of person she is came from your snooping her fb page, and she drove without insurance - that's about it. And you make judgement on her on that???

It speaks volumes about you for sure. That's the only 'logical' thing about it.

Her lashing out at everyone but herself, her lack of understanding of who funds the MIBI, her belief that the 11.5 million was just sitting in a pot waiting for someone to come along and claim it, the lack of evidence of any remorse or acceptance of her part in the accident caused, the fact she alone caused the accident through serious driver incompetence and disregard for normal driving procedure and safety, the fact that everyone elses belt protected them yet the child was somehow smashed against the window, the company she keeps including one man who joked about also not having insurance (birds of a feather flock together), the fact she should not have been driving illegally in the first place, her posing outside the court with a grin on her face, her lack of education and level of ignorance, etc, etc.

There are lots of snippets of evidence indicating the calibre of her character which when taken as a whole begin to indicate what kind of person this woman is.

thebiglad

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.

About 1/3 is paying for past care - this still leaves a sustantial sum for the future.

There was a reported case in the Irish Times yesterday were €4.5m was awarded for Paraplegia to a minor, normal service resumed...

The press never knows nor cares to report the breakdown of settlements and so it is hard to compare.

Without doubt though the mother will get some benefit from the fund created for her son.

billybudd

Motorist wrote: »

Maybe, or maybe it's just a logical extension along with all the other available evidence, of what sort of person she is.

I dont know her or her circumstances, all i will say is that even if she is everything some people are saying she is it makes no difference to me, i have empathy for her child and if i am honest to her as well, being a father i cannot fathom this happening to my child and how i would deal with it, as i said before if backed into a corner most people will attack.

I have stated before in this thread that i did not think it right to stand outside court smiling after what happened to her child but in further reflection photograghs sometimes lie.

Notorious

While of course it's a horrible thing to happen, why do they get compensation of €11.5 million. What do they need that sort of money for? That'll cover medical bills and set the family up for life. Who decides these things and how do they decide that €11.5 million is sufficient?

I don't understand how the country could afford to pay that much out considering our economic circumstances - or is there something I'm missing here?

firedancer

Motorist wrote: »

Her lashing out at everyone but herself, her lack of understanding of who funds the MIBI, her belief that the 11.5 million was just sitting in a pot waiting for someone to come along and claim it, the lack of evidence of any remorse or acceptance of her part in the accident caused, the fact she alone caused the accident through serious driver incompetence and disregard for normal driving procedure and safety, the fact that everyone elses belt protected them yet the child was somehow smashed against the window, the company she keeps including one man who joked about also not having insurance (birds of a feather flock together), the fact she should not have been driving illegally in the first place, her posing outside the court with a grin on her face, her lack of education and level of ignorance, etc, etc.

There are lots of snippets of evidence indicating the calibre of her character which when taken as a whole begin to indicate what kind of person this woman is.

let's all have a look at your fb page then...you are willing to come out from behind your keyboard so we can examine your character based on your fb posts ?

the company she keeps?? how do you deduce that one from a fb post?

what 'grin' on her face ?

the only lack of education obvious to me is your own from your posts on here


there are other posts on here illustrating many variables as to how she lost her concentration and took her eyes off the road , you obviously don't have children

what remorse does she need to show to you? why are you so important that you need to see remorse from this woman? she owes you absolutely nothing, it's been pointed out many times this payout will not affect your premium..you're a BEGRUDGER, and you are trying to justify this by attacking the mother, the truth is you begrudge this payout to this young lad who has been injured and there isn't one thing you can do about it.


get a life and stop stalking the woman's fb page looking for your measly vindication

firedancer

Notorious wrote: »

While of course it's a horrible thing to happen, why do they get compensation of €11.5 million. What do they need that sort of money for? That'll cover medical bills and set the family up for life. Who decides these things and how do they decide that €11.5 million is sufficient?

I don't understand how the country could afford to pay that much out considering our economic circumstances - or is there something I'm missing here?

yeah what's missing here is you bothering to read this thread, there's a post detailing how much that little lad's medical care is going to cost also several posts informing people that payment will be administered by court appointed solicitors , his mother will not touch that money, and if anything happens to Cullen in the meantime, any money left over will be reclaimed immediately. The money came from a fund which was created by insurance companies to cover this kind of eventuality, it WILL NOT AFFECT YOUR LOUSY PREMIUMS.

billybudd

Notorious wrote: »

While of course it's a horrible thing to happen, why do they get compensation of €11.5 million. What do they need that sort of money for? That'll cover medical bills and set the family up for life. Who decides these things and how do they decide that €11.5 million is sufficient?

I don't understand how the country could afford to pay that much out considering our economic circumstances - or is there something I'm missing here?

