Injured child gets 11.5 million euros

UrbanSea

dvpower wrote: »

There is a difference with how you might understand dangerous driving to colloquially mean and the offence of dangerous driving.


About as logical as charging people with no insurance with dangerous driving.

I admire your use of hyperbole, silly as it may be.

Seachmall

Seachmall wrote: »

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.

No I'm just talking about the fact that she caused a head-on collision. Barring mechanical or medical maladies that should just about always constitute dangerous driving as far as I'm concerned.
She should've been charged separately for the lack of insurance and if the kid/booster seat didn't have seatbelt fastened then for that as well.

tbh

micropig wrote: »

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.

sorry - I deleted that post - shouldn't have posted like that - apologies.

seamus

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.

If the car was drifting by 5 degrees from centre, it would only have to go 3.44m before it was 30cm (12 inches) off course.

At 80km/h, you will cover 3.44 metres in less than a sixth of a second.

In the more realistic scenario that she drifts by just one degree off-course, the car will be 30cm off course in just 0.8 seconds.

So it's fairly clear to see that even a small amount of time with your eyes off the road, coupled with a very small rightwards drift could easily leave you on the wrong side of the road before you know it.

Seachmall

Morlar wrote: »

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.

Her conduct, in respect to taking her eyes off the road, is the same conduct of every driver out there without exception.

Everybody has taken their eyes off the road or had a lapse of concentration while driving at some stage.

Her accident could have happened to anybody.

Deleted User wrote: »

No I'm just talking about the fact that she caused a head-on collision. Barring mechanical or medical maladies that should just about always constitute dangerous driving as far as I'm concerned.

All road accidents should be criminal matters is what you're suggesting?

mrsdewinter

tbh wrote: »

micropig wrote: »

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.

sorry - I deleted that post - shouldn't have posted like that - apologies.

That's a pity - awesome post.

kevin65

How many of us have done stupid or irresponsible things at some stage in our lives. The consequences of this mothers actions is that she has ruined her child's life and probably the whole family. No amount of money will fix things.

allibastor

i once had a car which for 8 months was un-insured due to a mix up with the car. some stupid thing.

i have also had many times where my attention was not completely on the road, fixing radio or drinking coffee.

i would hate to think that if i was in this situation that people would forget that everyone lapses in judgement and we dont know why she was un-insured or anything.

just remember she has to know what happened every second for the rest of her life and of his.

catthinkin

copeyhagen wrote: »

mothers a kunt.

wtf for having and accident? or not having insurance ? ah is really depressing at the min if this is the best we can come up with :mad:

Doc Ruby

seamus wrote: »

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.

This kind of thing happens all the time unfortunately. A few weeks back I was driving out of my estate with another car approaching me. Clear line of sight, straight road, no obstructions or distractions, and he turned head on directly into me at about 30, presumably parking, right in front of me without warning or indicator. If I hadn't leaned on the brakes and turned outwards as quick as I had it could have been very nasty indeed.

There are just some people who shouldn't be driving.

Morlar

Morlar wrote: »

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.

Along with the "she has to live with what happened" being punishment enough line of reasoning.

seamus wrote: »

If the car was drifting by 5 degrees from centre, it would only have to go 3.44m before it was 30cm (12 inches) off course.

At 80km/h, you will cover 3.44 metres in less than a sixth of a second.

In the more realistic scenario that she drifts by just one degree off-course, the car will be 30cm off course in just 0.8 seconds.

So it's fairly clear to see that even a small amount of time with your eyes off the road, coupled with a very small rightwards drift could easily leave you on the wrong side of the road before you know it.

I was going along with the person I was quoting's bull**** maths :pac: However if we're going with an 80km/h assumption both directions then she wouldn't still be around so I'd say it's fair to assume the speeds were a bit lower than that at least. When it comes down to it though if someone takes their eye off the road (and admits as much) and drifts into oncoming traffic then that should be enough for a dangerous driving conviction.

Dudess

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

Damn! Flies in the face of a lot of the mob's assumptions. But no doubt they'll come up with other lies.

Must suck to be that keen to find badness in people...

prinz

kevin65 wrote: »

How many of us have done stupid or irresponsible things at some stage in our lives. The consequences of this mothers actions is that she has ruined her child's life and probably the whole family. No amount of money will fix things.

The same consequences would rest on anyone who caused such an accident, whether it was their child injured or it was a child that had been in the back seat of the other car. That doesn't mean she shouldn't be held responsible for it.

h2005

blackwhite wrote: »

It was an accident that she got into the car and drove it whilst knowing that she had no insurance?

Hope MIBI sue her for every cent of the award.

What will that achieve? Will it make life easier for the child?

recedite

Unfortunately there's no way to punish the mother without also punishing the child. But look at what she did;

1. Driving without bothering to get insurance.

2. Put a kid in the car without bothering to strap him in properly.(doesn't matter what she says; if the kid was properly strapped in, he wouldn't have been catapulted through the windscreen)

3. Drove head on into oncoming traffic allegedly while gawking at animals, (but more likely reaching round to talk to or otherwise deal with the kid)

:mad::mad::mad:

Stiffler2

Cool - I don't need car insurance anymore.....

micropig

OK, What I've gathered so far in this thread is:

I can drive without insurance as long as I cause enough damage to my child my law breaking will be ignored, it will be forgiven & I will receive lots of money and sympathy because poor me (Fcuk the child's well being)

kevin65

prinz wrote: »

kevin65 wrote: »

How many of us have done stupid or irresponsible things at some stage in our lives. The consequences of this mothers actions is that she has ruined her child's life and probably the whole family. No amount of money will fix things.

