Injured child gets 11.5 million euros

HigginsJ

Captain Darling wrote: »

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.

Exactly.

She allowed her car to stray into oncoming traffic through negligence. She is lucky people werent killed because of it.

Seachmall

UrbanSea wrote: »

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.

I'm not ignoring it, I agree that she shouldn't have been on the road. I'm saying the two aspects should be viewed as separate, not conjoined.


Her responsibility for the accident that left her son in a wheelchair comes down to the fact she had a lapse in concentration, it doesn't come down to the fact that she had no insurance (because it wouldn't have prevented the accident).

seamus wrote: »

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.

But we don't know why she wasn't insured. I've been in cars there were uninsured one day and insured the next. Same driver, same level of competence.

tbh

micropig wrote: »

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

that's just bollocks to be honest. You really need to understand the situation before you start posting crap like this.

I'll say it again.

the mother doesn't get to spend the money on whatever she wants. She applies to the courts for the money, and has to specify what the money is going to be spent on. If the child dies before all the money is spent, the fund dies with him.

Dudess

Seachmall wrote: »

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.

Exactly how I see it.

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?

Wow, you've never gotten distracted? What are the quote-marks for? Are you disputing that that's what it was?

HigginsJ wrote: »

She allowed her car to stray into oncoming traffic through negligence. She is lucky people werent killed because of it.

Momentary lapse of concentration is not = negligence.

dvpower

UrbanSea wrote: »

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.

That would be an entirely different set of circumstances.

Say an 18 year old male crashes while driving uninsured, hurting no one else, but rendering himself quadriplegic. Should he be prosecuted too?

philstar

tbh wrote: »

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.

so they don't get it in a one off payment??

its per annum? or when needed?

UrbanSea

Seachmall wrote: »

I'm not ignoring it, I agree that she shouldn't have been on the road. I'm saying the two aspects should be viewed as separate, not conjoined.


Her responsibility for the accident that left her son in a wheelchair comes down to the fact she had a lapse in concentration, it doesn't come down to the fact that she had no insurance (because it wouldn't have prevented the accident).

Sorry I had replied to your point but the second part of your answer hadn't showed up.

I understand your point so we'll agree to disagree. I have no sympathy for her because she should never have had herself or her son in that position due to her lack of insurance, I understand that having no insurance was not the cause of the crash.

paddydriver

telekon wrote: »

I don't get it. Who exactly is paying the money? She wasn't insured and Im sure is not a multi millionaire?

We the honest and insured are.

MagicSean

micropig wrote: »

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?

Do you not understand the concept of cause and effect?

UrbanSea

dvpower wrote: »

That would be an entirely different set of circumstances.

Say an 18 year old male crashes while driving uninsured, hurting no one else, but rendering himself quadriplegic. Should he be prosecuted too?

It isn't entirely different. She is being let off due to the fact she is the boy's mother. If an individual crashed into them, they would be getting done. Parenthood should not be an excuse in the eyes of the law.

Also, I don't see how your point is comparable. She didn't crash into a tree hurting herself. She crashed into an oncoming car.

the keen edge

Some of the posts in this thread are very confused.

The award of €11.5 million here is a settlement for a personnel injury case; this isn't not a criminal case.

The mother may have already faced, or certainly will face charges and court proceedings separate to this case today.

Captain Darling

tbh wrote: »

that's just bollocks to be honest. You really need to understand the situation before you start posting crap like this.

I'll say it again.

the mother doesn't get to spend the money on whatever she wants. She applies to the courts for the money, and has to specify what the money is going to be spent on. If the child dies before all the money is spent, the fund dies with him.

Some else mentioned here as well that the MIBI will look to reclaim the money off her as well. So along as being burdended with the guilt of having done that to her son, she may be personally destitute as well. I wonder is that the case?

micropig

tbh wrote: »

that's just bollocks to be honest. You really need to understand the situation before you start posting crap like this.

I'll say it again.

the mother doesn't get to spend the money on whatever she wants. She applies to the courts for the money, and has to specify what the money is going to be spent on. If the child dies before all the money is spent, the fund dies with him.

