Student hit by bus settles for 9million euro

Hondo75

When I first seen this ,I thought not another overpaid compo, but Carlos Tesch deserves it ..What happened to the lads chasing him with hurley stick ? Prob nothing..

Best Wishes Carlos and hope the money helps in some way

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0506/615613-carlos-tesch/

http://vimeo.com/48160467

Custardpi

I wonder how the poor bus driver feels. I doubt he's been the same since. Probably true that the real culprits will get off scott free, as usual.

131spanner

Life changing accident, having been to China for cell stem treatment twice sounds pretty fúcking rough. Poor kid.

punisher5112

I am a bit confused as to how DB is found 70% liable.

Did the bus mount the path or run a red?

Why aren't people responsible for their own actions?

Why are the ones that were chasing at some fault?

Very sad for someones life to be changed so bad and feel very bad for him and his family.

MagicMarker

Great article, full of no details whatsoever.

Glebee

Hurleys in Wicklow. Something funny going on there.

darkpagandeath

when Carlos suddenly ran across the road and was hit by a bus.

70% liable ???? is this the same judge that gave compo to someone climbing over a fence and impaled themselves

Can't see how they were liable from the details provided.

Custardpi

Yeah I'd be in two minds about this, really don't see how the driver could have done much more than he did in the circumstances to avoid the accident. If someone runs out right in front of a bus he'll be hit as it's pretty hard to immediately stop a several ton vehicle going at any sort of speed. On the other hand he's a kid whose life is destroyed rather than an adult so there's probably a lot worse things to spend public money (Dublin Bus being a semi-state) on than this.

Tail Docker

Sorry for the kid and his parents, but how in the name of anything was it Dublin Busses fault that he ran suddenly out in front of one? If I run out on front of one and only get a bit banjaxed, do I get 1 million? How many people run out in front of them every year? Do they all get compo?

punisher5112

Ireland has gone compo mad.

Sue anyone and for anything.

Gatling

Tail Docker wrote: »

Sorry for the kid and his parents, but how in the name of anything was it Dublin Busses fault that he ran suddenly out in front of one? If I run out on front of one and only get a bit banjaxed, do I get 1 million? How many people run out in front of them every year? Do they all get compo?

27 million paid out last year by Dublin bus in accident claims apparently,

Though this lad suffered horrific injuries I find it hard to believe Dublin bus were mostly responsible,

Anyone remember the lad who rode a horse into a bus and got a massive claim

El Guapo!

punisher5112 wrote: »

Ireland has gone compo mad.

Sue anyone and for anything.

Did you even read the story?

darkpagandeath

El Guapo! wrote: »

Did you even read the story?

Emotive story is emotive does not give details of the 70% contributing factor Dublin bus has. All it said is the boy himself ran out in front of the bus.

El Guapo!

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Emotive story is emotive does not give details of the 70% contributing factor Dublin bus has. All it said is the boy himself ran out in front of the bus.

And it also says that the boy had catastrophic head injuries which has resulted in him not being able to walk or talk properly and he's had to travel halfway across the globe for stem cell treatment.

I'd hardly think that's a frivolous claim which is what the previous poster was alluding to.

punisher5112

El Guapo! wrote: »

Did you even read the story?

I sure did...

Why you ask?

I asked how was db at 70% fault?

If I ran out into traffic I wouldn't get a cent as this would be my own fault for running out.

the_syco

when Carlos suddenly ran across the road and was hit by a bus.

The Supreme Court ruled two months ago that Dublin Bus was 70% liable for Carlos's injuries.

If you run in front of the bus, how exactly is it the buses fault?

darkpagandeath

El Guapo! wrote: »

And it also says that the boy had catastrophic head injuries which has resulted in him not being able to walk or talk properly and he's had to travel halfway across the globe for stem cell treatment.

I'd hardly think that's a frivolous claim which is what the previous poster was alluding to.

