Woman awards €2.8million for abuse - who pays this?

NIMAN

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/woman-gets-28m-for-years-of-rape-by-godfather-3295038.html

When I see cases like this, I always wondered who actually pays the money to her?
The guy who was found guilty has been in jail for 4yrs.

ResearchWill

NIMAN wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/woman-gets-28m-for-years-of-rape-by-godfather-3295038.html

When I see cases like this, I always wondered who actually pays the money to her?
The guy who was found guilty has been in jail for 4yrs.

Him if he has it, otherwise no one.

Procrastastudy

NIMAN wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/woman-gets-28m-for-years-of-rape-by-godfather-3295038.html

When I see cases like this, I always wondered who actually pays the money to her?
The guy who was found guilty has been in jail for 4yrs.

Who do you think pays for it? It may be that no-one will but the person who was sued pays.

coylemj

Just because he's in jail doesn't mean he has no assets. The answer to your question is that the defendant in the case has to pay the money, if he can't afford to then she would have the option to have him declared bankrupt.

NIMAN

Sorry it appeared like a stupid question by the sound of your responses.

What I was hinting at was whether or not the State paid it if he can't. I guess not so.
So this woman may well see not a cent of this €2.8million?

Procrastastudy

I wasn't meaning to sound rude - I was genuinely wondering who you thought paid it.

Well after he's no house or car she may not see any more. That said she would have been unlikely to sue him if he didn't have any money as she would have just cost herself a fortune in legal fees.

van_beano

I don't think it was a stupid question.........I was actually thinking the same thing when I read the report earlier, I came to the conclusion that the state would be paying this aswell. Not for any particular reason but just because they seem to be funding everything.......

Procrastastudy

van_beano wrote: »

I don't think it was a stupid question.........I was actually thinking the same thing when I read the report earlier, I came to the conclusion that the state would be paying this aswell. Not for any particular reason but just because they seem to be funding everything.......

Is your . key broken?

van_beano

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Is your . key broken?

Yes

RandolphEsq

If the state did pay it would create a difficult situation where false rape claims would be made but also there would be anger amongst the public at having o pay. The anger would be directed at the rapist but unfortunately it would also be targeted at the victim. So it is a good thing the state doesn't pay the compensation just because a citizen gets raped by another citizen.

Procrastastudy

RandolphEsq wrote: »

If the state did pay it would create a difficult situation where false rape claims would be made but also there would be anger amongst the public at having o pay. The anger would be directed at the rapist but unfortunately it would also be targeted at the victim. So it is a good thing the state doesn't pay the compensation just because a citizen gets raped by another citizen.

Isn't there a compensation scheme for victims of crime or is it just where there is a death?

ResearchWill

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Isn't there a compensation scheme for victims of crime or is it just where there is a death?

It only covers out of pocket expenses. http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Criminal_Injuries_Compensation_Scheme

krd

NIMAN wrote: »

Sorry it appeared like a stupid question by the sound of your responses.

What I was hinting at was whether or not the State paid it if he can't. I guess not so.

It's not a stupid question.

Where you thinking she would be awarded like this?

A man who suffered severe brain damage when a bottle thrown by his then girlfriend hit him on the head, has been awarded about €3.8 million under a criminal injuries compensation scheme, the High Court heard yesterday when asked to approve that award.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1113/1224326525916.html

The criminal injuries compensation scheme.

So this woman may well see not a cent of this €2.8million?

He probably has it. I'm sure his means to pay would have been assessed.

A lot of people inherit that kind of money in terms of assets - you'd never earn it through honest hard work yourself. But the average Irish farm is 40 acres. It's €20,000 per acre at today's prices. That would be €800,000. The grand big farm house might fetch a few hundred thousand more. And if the fella owns a pub or two, the money is really going to be adding up. Maybe he has a plant hire business, and has some cute deal with the council, a lot of these fellas do. He may be one of these farmers who made millions selling a few quarters of acres to a ghost estate builder. Maybe he was a ghost estate builder - and still has millions of the "working capital" stashed away, a lot of these fellas do - how do you think they could build Achill henge, if they hadn't finished or sold a house.

Procrastastudy

I suppose if we want to be cynical we all do pay, generally, in PI cases as they involve insurance. So if someone gets 1.5 million because they are injured by a driver - it all just goes on our premiums.

