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…6791112…27

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    h2005
    Registered Users Posts: 1,384 ✭✭✭h2005


    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)

    What is the correlation between driving without insurance and the child`s well being? Accident happens regardless of insurance or no insurance. What punishment would sate the baying mob? Imprisonment? I`m sure her life is going to be an absolute dream from here on in:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #243
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Seachmall wrote: »
    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?

    You can punish those who by virtue of taking their eyes off the road plow head first into on-coming traffic.

    I feel so much better though. If I take my eyes off the road this weekend to check out some young one in her summer attire and knock down a kid crossing the road, there'll be so many people to come to my defence that I have no case to answer... and there was me thinking we had ad campaigns from the RSA to address exactly that issue.


  • Options
    #244
    Reg'stoy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭Reg'stoy


    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)

    Yes you drive without insurance, best result, you put yourself or child into a wheel chair with two pretty nurses to look after you full time; pity you're dead from the neck down :mad:. Worst result you get caught repeatly by ANPR cameras, get numerous fines, ban and in the end jail time.

    Yep win win situation there my friend.


  • Options
    #245
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    micropig wrote: »
    I don't begrudge the child the money, but why is the child still in the mothers custody?
    The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child - Art. 9.


  • Options
    #246
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,542 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    h2005 wrote: »
    What will that achieve? Will it make life easier for the child?

    It won't, but it will mean that she is treated exactly the same as every other uninsured driver who causes an accident.

    The thing you leave out though, is that it won't make life any more difficult for the child either. The child has an €11.5m award to pay for their every need for the rest of their life. No matter what judgement is made against the parent this money can't be touched.

    Do you really think it's right that people who pay their insurance should pay for this, whilst the person who caused it is 1) given preferential treatment to other uninsured drivers, 2) not expected to contribute a penny towards the child's care (the €11.5m will cover all that)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Dudess wrote: »
    Anyhoo, just wondering why some folks are so desperate to believe this wasn't just an accident...
    Just-world fallacy.

    Some people need to believe that she deserved to crash in order to justify their belief that she deserves to suffer for it.


  • Options
    #248
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,542 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    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. She has a life sentence for what she did.

    Tough sh1t.
    I doubt there's very many fatal accidents where the person who caused it set out to kill someone, but they still happen and the guilty party has to face the consequences.
    Just because it was her own kid and not somebody else's doesn't make what she did any less serious, nor does it mean she should be afforded special treatment in the eyes of the law


  • Options
    #249
    micropig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,366 ✭✭✭micropig


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


    Did you not read the thread she was driving the car uninsured, which indicates to me that she showed no due care & responsibility towards her child. Again, why is she fit to care for this child? because she had sex and conceived?
    Reg'stoy wrote: »
    Yes you drive without insurance, best result, you put yourself or child into a wheel chair with two pretty nurses to look after you full time; pity you're dead from the neck down :mad:. Worst result you get caught repeatly by ANPR cameras, get numerous fines, ban and in the end jail time.

    Yep win win situation there my friend.

    That's why I would have to cause 'enough damage' to my child

    I would not be dead from the waist down, my child would be


  • Options
    #250
    h2005
    Registered Users Posts: 1,384 ✭✭✭h2005


    blackwhite wrote: »
    It won't, but it will mean that she is treated exactly the same as every other uninsured driver who causes an accident.

    The thing you leave out though, is that it won't make life any more difficult for the child either. The child has an €11.5m award to pay for their every need for the rest of their life. No matter what judgement is made against the parent this money can't be touched.

    Do you really think it's right that people who pay their insurance should pay for this, whilst the person who caused it is 1) given preferential treatment to other uninsured drivers, 2) not expected to contribute a penny towards the child's care (the €11.5m will cover all that)

    Where is the preferential treatment I assume the Judges concern was the welfare of the child.How will she contribute? The child needs 24 hour care not as if she can get a job is it.


  • Options
    #251
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    prinz wrote: »
    You can punish those who by virtue of taking their eyes off the road plow head first into on-coming traffic.