As I said the article says he ran in front of the bus. So an accident, I fail to see how causing catastrophic injuries to ones self through ones actions warrants compensation. If the article listed the 70% contributing factor Dublin bus had then we can discuss that. But the only contributing factor listed is the boys own actions. it does not even say that the boys were still being pursued right up to the point of the accident.

El Guapo!

darkpagandeath wrote: »

As I said the article says he ran in front of the bus. So an accident, I fail to see how causing catastrophic injuries to ones self through ones actions warrants compensation. If the article listed the 70% contributing factor Dublin bus had then we can discuss that. But the only contributing factor listed is the boys own actions. it does not even say that the boys were still being pursued right up to the point of the accident.

I fully agree in that I'm not sure how Dublin Bus is responsible. The article is a bit light on details.
I just don't like the way it was inferred that it was a frivolous claim. If the boy is in a bad way, which it seems he is, then he should be entitled to compensation. But I agree the compensation should come from whoever is at fault, which doesn't seem like Dublin Bus imo.

Vito Corleone

He deserves compensation but I don't see why Dublin Bus should be paying it.

Pro Hoc Vice

El Guapo! wrote: »

I fully agree in that I'm not sure how Dublin Bus is responsible. The article is a bit light on details.
I just don't like the way it was inferred that it was a frivolous claim. If the boy is in a bad way, which it seems he is, then he should be entitled to compensation. But I agree the compensation should come from whoever is at fault, which doesn't seem like Dublin Bus imo.

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/F25F389292473C9A80257CA50058F6FD

From the judgement of the SC,

"Conclusions
The trial Judge herein carefully set out the law governing the liability of drivers when there are children present at or near the roadway. He pointed out that there was no controversy between the parties as to the applicable law. He referred to the decision of this Court in McDonald v. Córas Iompair Éireann [1971] 105 ILTR 13 in which Budd J. stated:

“The jury should be told that the presence or expected presence of children on or near the travelling surface of the highway casts a heavy responsibility on the driver of a vehicle approaching such children. He must alert himself to their presence and be mindful that they may act in the heedless fashion that children do. He must place himself in such a position to be in readiness to take all such precautions as he reasonably can to avoid causing injury to anyone of them who acts in a heedless fashion. This will involve, inter alia, such matters as keeping a careful watch on the children possibly giving warning of his presence, keeping a reasonable distance from them, and having his vehicle under such control and travelling at such speed and otherwise acting in such a fashion as will enable him to take all such steps as are reasonably possible to avoid their heedless movements and actions. The details of what is said must of course vary with the circumstances of the case. The time, place, presence of other traffic and other relevant matters must influence what is said. It is also necessary to avoid conveying the impression to the jury that it is the duty of the driver in the presence of young children to ensure their safety in all circumstances. What is required is that he should take all such steps as can reasonably be expected of him as a prudent man, bearing in mind the heavy responsibility resting on him in the presence of young children . . .”
The fact that personal injury actions at that time were determined by a Judge sitting with a jury does not alter the legal principles to be applied by a trial Judge sitting alone. Cross J. applied the principles set out in that decision to the facts of this case."


Further

"The evidence accepted by Cross J. is that Mr. O’S was a very careful and safe driver. Unfortunately, on this occasion, he was distracted by a conversation with a passenger in the seconds leading up to this tragic accident. At the moment of the emergency, he reacted with commendable alertness but, sadly, he was not alert to the potential hazard unfolding as he approached the boys on the pavement and thus, was not able to anticipate or take any appropriate steps to minimise the consequences of the potential hazard."

Earlier in the judgement

"Cross J. was of the view that had Mr. O’S seen the boys on the pavement acting boisterously and changing position he would have slowed down. He went further and added that Mr. O’S “could have and should have” applied his brakes from about fifty yards back. He also concluded that the bus could and should have been moved out towards the right. He added that had the driver seen the boys acting boisterously, the driver would have and should have blown his horn. Critically, he concluded that the bus driver, because of the distraction of the conversation with the passenger, or otherwise, did not see the boys for a number of seconds after they were available to be seen and in those circumstances, Cross J. concluded that the bus driver did not have the time to make the judgment he ought to have made as to the potential hazard presented by the boys earlier. He added that the driver did not have the time to be conscious of the fact that the boys were acting boisterously."

