Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Injured child gets 11.5 million euros

Options
13567…27

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    manutd wrote: »
    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.

    there's no getting away from that, but the child would have been looked after one way or another - either from this money or from general taxes. A large chunk of the money will go to the hospital that cared for the boy, I'm sure in these times that money will be much needed and will actually improve conditions for other kids..


  • Options
    #63
    boobar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,226 ✭✭✭boobar


    SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »
    Anyone who has car insurance is contributing to that payout and i would not deny the youngfella a cent of it


    Completely agree with this post, the young guy is quadraplegic now as a result of the accident. 11 million seems a lot of money, but no amount of money can give this youg guy back the life that he had ahead of him.

    As regards the point about the mother being uninsured, regulations needed to be tightened up here to lessen the exposure. I think this is currently being looked at.


  • Options
    #64
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    UrbanSea wrote: »
    . It may be against the child's interests, but it is not in the interest of the law.

    personally, I feel the needs of the child to be looked after by his mother outweigh the needs of society for its pound of flesh. Fully understand where you're coming from tho.


  • Options
    #65
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    micropig wrote: »
    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

    How does driving without insurance make her a bad mother?


  • Options
    #66
    starbelgrade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    Dudess wrote: »
    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...


    What about driving while texting?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    I'd be curious how much cha-ching the legal teams made out of this too.


  • Options
    #68
    Captain Darling
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,542 ✭✭✭Captain Darling


    boobar wrote: »
    Completely agree with this post, the young guy is quadraplegic now as a result of the accident. 11 million seems a lot of money, but no amount of money can give this youg guy back the life that he had ahead of him.

    As regards the point about the mother being uninsured, regulations needed to be tightened up here to lessen the exposure. I think this is currently being looked at.

    It seems like a large figure, but i'm sure full time care etc over the course of a lifetime would quickly eat away at it.

    And yes, the mother will be one of the carers, but looking at what she has caused every day is worse then any prison sentence.


  • Options
    #69
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    UrbanSea wrote: »
    Yes, because she would have been driving legally.

    Which I don't get.

    There are two aspects to this story.

    1) She was uninsured.
    2) She was responsible for an accident that left her son paralysed.

    I see these a separate issues. Her having no insurance isn't, from what we can tell, any reflection on her competence to drive. By driving uninsured she took no more of a risk as anyone else who is a competent driver.*

    The first point (that she did not have insurance), I think, should be looked at separately from the second, which is presumably how the courts addressed it.


    As a driver I have no sympathy for her being found guilty of driving uninsured (I'm assuming this happened).

    As a mother I have complete sympathy for her as she left her son in a wheelchair because of a lapse of concentration (which could happen to anyone).


    * That is; insurance doesn't prevent accidents, it merely covers them after the fact.


  • Options
    #70
    UrbanSea
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,335 ✭✭✭✭UrbanSea


    MagicSean wrote: »
    How does driving without insurance make her a bad mother?

    She showed a disregard for her and her son's well being by driving uninsured


  • Options
    #71
    podge3
    Registered Users Posts: 1,726 ✭✭✭podge3


    Not the first time that this has happened: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64461878


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    stovelid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,252 ✭✭✭✭stovelid


    micropig wrote: »
    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

    That doesn't really add up.

    The chances of being involved in an accident like that are very small. I'm not saying driving without insurance is right as it's clearly not but it's a far more abstract risk than neglecting your child.

    If she had been insured, the outcome of the accident would have been the same.

    At the end of the day, she's learned a pretty hard lesson. Taking her child away in addition to her own guilt and the lifetime of caring for her child that she now faces would be incredibly harsh in my opinion.


  • Options
    #73
    manutd
    Registered Users Posts: 988 ✭✭✭manutd


    MagicSean wrote: »
    How does driving without insurance make her a bad mother?

    Well she drove her son in an uninsured car, known right well knew there was no insurance. Sound like a good mother to me!!!


  • Options
    #74
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    prinz wrote: »
    A settlement yes. A record breaking settlement? No.
    We don't know the reasoning behind it. His young age (and therefore a long life of care) and the level of care required are probably the primary determining factors.


  • Options
    #75
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    UrbanSea wrote: »
    She showed a disregard for her and her son's well being by driving uninsured

    Being insured would not have changed anything other than who pays out.


  • Options
    #76
    mickydoomsux
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,290 ✭✭✭mickydoomsux


    This woman should have her child taken off her.

    She drove her child in her uninsured car, got "distracted" and ploughed into oncoming traffic. How is she considered fit to be his primary carer?

    What if she gets "distracted "again and the child gets hurt again?


  • Options
    #77
    UrbanSea
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,335 ✭✭✭✭UrbanSea


    Seachmall wrote: »
    Which I don't get.

    There are two aspects to this story.

    1) She was uninsured.
    2) She was responsible for an accident that left her son paralysed.

    I see these a separate issues. Her having no insurance isn't, from what we can tell, any reflection on her competence to drive. By driving uninsured she took no more of a risk as anyone else who is a competent driver. That is; insurance doesn't prevent accidents, it merely covers them after the fact.

    The first point (that she did not have insurance), I think, should be looked at separately from the second, which is presumably how the courts addressed it.


    As a driver I have no sympathy for her being found guilty of driving uninsured (I'm assuming this happened).

    As a mother I have complete sympathy for her as she left her son in a wheelchair because of a lapse of concentration (which could happen to anyone).



    I understand it can happen to anyone and I'm fully aware that insurance doesn't prevent accidents but it all comes back to one thing:

    If she had no insurance, she should not have been driving. She knew this, it's the difference between having an accident legally and illegally.