    Luck seems like an arbitrary reason to decide who gets punished for breaking the law and who doesn't.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    h2005
    Registered Users Posts: 1,384 ✭✭✭h2005


    I`m curious what people think her punishment should be?


  • Options
    #253
    Thrill
    Registered Users Posts: 5,485 ✭✭✭Thrill


    micropig wrote: »
    Did you not read the thread she was driving the car uninsured, which indicates to me that she showed no due care & responsibility towards her child. Again, why is she fit to care for this child? because she had sex and conceived?



    It was an accident.


  • Options
    #254
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    seamus wrote: »
    Just-world fallacy.
    Some people need to believe that she deserved to crash in order to justify their belief that she deserves to suffer for it.

    Balls. Nobody has tried to argue that it wasn't an accident, she didn't setout to deliberately crash into oncoming traffic, there is a huge difference between saying she should still be punished for her role, and saying she deserved to crash.


  • Options
    #255
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Seachmall wrote: »
    Luck seems like an arbitrary reason to decide who gets punished for breaking the law and who doesn't.

    ..and for a lot of crimes that's all we have. Luck decides one person drinks and drives and gets home, while another is breathalysed at a routine garda checkpoint and penalised. Luck decides if a vandal spraypaints a building and gets away with it or is caught of CCTV and idenitified and punished. Luck decides the punishment for a hell of a lot of crimes. Look at how many crimes go unsolved ffs.

    It's absolutely beyond ridiculous to suggest that because we can't catch and punish everyone who breaks x law, we shouldn't punish anyone.


  • Options
    #256
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    This is a strange one.

    Absolutely tragic for the poor young-fella involved.

    Very tragic accident on the part of the mother who was driving and got distracted.

    Hopefull the compensation will see that he has the best wality of life possible.

    BUT - she wasn't insured - was she charged with driving without insurance??

    I don't mind that part of my insurance goes to pay for the care of unfortunate people injured by people driving without insurance btw.


  • Options
    #257
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    prinz wrote: »
    ..and for a lot of crimes that's all we have. Luck decides one person drinks and drives and gets home, while another is breathalysed at a routine garda checkpoint and penalised. It's absolutely beyond ridiculous to suggest that because we can't catch and punish everyone who breaks x law, we shouldn't punish anyone.

    Drink driving laws allow for active enforcement.

    What you're suggesting is passive enforcement of an unenforceable law.


  • Options
    #258
    micropig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,366 ✭✭✭micropig


    h2005 wrote: »
    Where is the preferential treatment I assume the Judges concern was the welfare of the child.How will she contribute? The child needs 24 hour care not as if she can get a job is it.

    Why can't she get a job? What qualifications/experience does she have to meet the childs needs? I'm sure the 11.5 million will pay for the best of nurses & care and rightly so. Why does this give the mother the right to sit on her arse all day?


  • Options
    #259
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,542 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    h2005 wrote: »
    Where is the preferential treatment I assume the Judges concern was the welfare of the child.How will she contribute? The child needs 24 hour care not as if she can get a job is it.

    I previously stated that I hoped MIBI sue the mother to try and recover anything that they can from her personally. That's what they do with pretty much every uninsured driver case they pay out on. Why should she be treated any differently?

    The story doesn't state if she has assets, savings, etc. that could be used to contribute if a judgement was made against her.

    The €11.5m has been calculated as being what is needed to look after the child, taking money from the mother doesn't impact on the €11.5m.


  • Options
    #260
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    h2005 wrote: »
    I`m curious what people think her punishment should be?
    Driving without insurance is 5 penalty points and a fine of up to €2,500

    I don't think this would satify the mob.


  • Options
    #261
    average_runner
    Registered Users Posts: 12,846 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    prinz wrote: »
    ..and for a lot of crimes that's all we have. Luck decides one person drinks and drives and gets home, while another is breathalysed at a routine garda checkpoint and penalised. Luck decides if a vandal spraypaints a building and gets away with it or is caught of CCTV and idenitified and punished. Luck decides the punishment for a hell of a lot of crimes. Look at how many crimes go unsolved ffs.

    It's absolutely beyond ridiculous to suggest that because we can't catch and punish everyone who breaks x law, we shouldn't punish anyone.