Its funny how indignation did not lead to a bit of a search for the actual facts, seems a very reasonable judgment in light of the facts.

asteroids over berlin

I am sure Carlos and co would give up the money without a 2nd thought if they could rewind back the past!! A lot of cash but if anybody gets hit by a vehicle these days, the driver will be deemed somewhat responsible and the insurance company will pay out. Carlos died for 2 mins, bit of a hardcore compo claim, 9 million is indeed a lot but it will take a lot to look after him, particularly when he gets older etc

Very sad though

Custardpi

Because going after the gougers who would appear to have actually caused the accident by terrifying the kid enough to make him run into the road would be too much like hard work.

Patser

Just read the Irish Times article on this - which I can't link on this phone, just Google Tesch Bus - and I'm still baffled.

It gives more details saying the bus was traveling at 40 kph in a 50 zone and the driver reacted immediately to Carlos running onto the road. However Dublin Bus gets the liability as the driver had a passenger talking to him, which distracted him from noticing the kids running towards the road and didn't prepare for anything to happen.

I'm sorry but a driver going below the limit that reacts immediately is not 70% liable IMO. Dublin bus had appealed this but lost that appeal.

NSAman

Custardpi wrote: »

Because going after the gougers who would appear to have actually caused the accident by terrifying the kid enough to make him run into the road would be too much like hard work.

Are the Gardai asking for the publics assistance to trace the culprits? (as usual)

Custardpi

They'll have to put drivers in a sound-proof booth & ban them from driving over 10mph to completely avoid cases like this.

Pro Hoc Vice

Custardpi wrote: »

Because going after the gougers who would appear to have actually caused the accident by terrifying the kid enough to make him run into the road would be too much like hard work.

I have read the judgement there is in my opinion no evidence that "gougers" caused the accident.

Pro Hoc Vice

Patser wrote: »

Just read the Irish Times article on this - which I can't link on this phone, just Google Tesch Bus - and I'm still baffled.

It gives more details saying the bus was traveling at 40 kph in a 50 zone and the driver reacted immediately to Carlos running onto the road. However Dublin Bus gets the liability as the driver had a passenger talking to him, which distracted him from noticing the kids running towards the road and didn't prepare for anything to happen.

I'm sorry but a driver going below the limit that reacts immediately is not 70% liable IMO. Dublin bus had appealed this but lost that appeal.

Read the SC judgement it's linked above.

Custardpi

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I have read the judgement there is in my opinion no evidence that "gougers" caused the accident.

They were trying to get away from a group of older Irish boys, who had allegedly previously confronted the students while brandishing hurleys, when Carlos suddenly ran across the road and was hit by a bus.

From the article linked in the OP. The kid was obviously scared into doing something stupid.

Irish Guitarist

That article looks like something I would have written in 'My News' in primary school.

yawhat!

Nearly as bad as that one that slipped on the icey steps and was awarded one million. I guarantee next winter we are going to have a load of people slipping on icey steps. Hey slip on some steps which is your own stupidity and have a free million yoyo's!

I feel for the kid but if he ran out in front of the bus why should they have to pay 7 million?
God Forbid If I was driving along and some kid jumped out in front of me would I be liable for 7 million?

Pro Hoc Vice

Custardpi wrote: »

From the article linked in the OP. The kid was obviously scared into doing something stupid.

From the judgement,

"2.3 Evidence was adduced which the court accepts from a number of the plaintiff’s fellow student (sic) to the effect that on one or two occasions prior to 4th February, 2009, when the plaintiff and his friends were making a similar journey, they had been involved in an altercation with local youths, a few years older than the plaintiff’s group, who had congregated on the green area beside Herbert Road confronting the students verbally, brandishing hurleys and on one occasion there was apparently an exchange of snowballs."