  • Options
    #78
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    UrbanSea wrote: »
    I meant in the terms of the law.
    I suppose she could be prosecuted for driving without insurance, but it would seem to be a tad vindictive given the circumstances.


  • Options
    #79
    UrbanSea
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,335 ✭✭✭✭UrbanSea


    MagicSean wrote: »
    Being insured would not have changed anything other than who pays out.
    Yes. Again, if she had no insurance, she should not have been driving.


  • Options
    #80
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    stovelid wrote: »
    That doesn't really add up.

    The chances of being involved in an accident like that are very small. I'm not saying driving without insurance is right as it's clearly not but it's a far more abstract risk than neglecting your child.

    If she had been insured, the outcome of the accident would have been the same.

    At the end of the day, she's learned a pretty hard lesson. Taking her child away in addition to her own guilt and the lifetime of caring for her child that she now faces would be incredibly harsh in my opinion.

    I think this is what it's boiled down to for me as well. Telling her "it's your fault, you pay" just punishes the child.


  • Options
    #81
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    UrbanSea wrote: »
    She showed a disregard for her and her son's well being by driving uninsured

    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.

    Being insured wouldn't have prevented the accident.
    If she had no insurance, she should not have been driving.
    She should not have been. But in choosing to drive she took the exact same risk as any of us (in terms of having an accident).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    philstar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,986 ✭✭✭philstar


    SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »
    Anyone who has car insurance is contributing to that payout and i would not deny the youngfella a cent of it

    yes, but 11.5 million:eek:

    i mean who comes up with these figures?? is it calculated? or does the judge just pluck a figure out of thin air?


  • Options
    #83
    UrbanSea
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,335 ✭✭✭✭UrbanSea


    dvpower wrote: »
    I suppose she could be prosecuted for driving without insurance, but it would seem to be a tad vindictive given the circumstances.

    The issue I have is:

    If it were the other side. Say for example an 18 year old male had a lapse of concentration and crashed into her. There would be no hope of him getting off.


  • Options
    #84
    Captain Darling
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,542 ✭✭✭Captain Darling


    A bit of a parallel can be drawn with the garda who ran over the two guys on the motorway, both knew that they were driving a car illegally, but in the instance with the mother she was entirely negligient.


  • Options
    #85
    UrbanSea
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,335 ✭✭✭✭UrbanSea


    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.

    Being insured wouldn't have prevented the accident.

    You seem to ignore the fundamental point of my argument.

    I have already acknowledged that having insurance would not have prevented the accident or changed the way she drove.

    But she did not have insurance and she should not have been driving in the first place. That's the issue I have.


  • Options
    #86
    Captain Darling
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,542 ✭✭✭Captain Darling


    philstar wrote: »
    yes, but 11.5 million:eek:

    i mean who comes up with these figures?? is it calculated? or does the judge just pluck a figure out of thin air?

    They have a big wheel that they spin in the courtroom. Just like Winning Streak. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #87
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    mickydoomsux wrote: »
    This woman should have her child taken off her.

    She drove her child in her uninsured car, got "distracted" and ploughed into oncoming traffic. How is she considered fit to be his primary carer?

    What if she gets "distracted "again and the child gets hurt again?
    We should take the child away from his father too or force them to split up? :eek:


  • Options
    #88
    stovelid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,252 ✭✭✭✭stovelid


    tbh wrote: »
    I think this is what it's boiled down to for me as well. Telling her "it's your fault, you pay" just punishes the child.

    Exactly.

    I can see why people are pissed off at her (I would be as well) but to hint that the lifetime of guilt and caring for the child that faces her will equate to some kind of life of Reilly is distasteful.

    Put it this way, if I was her, I'd gladly take a life sentence rather than see my child crippled because of a lapse in my judgment, however accidental.


  • Options
    #89
    micropig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,366 ✭✭✭micropig


    stovelid wrote: »
    That doesn't really add up.

    The chances of being involved in an accident like that are very small. I'm not saying driving without insurance is right as it's clearly not but it's a far more abstract risk than neglecting your child.

    If she had been insured, the outcome of the accident would have been the same.

    At the end of the day, she's learned a pretty hard lesson. Taking her child away in addition to her own guilt and the lifetime of caring for her child that she now faces would be incredibly harsh in my opinion.

    Accident aside, she knowingly broke the law with her child in the car. Even if she did not have the accident, she had not the best interests of her child at heart.

    She was give the opportunity to 'look after' her child. She did not do so.

    Is she a trained nurse and the best person care for this child? Is leaving the child in her care to ease her guilt?

    What's the betting, the child will need a 70' telly, gold taps in the bathroom etc..even if the mother doesn't?


  • Options
    #90
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    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.

    Being insured wouldn't have prevented the accident.
    IMO, driving while uninsured shows a level of regard for the law and for driving in a proper manner which would offer an explanation as to why this lapse in concentration occured.

    Or in short, someone who knowingly drives uninsured will naturally tend to be a poorer and more reckless driver than someone who is insured.

    Or, this accident would be less likely to happen to an insured (read: better) driver.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    philstar wrote: »
    yes, but 11.5 million:eek:

    i mean who comes up with these figures?? is it calculated? or does the judge just pluck a figure out of thin air?

    they consider how much it's cost to look after the child since his accident, and how much it will cost per year for the rest of his life. To be honest, I doubt there's any "extra" money in there, the money will be used for things like medical care, adapting the lads house, and providing him with the full time care he'll still need after his parents are dead.


Advertisement