I suppose its also worth mentioning that a foundation of tort law is it is simply a loss distribution system.

krd

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I suppose its also worth mentioning that a foundation of tort law is it is simply a loss distribution system.

Or a winnings distribution system.

The American system is out of control and grossly inefficient. People who do not have adequate health cover (which if most people in the US - full cover is really really expensive), when they get something not covered by their insurance, they sue their doctors for malpractice, so they can afford treatment - the doctors malpractice insurance pays out.

The whole nonsense of it is the doctors fees are paid from the patients' health insurance - from those fees, the doctor pays his malpractice insurance. The health insurance companies are like idiots thinking they've gained something by screwing their customers, instead they literally put themselves over a barrel and ask the lawyers to give it to them.

coylemj

krd wrote: »

The American system is out of control and grossly inefficient.

++1

krd wrote: »

People who do not have adequate health cover (which if most people in the US - full cover is really really expensive), when they get something not covered by their insurance, they sue their doctors for malpractice, so they can afford treatment - the doctors malpractice insurance pays out.

Actually in most cases the uninsured patient ends up in hock to the hospital and it takes them years to pay the fees which are collected by pretty efficient (by which I mean persistent, not leg breaker) debt collectors. This happens with sudden illnesses that no doctor can be expected to foresee like an appendix operation or most forms of cancer.

krd

coylemj wrote: »

Actually in most cases the uninsured patient ends up in hock to the hospital

They have an awful system. Their health insurance isn't quite like VHI - where the different packages don't really have much of an impact on basic care. It's a bit like build your own pizza - where the pizza toppings are diseases and accidents. And the insurance company is always trying to wiggle out "Sorry Sir, you didn't order the malignant hemorrhoid topping, you're not covered - that'll be 200 grand - We'll take Laser, Mastercard, or a kidney".

What's worse. By law, all hospitals have to accept anyone, rich or poor who turn up for treatment. This is the excuse the Republicans use against introducing universal health care - supposedly they already have it. The hospital is supposed to pay for these people - and they get paid by the government. In practice though, this is not really what happens. I know people who've worked in American hospitals. Especially in the South. When poor people turn up, they'll try every trick in the book not to let them in the hospital.

A friend was telling me, pick up trucks would pull up to his hospital, with seriously injured people in the back (typical redneck lumber accidents) - the hospital wouldn't let them out of the truck without checking for their insurance. And when these people didn't have insurance, they'd make up some very lame excuse like they couldn't take them in the hospital because they didn't have the special lifting gear needed to take them out of the truck.

The reality is they let people die.

In the liberal North it can be a little different. There was a hospital in DC - and they let uninsured people (like me) get treatment for $50.

and it takes them years to pay the fees which are collected by pretty efficient (by which I mean persistent, not leg breaker) debt collectors.

The health insurers have some deal that you can't even go bankrupt in relation to their debts - they can keep coming after you forever.

This happens with sudden illnesses that no doctor can be expected to foresee like an appendix operation or most forms of cancer.

More or less, they encourage people to stay home, and die.

Full cover insurance there can be ridiculously expensive. A US friend was over here a few years back, and we're having a few pints. And he tells me, he's paying 16 thousand dollars a year for full family cover. We're both talking about US health care and how crazy it is. He skulls his pint and says "well I hope get something really f'''king expensive at some point after paying all that money"......

He leaves Ireland. And then heads off to Colorado for a skiing weekend with his son. While he's there up the mountain, he has a terrible accident. He's got full cover - his 16 thousand a year covers everything - the insurance company will have to cough up for whatever it takes. A helicopter ambulance is called in - insurance company has to pay. They get him to the nearest hospital - the hospital decides they're not equip to deal with his injuries. A flying hospital is chartered - just for him. Another helicopter trip. Then and airplane from Colorado to DC. Then another helicopter. And then finally to hospital............So, in the end of the day, he did manage to screw his gouging insurance company.

McCrack

krd wrote: »

It's not a stupid question.

Where you thinking she would be awarded like this?

A man who suffered severe brain damage when a bottle thrown by his then girlfriend hit him on the head, has been awarded about €3.8 million under a criminal injuries compensation scheme, the High Court heard yesterday when asked to approve that award.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1113/1224326525916.html

The criminal injuries compensation scheme.



He probably has it. I'm sure his means to pay would have been assessed.

