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
1…457910…27

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    mrsdewinter
    Registered Users Posts: 2,116 ✭✭✭mrsdewinter


    micropig wrote: »
    mrsdewinter wrote: »
    Jesus Mary wept. The lack of sympathy in this thread is stomach-churning, most of it hinging on the fact that the mother was uninsured. But we don't know all the facts of the case here. Many of you are assuming that she hopped into a car with no insurance. Is that what happened? Or did she borrow her partner's car on the understanding that she was covered by the policy? Was it her own car - insured, as far as she was aware, but the policy rendered null and void due to (and I am no expert) no NCT, say?
    I'd love to read the input of a broker here...

    Well if she can't work out whether she is insured or not, do you think she has enough brainpower to care for a child, totally dependent on her?

    Well, you sound like you're brimming with human kindness - perhaps you should offer to swap with her, and walk in her shoes for a week or two...
    No? Thought not.


  • Options
    #183
    zom
    Registered Users Posts: 1,908 ✭✭✭zom


    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?

    She certainly is now (her family anyway)....


  • Options
    #184
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    mrsdewinter wrote: »
    Well, you sound like you're brimming with human kindness - perhaps you should offer to swap with her, and walk in her shoes for a week or two...
    No? Thought not.

    In the queue for sympathy she doesn't come first. Or second.


  • Options
    #185
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Biggins wrote: »
    Well for a start, because if you don't its a criminal offence.

    Was the mother prosecuted?


    Wheres the 11m to care for the next severely disabled child born thats no ones fault that doesnt have a negligent mother?


  • Options
    #186
    copeyhagen
    Registered Users Posts: 4,528 ✭✭✭copeyhagen


    someone gets in a car with no insurance, thats bad enough in itself.

    a mother getting into a car, uninsured, AND putting a baby in the back of the car..

    she should be made an example of, in a bad way


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,568 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Was the mother prosecuted?

    Wheres the 11m to care for the next severely disabled child born thats no ones fault that doesnt have a negligent mother?

    All good and valid points to be sure.


  • Options
    #188
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    sunnyspell wrote: »
    Do you know if the boy had a fastened seat belt?
    I asked that too, it's odd.
    Seachmall wrote: »
    Regardless, suggesting she's guilty of dangerous driving is speculation.
    I'm saying that should be enough. I don't make the laws alas.
    dvpower wrote: »
    Since you accept that a concentration lapse of 1 second can cause a paint-scraping blow, you will can also accept that a 1.2 second concentration lapse can lead to a full on crash.
    Well if we're to use your maths and 1 second is enough to go off-course by a couple of inches then for a head-on crash (we'll just say a quarter of the width of the car) would be about 15 inches so now we're talking about a 9 second "lapse", assuming the car in the other direction was tight to the white line.


  • Options
    #189
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    poor child how he has a good happy safe life and get the care he needs but damm the mother in the money and will no doubt use it on herself youll see


  • Options
    #190
    doubletrouble?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 310 ✭✭doubletrouble?


    tbh wrote: »
    .


    to repeat an earlier question you may have missed: you said that the mother claimed the child had distracted her. Where did you hear that please?
    it was on the news, the reporter read out what the mother said distracted her.


  • Options
    #191
    damienirel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 949 ✭✭✭damienirel


    copeyhagen wrote: »
    someone gets in a car with no insurance, thats bad enough in itself.

    a mother getting into a car, uninsured, AND putting a baby in the back of the car..

    she should be made an example of, in a bad way

    I don think that I'd go that far - but 11 million quid has to be way out.
    They're in essence rewarding her for her actions.
    Maybe 3/4 mill would have been acceptable 11 - just makes the mind boggle.
    Problem is with our overpaid judges and lawyers they live in the world of major cash and 11 million doesn't seem much to them


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 23,974 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    Whether she was insured or not, the end result would probably be the same.