It was explained by reasearchwill who seems to know alot about court procceedings back in one the pages.

Also the government do not pay it.

Notorious

firedancer wrote: »

yeah what's missing here is you bothering to read this thread, there's a post detailing how much that little lad's medical care is going to cost also several posts informing people that payment will be administered by court appointed solicitors , his mother will not touch that money, and if anything happens to Cullen in the meantime, any money left over will be reclaimed immediately. The money came from a fund which was created by insurance companies to cover this kind of eventuality, it WILL NOT AFFECT YOUR LOUSY PREMIUMS.

Woah, calm down there little hotheaded one. I never asked about my premium. Regardless, it seems too much to me. I presume the mother was punished for driving without insurance and for her careless driving?

billybudd

Notorious wrote: »

Woah, calm down there little hotheaded one. I never asked about my premium. Regardless, it seems too much to me. I presume the mother was punished for driving without insurance and for her careless driving?

Yes we should set her on top a bail of hay and burn her to charcoal. that will teach her.:)

Notorious

billybudd wrote: »

Yes we should set her on top a bail of hay and burn her to charcoal. that will teach her.:)

Well lets take it out of context. If I was driving without insurance, I'd get penalty points at the very least. Same goes for careless driving. Would you not expect her to loose her licence in this case?

micropig

Notorious wrote: »

While of course it's a horrible thing to happen, why do they get compensation of €11.5 million. What do they need that sort of money for? That'll cover medical bills and set the family up for life. Who decides these things and how do they decide that €11.5 million is sufficient?

I don't understand how the country could afford to pay that much out considering our economic circumstances - or is there something I'm missing here?

That's the thing, they don't

When the 11.5 million runs out, there is no money to care for the boy.

If he dies before it runs out, mother inherits - but I believe MIBI have a judgement to claim it back off her (the 11.5 million, she can probably keep the interest etc)

billybudd

Notorious wrote: »

Well lets take it out of context. If I was driving without insurance, I'd get penalty points at the very least. Same goes for careless driving. Would you not expect her to loose her licence in this case?

I am sure she has been punished although i do not know this for sure but what happened with the child is a big punishment in itself.

micropig

billybudd wrote: »

I am sure she has been punished although i do not know this for sure but what happened with the child is a big punishment in itself.

If she keeps her licence, was she a least sent on a driver and road safety education course,


or not?

billybudd

micropig wrote: »

If she keeps her licence, was she a least sent on a driver and road safety education course,


or not?

Do not know, i presume she was treated like anyone else in that situation, are people who crash into other cars made take that course?

micropig

billybudd wrote: »

Do not know, i presume she was treated like anyone else in that situation, are people who crash into other cars made take that course?

No, but they should be, not just her


Motor insurance offences: generally punishable by a fine of up to €2,500, disqualification of one year or more for a first offence and two years or more for a second offence, and, at the discretion of the court, a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months. Where the court decides not to impose a disqualification drivers convicted of a first offence of driving without insurance will incur 5 penalty points on their licence record in addition to any other penalty imposed by the court

Kosseegan

Notorious wrote: »

. Regardless, it seems too much to me.?

It cannot be decided how much the settlement should have been without looking at the award and the medical reports and prognosis. The reason that settlements are ruled by a judge is so that the judge can check if it accords with the legal principles applicable to damages in injury cases. There are actuarial principles to calculate the loss of future earnings, cost of medical care into the future, allowance for pain and suffering, past medical costs specialised equipment and house modifications etc.
If you haven't seen the paperwork you are in no position to make any informed comment on the size of the award.

Bruthal

micropig wrote: »

If she keeps her licence, was she a least sent on a driver and road safety education course,


or not?

I think she will need to be thrown into the canal to see does she sink or swim, before you will let it rest.

Motorist

Kosseegan wrote: »

It cannot be decided how much the settlement should have been without looking at the award and the medical reports and prognosis. The reason that settlements are ruled by a judge is so that the judge can check if it accords with the legal principles applicable to damages in injury cases. There are actuarial principles to calculate the loss of future earnings, cost of medical care into the future, allowance for pain and suffering, past medical costs specialised equipment and house modifications etc.
If you haven't seen the paperwork you are in no position to make any informed comment on the size of the award.

I must hire one of these actuary lads to tell me how long I'm going to live, what the rate of inflation is going to be 20 years from now, how much medical treatment will cost then, how advanced stem cell research will be at that stage and what the lottery numbers are for the next week

Basically it's all bluster in the guise of reports which in reality are nothing but guesswork. Hence several judges comments in different cases about these awards essentially "gambling" with the victims lives.