A lot of people inherit that kind of money in terms of assets - you'd never earn it through honest hard work yourself. But the average Irish farm is 40 acres. It's €20,000 per acre at today's prices. That would be €800,000. The grand big farm house might fetch a few hundred thousand more. And if the fella owns a pub or two, the money is really going to be adding up. Maybe he has a plant hire business, and has some cute deal with the council, a lot of these fellas do. He may be one of these farmers who made millions selling a few quarters of acres to a ghost estate builder. Maybe he was a ghost estate builder - and still has millions of the "working capital" stashed away, a lot of these fellas do - how do you think they could build Achill henge, if they hadn't finished or sold a house.

And if my mother had balls she'd be my dad

krd

McCrack wrote: »

And if my mother had balls she'd be my dad

And which one is which?.........Because all ye Culchies look alike to me.



♫ Molly, My Irish Molly,
My hairy Molly, My Cush la dear
I'm half off my nellie, for your hairy belly,
my nush da smear ♫

Hunchback

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I wasn't meaning to sound rude - I was genuinely wondering who you thought paid it.

Well after he's no house or car she may not see any more. That said she would have been unlikely to sue him if he didn't have any money as she would have just cost herself a fortune in legal fees.

The recipient of the (now second) highest award in damages for crimes of this nature in this jurisdiction had no means of paying legal costs, nor any prospect of paying any.




The convicted individual was/is in possession of an equally negligible amount of assets, with no probable prospect of paying any substantial amount of the seven figure amount awarded in damages in the civil case.

Vindication and recognition were enough.

Procrastastudy

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

The recipient of the (now second) highest award in damages for crimes of this nature in this jurisdiction had no means of paying legal costs, nor any prospect of paying any.




The convicted individual was/is in possession of an equally negligible amount of assets, with no probable prospect of paying any substantial amount of the seven figure amount awarded in damages in the civil case.

Vindication and recognition were enough.

Enough for people who can afford to pay their legal fees. Granted vindication is certainly an aim of Tort.

Hunchback

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

The recipient of the (now second) highest award in damages for crimes of this nature in this jurisdiction had no means of paying legal costs, nor any prospect of paying any.

Procrastastudy

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

The recipient of the (now second) highest award in damages for crimes of this nature in this jurisdiction had no means of paying legal costs, nor any prospect of paying any.

Surely the other side would be paying?

ResearchWill

Procrastastudy wrote: »

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

Surely the other side would be paying?

Only if he has money, if not its more than likely the plaintiff's team are acting pro bono?

Hunchback

ResearchWill wrote: »

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Only if he has money, if not its more than likely the plaintiff's team are acting pro bono?

Precisely.

McCrack

krd wrote: »

And which one is which?.........Because all ye Culchies look alike to me.




♫ Molly, My Irish Molly,
My hairy Molly, My Cush la dear
I'm half off my nellie, for your hairy belly,
my nush da smear ♫

Sums your level up nicely, wouldn't say you had to look too far to find a picture like that either.

Now carry on, continue to amuse us all.

Procrastastudy

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

ResearchWill wrote: »

Precisely.

So that would be a legal bill of near zero then...

Even I can aford that - which is not what you have been saying CK.

Hunchback

Procrastastudy wrote: »

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

So that would be a legal bill of near zero then...

Even I can aford that - which is not what you have been saying CK.

Point taken, it does sound a bit like that.


Procratastudy said "Well after he's no house or car she may not see any more. That said she would have been unlikely to sue him if he didn't have any money as she would have just cost herself a fortune in legal fees. ", which is absolutley fair enough. I am just wondering though if this landmark case was taken in the same context as the case I mentioned, where the victim was aware that there would be no real substantial amount paid by the perpetrator, and took the case purely because it was the right thing to do?

Procrastastudy

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Point taken, it does sound a bit like that.


Procratastudy said "Well after he's no house or car she may not see any more. That said she would have been unlikely to sue him if he didn't have any money as she would have just cost herself a fortune in legal fees. ", which is absolutley fair enough. I am just wondering though if this landmark case was taken in the same context as the case I mentioned, where the victim was aware that there would be no real substantial amount paid by the perpetrator, and took the case purely because it was the right thing to do?

That I'm afraid I can't help you with. I would however see no shortage of people prepared to work pro bono on a case like it so also take your point about vindication - even further - perhaps vindication is linked to the figure awared.