  • Options
    #193
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    damienirel wrote: »
    I don think that I'd go that far - but 11 million quid has to be way out.
    They're in essence rewarding her for her actions.
    Maybe 3/4 mill would have been acceptable 11 - just makes the mind boggle.
    Problem is with our overpaid judges and lawyers they live in the world of major cash and 11 million doesn't seem much to them

    you think they just plucked that figure out of the air? Jesus wept.

    Again.

    THE MOTHER DOESN'T GET THE MONEY. THE MOTHER CANNOT SPEND THE MONEY ON WHATEVER SHE WANTS.

    the money is held in trust by the courts who will release funds to pay for the care of the child only


  • Options
    #194
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Well if we're to use your maths and 1 second is enough to go off-course by a couple of inches then for a head-on crash (we'll just say a quarter of the width of the car) would be about 15 inches so now we're talking about a 9 second "lapse", assuming the car in the other direction was tight to the white line.
    I don't think maths is you strong suit.
    Or common sense of you think it takes nine seconds to drive across a white line and hit oncoming traffic.


  • Options
    #195
    Yakult
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 7,941 Mod ✭✭✭✭Yakult


    So the mother does not get a penny of this and the child is awarded free care + benefits for the rest of he's life (Seeing as he cant access the money) due to an accident caused by he's mother who was uninsured. Would the result be the same if she was insured? This woman got off so lightly its not funny.. Anyone else and they would be hung up for it.

    Can the other driver not sue this woman for driving without insurance? A victim in this too.


  • Options
    #196
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    doubletrouble? wrote: »
    it was on the news, the reporter read out what the mother said distracted her.

    there's no mention of that in any of the numerous reports I've read.


  • Options
    #197
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Yakult wrote: »
    So the mother does not get a penny of this and the child is awarded free care + benefits for the rest of he's life (Seeing as he cant access the money) due to an accident caused by he's mother who was uninsured. Would the result be the same if she was insured? This woman got off so lightly its not funny.. Anyone else and they would be hung up for it.

    Can the other driver not sue this woman for driving without insurance? A victim in this too.

    yeah - they really hit the jackpot didn't they?


  • Options
    #198
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'm saying that should be enough. I don't make the laws alas.
    But as stated earlier it would be as rational as charging them with rape or murder.

    Not having insurance isn't a factor on how safely or dangerously you drive and thus should not be factored into Dangerous Driving. It would be a non-sequitur to consider it.


  • Options
    #199
    micropig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,366 ✭✭✭micropig


    tbh wrote: »
    you think they just plucked that figure out of the air? Jesus wept.

    Again.

    THE MOTHER DOESN'T GET THE MONEY. THE MOTHER CANNOT SPEND THE MONEY ON WHATEVER SHE WANTS.

    the money is held in trust by the courts who will release funds to pay for the care of the child only

    Ah yes but the child will need renovations to the house....which will benefit the mother

    Exotic holidays...which will benefit the mother

    New car...which will benefit the mother etc


    It's naive to think the mother will not benefit financially from this

    If the driver hadn't been the child's mother, but a neighbour giving a lift, same circumstances and accident

    Do you think the neighbour would then be considered to be an appropriate carer for the child?


  • Options
    #200
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Yakult wrote: »
    Can the other driver not sue this woman for driving without insurance? A victim in this too.
    No. That's up to the state.


  • Options
    #201
    IvySlayer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,187 ✭✭✭✭IvySlayer


    This is a stupid settlement.

    Yes the child does deserve compensation but not like this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    doubletrouble? wrote: »
    it was on the news, the reporter read out what the mother said distracted her.
    You're probably reading too much into it.
    Chances are the boy pointed at some animals and she looked out the window. What most likely happened then is what would happen to any inexperienced/incompetent driver who looks away and she drifted right while looking out the window, and by the time she looked back it was too late.

    If asked what happened, she would say, "My child pointed out some animals and I was distracted". Interpreting that as "blaming" the child is a bit extreme.

    I'm actually curious as to how a child restrained in a booster seat at the rear of the car managed to hit the windscreen.


  • Options
    #203
    micropig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,366 ✭✭✭micropig


    tbh wrote: »
    there's no mention of that in any of the numerous reports I've read.