Motorist

micropig wrote: »

No, but they should be, not just her


Motor insurance offences: generally punishable by a fine of up to €2,500, disqualification of one year or more for a first offence and two years or more for a second offence, and, at the discretion of the court, a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months. Where the court decides not to impose a disqualification drivers convicted of a first offence of driving without insurance will incur 5 penalty points on their licence record in addition to any other penalty imposed by the court

This is an emotive issue, how dare you delve past the histrionics and ask such a pertinent question !

Motorist

micropig wrote: »

That's the thing, they don't

When the 11.5 million runs out, there is no money to care for the boy.

If he dies before it runs out, mother inherits - but I believe MIBI have a judgement to claim it back off her (the 11.5 million, she can probably keep the interest etc)

The State will look after his medical needs at the same level as they look after any child with cerebral palsy or cystic fibrosis, etc, etc who did not receive an 11.5 million euro award.

Milk & Honey

Motorist wrote: »

I must hire one of these actuary lads to tell me how long I'm going to live, what the rate of inflation is going to be 20 years from now, how much medical treatment will cost then, how advanced stem cell research will be at that stage and what the lottery numbers are for the next week

Basically it's all bluster in the guise of reports which in reality are nothing but guesswork. Hence several judges comments in different cases about these awards essentially "gambling" with the victims lives.

You are misunderstanding probability theory. An actuary does not forecast how long you will live. An actuary calculates the likely age of death of someone with certain of your characteristics. If someone insures a large sample of individuals with similar characteristics the average of death should work out at that figure.
What the judge is complaining of is the fact that actuarial projections cannot predict what will happen for the individual who is in court.

Motorist

Milk & Honey wrote: »

You are misunderstanding probability theory. An actuary does not forecast how long you will live. An actuary calculates the likely age of death of someone with certain of your characteristics. If someone insures a large sample of individuals with similar characteristics the average of death should work out at that figure.
What the judge is complaining of is the fact that actuarial projections cannot predict what will happen for the individual who is in court.

Yeah, that's exactly what I just said considering we were talking in the context of the individual case of this boy and the 11.5 million award.

igwe

Kosseegan wrote: »

You have said that it is certain that the other half is coverred. That is enough.

Please i need an advice for a friend, on Saturday my friend was driving and had a bit of drink on him, while he was driving few blocks from his house he got stopped by the garda and was breathalysed. He failed and was brought to the police station for full breathalsyed test. He was 12mg and the legal limit is 9. the garda told him he his 3 months disqualified and 300euro fine and was told to provide his liecense and insurance with in 10days but he wont be summoned to court. The problem is that he thought he was insured in his wife car which he was driving at the time and called the insurance company to confirm the next 2days (monday). The insurance said no he was not so he added his name as a name driver to his wife on a monday. Please i will like to know if his goes to station with his licences and his wife insurance certificate will he still be summoned for driving without insurance.

kitty9

why isnt the mother in jail?

dvpower

kitty9 wrote: »

why isnt the mother in jail?

Because she hasn't been convicted of a serious offence that attracts a custodial sentence, of course.

thebiglad

igwe wrote: »

Please i need an advice for a friend, on Saturday my friend was driving and had a bit of drink on him, while he was driving few blocks from his house he got stopped by the garda and was breathalysed. He failed and was brought to the police station for full breathalsyed test. He was 12mg and the legal limit is 9. the garda told him he his 3 months disqualified and 300euro fine and was told to provide his liecense and insurance with in 10days but he wont be summoned to court. The problem is that he thought he was insured in his wife car which he was driving at the time and called the insurance company to confirm the next 2days (monday). The insurance said no he was not so he added his name as a name driver to his wife on a monday. Please i will like to know if his goes to station with his licences and his wife insurance certificate will he still be summoned for driving without insurance.

Start a new thread for this but don't expect good news or outpouring of support -

Your 'friend' is fried and adding the driver after the event could be construed as fraudulent - I presume he told the insurer of the very recent charge for drink drive (not to mention driving without insurance).

micropig

igwe wrote: »

Please i need an advice for a friend, on Saturday my friend was driving and had a bit of drink on him, while he was driving few blocks from his house he got stopped by the garda and was breathalysed. He failed and was brought to the police station for full breathalsyed test. He was 12mg and the legal limit is 9. the garda told him he his 3 months disqualified and 300euro fine and was told to provide his liecense and insurance with in 10days but he wont be summoned to court. The problem is that he thought he was insured in his wife car which he was driving at the time and called the insurance company to confirm the next 2days (monday). The insurance said no he was not so he added his name as a name driver to his wife on a monday. Please i will like to know if his goes to station with his licences and his wife insurance certificate will he still be summoned for driving without insurance.

Whoo woo, he's in for a big payout then:rolleyes: Happy Days