The same consequences would rest on anyone who caused such an accident, whether it was their child injured or it was a child that had been in the back seat of the other car. That doesn't mean she shouldn't be held responsible for it.

I don't disagree with that, but she didn't set out to do what she did, so I would be reluctant to pass judgement on her. She has a life sentence for what she did.

Dudess

micropig wrote: »

OK, What I've gathered so far in this thread is:

I can drive without insurance as long as I cause enough damage to my child my law breaking will be ignored, it will be forgiven

No you haven't.

Anyhoo, just wondering why some folks are so desperate to believe this wasn't just an accident...

prinz

kevin65 wrote: »

I don't disagree with that, but she didn't set out to do what she did, so I would be reluctant to pass judgement on her.

I don't think anybody sets out to deliberately cause a head-on crash but they do because of their own actions. If the child had been in the other car, would we see so many people saying... 'oh she has to deal with what has happened, that's punishment enough'....

dvpower

micropig wrote: »

OK, What I've gathered so far in this thread is:

I can drive without insurance as long as I cause enough damage to my child my law breaking will be ignored, it will be forgiven & I will receive lots of money and
sympathy because poor me (Fcuk the child's well being)

The money is for the child's well being, as has been explained over and over to you.

micropig

Dudess wrote: »

No you haven't.

Anyhoo, just wondering why some folks are so desperate to believe this wasn't just an accident...

Yes, Yes I have


It could have easily been avoided: She shouldn't have been driving the car-She was not insured and breaking the law. If she had obeyed the law, she would not have been on the road at the time the accident occurred.

catthinkin

recedite wrote: »

Unfortunately there's no way to punish the mother without also punishing the child. But look at what she did;

1. Driving without bothering to get insurance.

2. Put a kid in the car without bothering to strap him in properly.(doesn't matter what she says; if the kid was properly strapped in, he wouldn't have been catapulted through the windscreen)

3. Drove head on into oncoming traffic allegedly while gawking at animals, (but more likely reaching round to talk to or otherwise deal with the kid)

:mad::mad::mad:

yes thats whats called an accident ! apart from not bothering with insurance and i assume you know this ? could of lasped for numerous reasons .

the way some posters are going on its like she deliberately smashed her sons spine in herself

average_runner

prinz wrote: »

I don't think anybody sets out to deliberately cause a head-on crash but they do because of their own actions. If the child had been in the other car, would we see so many people saying... 'oh she has to deal with what has happened, that's punishment enough'....

I know the mother as to deal with what she did to her own son, but the law still should sentence her also.

Seachmall

prinz wrote: »

I don't think anybody sets out to deliberately cause a head-on crash but they do because of their own actions. If the child had been in the other car, would we see so many people saying... 'oh she has to deal with what has happened, that's punishment enough'....

But the crash was caused by taking her eyes off the road. Are we to arrest people who do that? How would we enforce it?

micropig wrote: »

It could have easily been avoided: She shouldn't have been driving the car-She was not insured and breaking the law. If she had obeyed the law, she would not have been on the road at the time the accident occurred.

Or, had she obeyed the law and had gotten insurance the accident would still have occurred.

micropig

dvpower wrote: »

The money is for the child's well being, as has been explained over and over to you.

I don't begrudge the child the money, but why is the child still in the mothers custody?

gerardk55

Out of curiousity what injuries were sustained by the mother or the occupants of the other car? I find it hard to believe he was "restrained in a booster seat" (rte.ie) and yet suffered such horrific injuries.

Personally I think she has some neck to pose for photographers.

dvpower

prinz wrote: »

I don't think anybody sets out to deliberately cause a head-on crash but they do because of their own actions. If the child had been in the other car, would we see so many people saying... 'oh she has to deal with what has happened, that's punishment enough'....

If the child wasn't her own then it would be a whole lot easier for her to deal with what happened. Completely different circumstance.

damienirel

recedite wrote: »

Unfortunately there's no way to punish the mother without also punishing the child. But look at what she did;

1. Driving without bothering to get insurance.

2. Put a kid in the car without bothering to strap him in properly.(doesn't matter what she says; if the kid was properly strapped in, he wouldn't have been catapulted through the windscreen)

3. Drove head on into oncoming traffic allegedly while gawking at animals, (but more likely reaching round to talk to or otherwise deal with the kid)

:mad::mad::mad:

Yeah but isn't this very mean spirited? - She made a mistake that more than likely has ruined her life as well as her kids life.

I also totally hate stupid comments like "No amount of money would sort things out" talk about stating the obvious?
Money will not fix this kids problems so why are they shoveling it out to him?

All the €11m looks after is the Judges and the Lawyers.
Because the case becomes high profile with payouts like that.
So overtime Lawyers will continue to get paid more and more - it's a vested interest - meanwhile the normal Joe that pays insurance will continue to pay higher an higher rates of it.
Normal Joe 0 - Big Boys Club 1

That is why this country is screwed!
The honest hardworking people who don't gamble away their lives, their money or their children's lives or money get shafted.

We all need to wake up and see this for what it is.
I reckon it's time to get out of the ship before it sinks completely.

catthinkin

micropig wrote: »

I don't begrudge the child the money, but why is the child still in the mothers custody?

well thats noble of you! because it was an accident and she cares for him full time did you read the thread?