Well the mother has already shown disregard for the law and it wouldn't surprised me if she tried to scam this too..We'll have to wait and see on that one.

What's bollocks (to use your turn of phrase) is that a vulnerable and disabled child is being left in the care of a woman who has already shown her lack of respect for her child and incompetence as a mother -by driving them uninsured

tbh

philstar wrote: »

so they don't get it in a one off payment??

its per annum? or when needed?

I would imagine that about 30% of the money is already "spent" on past care - that's money that goes straight to the hospital.

After that, they'll probably get regular payments for things directly related to care for the child - nurses, rehab if any, ongoing medication etc. That'll all be vetted by the courts and approved.

There will then be one-off payments - for example, the family may get a quote for things like renovating the house (wheelchair ramps and the like) and the court will discharge the money to pay for that.

I would say that there are probably only two things that could potentially be paid for out of the money that the rest of the family could be seen to benefit from - holidays (although it may not be possible to go on holidays) and cars.

But to answer your question - no, the family don't get a big lodgement into their bank account.

doubletrouble?

first of all if she wasn't insured she shouldn't have been on the road in the first place. she took a gamble and it backfired big time. the accident happened unfortunately we cant turn back time.
but according to the news she blamed her son on distracting her something to do with animals on the side of the road. that makes me sick. she was in control of the car.
her son was awarded €11.5m for care for the rest of his life. now i assume she'll be either needing the whole house gutted top to bottom or a brand new purposely built house to suit his needs. now on top of that he'll need carers 24/7 for the rest of his life. in time there'll be special holidays or once in a life time as we call them.
any other country she'd be locked away for a long time.

copeyhagen

tempura wrote: »

Oh for gods sake, it was an accident, Im sure she feels bad enough and more then likely will for the rest of her life.

thats why she gets the grandparent to sue her on the childs behalf to get 11 million

tbh

micropig wrote: »

Well the mother has already shown disregard for the law and it wouldn't surprised me if she tried to scam this too..We'll have to wait and see on that one.

What's bollocks (to use your turn of phrase) is that a vulnerable and disabled child is being left in the care of a woman who has already shown her lack of respect for her child and incompetence as a mother -by driving them uninsured

explain how she can scam this one. Explain how she can get access to the money for herself.

I'm assuming, by the way, that you also would argue that *any* person found driving uninsured with their kids in the car should have their kids taken off them?

UrbanSea

This case also raises a question about ethics.

I for one would rather die than be unable to breathe for myself nor move. Death would be better than sitting motionless all day for the rest of your life, unable to communicate

mickydoomsux

Dudess wrote: »

Wow, you've never gotten distracted? What are the quote-marks for? Are you disputing that that's what it was?

Not while i was driving. It's a pretty simple thing to focus on because concentrating on your driving is all you should be doing in that situation.

Getting so distracted that you veer into oncoming traffic shows you aren't fit to be in control of a vehicle. It's a pathetic excuse, frankly.

"Distracted" in this case probably means she was playing with her phone or the radio or somesuch. You know, the usual behaviour for idiots you see swerving about the roads.

Dudess

You can "probably" all you like, but you don't know. She was distracted by animals apparently - for all we know it could have been something that gave her a fright. But meh, screw finding out facts - take the child off her, herpidy derp!

micropig wrote: »

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?

Wow! Eager much to find badness in others in order to feel better about yourself?

Which is essentially what these witch hunts boil down to. No matter how watertight an argument in her defence is there'll always be a few determined to use that pitchfork. Ad hominems, strawmans, false dichotomies on their way - as well as "high horse" mentions. :pac:

longhalloween

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.

True enough.

€11 million or the use of your legs? I'll keep my legs thanks.

micropig

tbh wrote: »

explain how she can scam this one. Explain how she can get access to the money for herself.

I'm assuming, by the way, that you also would argue that *any* person found driving uninsured with their kids in the car should have their kids taken off them?

Renovated house, car, holidays, car insurance..you might say they're for the child but she will benefit from them too, why should she benefit at all?