    RTE News at one reported The child distracted the mother by drawing her attention to some animals that where at the side of the road


  • Options
    #204
    Yakult
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 7,941 Mod ✭✭✭✭Yakult


    tbh wrote: »
    yeah - they really hit the jackpot didn't they?

    If you think so.. after all she did paralyze her child. The kid deserves money no doubt about that.


  • Options
    #205
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    dvpower wrote: »
    I don't think maths is you strong suit.
    Or common sense of you think it takes nine seconds to drive across a white line and hit oncoming traffic.
    Look who's talking, you said it would take a second to go an inch or two off-course but only a fifth of that to go 8 times further off-course.
    Seachmall wrote: »
    But as stated earlier it would be as rational as charging them with rape or murder.
    How? If she had the car control to rape someone with it and did so then she should be charged with rape, if she planned to kill someone with it and did so then she should be charged with murder. Neither of those things are relevant here. The law is too narrow when it comes to murder offences IMO, causing a head-on collision requires dangerous driving on someone's part as far as I'm concerned.


  • Options
    #206
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    Deleted User wrote: »
    causing a head-on collision requires dangerous driving on someone's part as far as I'm concerned.

    I thought we were talking about insurance? My point being insurance doesn't make you a better or worse driver thus isn't a factor in dangerous driving.

    If we're discussing her taking her eyes off the road then yes, I'd agree it was dangerous, but I don't think it would prove criminal.


  • Options
    #207
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    seamus wrote: »
    I'm actually curious as to how a child restrained in a booster seat at the rear of the car managed to hit the windscreen.

    He was probably belted onto the booster seat, but the booster seat wasn't properly attached to the car seat.


  • Options
    #208
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    tbh wrote: »
    there's no mention of that in any of the numerous reports I've read.

    RTE news reported that the child drew her attention to some animals on the other side of the road, and that led to the momentary lapse in concentration.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0420/largest-settlement-ever-in-high-court-11-5m.html#video


  • Options
    #209
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Look who's talking, you said it would take a second to go an inch or two off-course but only a fifth of that to go 8 times further off-course.

    How? If she had the car control to rape someone with it and did so then she should be charged with rape, if she planned to kill someone with it and did so then she should be charged with murder. Neither of those things are relevant here. The law is too narrow when it comes to murder offences IMO, causing a head-on collision requires dangerous driving on someone's part as far as I'm concerned.

    Driving into head on traffic is dangerous driving (while uninsured no less), using terminology such as 'momentary lapse of concentration' seems to be a very value-loaded sympathetic kind of a way of describing her conduct.

    Not really sure why the media seem to be in such a hurry to adopt that tone.

    I really can't get over the nerve of this woman. She not only caused it to happen but in addition to causing it she was uninsured & now she wants everyone else to pay for her mistakes.


  • Options
    #210
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    micropig wrote: »
    RTE News at one reported The child distracted the mother by drawing her attention to some animals that where at the side of the road
    dvpower wrote: »
    RTE news reported that the child drew her attention to some animals on the other side of the road, and that led to the momentary lapse in concentration.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0420/largest-settlement-ever-in-high-court-11-5m.html#video

    yeah - just heard that - thanks.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    micropig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,366 ✭✭✭micropig


    tbh wrote: »
    yeah, like I said when you trotted out this bollocks earlier, wheelchair ramps, disabled toilets, oxygen tanks - I'd say she's rubbing her hands in glee.



    what a stupid, pointless, utterly irrelevant question.

    Arguing with you is like playing chess with a pigeon. I could be the best chess player in the world, but the pidgeon will still make a lot of noise, knock over all the pieces, crap all over the board and strut around like he won the game.

    Ok so leave a disabled child in the care of an irresponsible adult :rolleyes:

    Why should she benefit at all. Custody should be given to the father/grandparents.

    Just because she managed to have sex and conceive does not suddenly make her a fit parent. She committed a criminal offence with her child in the car. She has ruined her child's life..yet she is still seen as a fit parent..The mind boggles.


Advertisement