    If i was drive my car on the way home and get distracted by my mobile phone and I go head on into another car and wipe out a family.

    Will i get off because it was an accident and I didnt go out to do it??

    No matter what its dangerous driving.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,542 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    h2005 wrote: »
    I`m curious what people think her punishment should be?

    She should be treated the same as any other uninsured driver who causes an accident. Criminal charges for driving without insurance, followed by being sued by MIBI to recover whatever they can from her to put against the settlement.


  • Options
    #263
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    micropig wrote: »
    Why can't she get a job? What qualifications/experience does she have to meet the childs needs? I'm sure the 11.5 million will pay for the best of nurses & care and rightly so. Why does this give the mother the right to sit on her arse all day?

    sit on her arse all day?!?! My god. You genuinely have no idea how much care this boy needs.


  • Options
    #264
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Seachmall wrote: »
    Drink driving laws allow for active enforcement. What you're suggesting is passive enforcement of an unenforceable law.

    Jesus wept, I've heard it all now. Don't worry kids, use your mobile phones, fiddle with the radio, turn around and talk to the passengers in the back seat. Doesn't matter how many innocent people you kill or maim, nobody can passively enforce an unenforceable law.


  • Options
    #265
    Thrill
    Registered Users Posts: 5,485 ✭✭✭Thrill


    micropig wrote: »
    Why does this give the mother the right to sit on her arse all day?

    Who said she'll be sitting on her arse all day?


  • Options
    #266
    Macers
    Registered Users Posts: 512 ✭✭✭Macers


    http://www.independent.ie/multimedia/archive/01044/cullen-kennedy-cou_1044001t.jpg

    Mother looks smug in the photo.


  • Options
    #267
    catthinkin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,060 ✭✭✭catthinkin


    micropig wrote: »
    Why can't she get a job? What qualifications/experience does she have to meet the childs needs? I'm sure the 11.5 million will pay for the best of nurses & care and rightly so. Why does this give the mother the right to sit on her arse all day?

    i am actually praying your trolling


  • Options
    #268
    micropig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,366 ✭✭✭micropig


    tbh wrote: »
    sit on her arse all day?!?! My god. You genuinely have no idea how much care this boy needs.
    Thrill wrote: »
    Who said she'll be sitting on her arse all day?


    Well, she has 11.5 million to hire the best of nurses, doctors & carers, what's she going to be doing, supervising them?


  • Options
    #269
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    prinz wrote: »
    Jesus wept, I've heard it all now. Don't worry kids, use your mobile phones, fiddle with the radio, turn around and talk to the passengers in the back seat. Doesn't matter how many innocent people you kill or maim, nobody can passively enforce an unenforceable law.

    You can see someone driving with a mobile, for example, and pull them over. Through this you can deter others from using their mobile phones. That is active enforcement.

    Passive enforcement is the requirement of a confession with no other means to prove guilt, and as it's impossible to deter people from taking their eyes off the road (because it would be physically impossible to maintain for any reasonable length of time) it's unenforceable.


    You're suggesting a law that is solely based on 100% luck and compliance from the guilty party, and would be ineffective in preventing further violations of that law. It's absurd. It's punishing people for being human.


  • Options
    #270
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    average_runner wrote: »
    If i was drive my car on the way home and get distracted by my mobile phone and I go head on into another car and wipe out a family.

    Will i get off because it was an accident and I didnt go out to do it??

    According to some people....yes. You were just unlucky. Nobody is really to blame for wiping out that family. Off you go on your merry way...
    Seachmall wrote: »
    You're suggesting a law that is solely based on 100% luck and compliance from the guilty party.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    h2005
    Registered Users Posts: 1,384 ✭✭✭h2005


    micropig wrote: »
    Why can't she get a job? What qualifications/experience does she have to meet the childs needs? I'm sure the 11.5 million will pay for the best of nurses & care and rightly so. Why does this give the mother the right to sit on her arse all day?

    Considering the state of the child do you really think she is sitting on her arse all day? Would bringing in a nurse be cheaper? Its 4 years since the accident I`d imagine she has some experience by now but have no clue of her qualifications do you?


Advertisement