(And I'd nearly guarantee all the money won't be spent on ramps etc.)

And yes, I'd question the parenting skills of any parent who drives with their child uninsured, Has she been ordered to undertake parenting classes?

Edit: and the fact she blames the disabled boy for distracting her says it all really

Cee-Jay-Cee

I just heard this on the news and i'm disgusted at the settlement. While i have every sympathy for the child and hope that the payment makes life easier for them i sincerely hope that the money is managed by an independent authority and the mother has absolutely no say in how the money is spent.

Its an absurd amount of money to be awarded regardless of the injuries and considering the childs mother was solely responsible for the accident it makes it even more absurd.

There are families who have children with equally/worse injuries which were caused at birth or accidents who have no right of claim against anyone and while they get financial help from the state its a balanced amount depending on their circumstances.

Lastly i hope the mother was prosecuted and convicted for causing the accident!

Seachmall

UrbanSea wrote: »

This case also raises a question about ethics.

I for one would rather die than be unable to breathe for myself nor move. Death would be better than sitting motionless all day for the rest of your life, unable to communicate

I've always thought that myself.

Although if they develop a Matrix like MMORPG (plugs n' all) I'd be up for living.

dvpower

UrbanSea wrote: »

It isn't entirely different. She is being let off due to the fact she is the boy's mother. If an individual crashed into them, they would be getting done. Parenthood should not be an excuse in the eyes of the law.

The DPP consider if it is in the public interest to take a prosecution, and prosecuting a mother who has caused an accident that rendered their own child quadriplegic doesn't serve any public interest imo.

UrbanSea wrote: »

Also, I don't see how your point is comparable. She didn't crash into a tree hurting herself. She crashed into an oncoming car.

That irrelevant - the only crime she committed is driving without insurance (unless you have more information about the case that isn't in the public domain).

philstar

UrbanSea wrote: »

This case also raises a question about ethics.

I for one would rather die than be unable to breathe for myself nor move. Death would be better than sitting motionless all day for the rest of your life, unable to communicate

thats up to the parents or next of kin, surely

Dudess

micropig wrote: »

tbh wrote: »

explain how she can scam this one. Explain how she can get access to the money for herself.

I'm assuming, by the way, that you also would argue that *any* person found driving uninsured with their kids in the car should have their kids taken off them?

Renovated house, car, holidays, car insurance..you might say they're for the child but she will benefit from them too, why should she benefit at all?

(And I'd nearly guarantee all the money won't be spent on ramps etc.)

And yes, I'd question the parenting skills of any parent who drives with their child uninsured, Has she been ordered to undertake parenting classes?

Edit: and the fact she blames the disabled boy for distracting her says it all really

It says nothing really - did she actually say it?
Btw, on what basis would you "almost guarantee" what the money won't be spent on seeing as you have never even met the woman? And are you wilfully ignoring the fact that the spending of the money will be controlled by the courts?
The child needs those facilities to help manage his disability - where exactly is the proxy benefit to his mother who hardly wants her child to be disabled?

Horrible attitudes on this thread - not a fuk given about the kid, only punishing the mother. Always the way in these discussions...

UrbanSea

Seachmall wrote: »

I've always thought that myself.

Although if they develop a Matrix like MMORPG (plugs n' all) I'd be up for living.

That's interesting, I never heard of that.

dvpower wrote: »

The DPP consider if it is in the public interest to take a prosecution, and prosecuting a mother who has caused an accident that rendered their own child quadriplegic doesn't serve any public interest imo.


That irrelevant - the only crime she committed is driving without insurance (unless you have more information about the case that isn't in the public domain).

The interest of the public can differ.
Dangerous driving perhaps? I'm sure that there has been people prosecuted on less evidence than that.

goose2005

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.

I'm not sure that people would make the same argument if, say, the child's father had caused the crash. People are all too willing to believe the best of someone just because they're a woman.

dvpower wrote: »

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

Isn't that a bit like the joke where a boy is on trial for murdering his parents, and the lawyer asks the judge to be lenient - after all, his client is an orphan?

jasonwarren

every one that was happy for the child should be shot