Went on

"2.4 The plaintiff’s friends stated, and I accept, that they became agitated at the prospect of a confrontation with the youths and they started altering their positions in the group and that the plaintiff said words to the effect that he had done nothing wrong and he did not want to get involved and he suddenly ran out at an angle to get to the other side to the road.”


But of course the media must be correct and the evidence given under oath in the a High Court must of course be wrong. My reading is on previous occasions older boys did bold things, on the day of the accident the plaintiff decided to avoid any possible altercation.

Patser

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Read the SC judgement it's linked above.

Yep. It was posted there as I was typing and I read it afterwards. It suggests drivers sound their horn as they approach children to warn of their presence, move to the centre of the road to give space and slow down. So we'll end up with buses swerving down the road, while lurching along accelerating and braking while merrily beeping away everytime it's school finishing time.

Pro Hoc Vice

yawhat! wrote: »

Nearly as bad as that one that slipped on the icey steps and was awarded one million. I guarantee next winter we are going to have a load of people slipping on icey steps. Hey slip on some steps which is your own stupidity and have a free million yoyo's!

I feel for the kid but if he ran out in front of the bus why should they have to pay 7 million?
God Forbid If I was driving along and some kid jumped out in front of me would I be liable for 7 million?

Did you read the judgement and why 1 High Court and later 3 Supreme Court judges decided as they did. So 4 judges after hearing all the evidence in court and reading the relevant law made an incorrect decision according to posters who have read a news paper article.

Custardpi

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

From the judgement,

"2.3 Evidence was adduced which the court accepts from a number of the plaintiff’s fellow student (sic) to the effect that on one or two occasions prior to 4th February, 2009, when the plaintiff and his friends were making a similar journey, they had been involved in an altercation with local youths, a few years older than the plaintiff’s group, who had congregated on the green area beside Herbert Road confronting the students verbally, brandishing hurleys and on one occasion there was apparently an exchange of snowballs."

Went on

"2.4 The plaintiff’s friends stated, and I accept, that they became agitated at the prospect of a confrontation with the youths and they started altering their positions in the group and that the plaintiff said words to the effect that he had done nothing wrong and he did not want to get involved and he suddenly ran out at an angle to get to the other side to the road.”


But of course the media must be correct and the evidence given under oath in the a High Court must of course be wrong. My reading is on previous occasions older boys did bold things, on the day of the accident the plaintiff decided to avoid any possible altercation.

That doesn't contradict the article, just gives more details. The fact that he ran into the road "to avoid any possible altercation" is not in dispute.

darkpagandeath

The article and the judgement use the word child a lot, Are we expected to expect children running onto the motorway. if the person was of such an age to not be responsible for their own actions where was the supervising adult ?

Pro Hoc Vice

Patser wrote: »

Yep. It was posted there as I was typing and I read it afterwards. It suggests drivers sound their horn as they approach children to warn of their presence, move to the centre of the road to give space and slow down. So we'll end up with buses swerving down the road, while lurching along accelerating and braking while merrily beeping away everything it's school finishing time.

That's not what it says, it say drivers must be aware of possible issues with children and should not be engaged in conversations with passengers when approaching a number of youths. As put in evidence "they were engaged in “just young teenaged boy stuff, not particularly malevolent or anything about their actions. It wasn’t fighting in any way”. They were “bobbing”"

punisher5112

We bus driver's I can say are not paid enough and by the way things are going have to be able to see into the future.

I myself have had people bounce off the bus walking out or running out, cyclists cycling into the side and many many more incidents.

Did I force them to do these things NO I did not.

As I said in previous post why aren't people been held responsible for their own actions.

Dublin Bus drivers are some of the highest trained drivers out there and I would guess that shows in that there isn't more accidents and deaths.

punisher5112

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

That's not what it says, it say drivers must be aware of possible issues with children and should not be engaged in conversations with passengers when approaching a number of youths. As put in evidence "they were engaged in “just young teenaged boy stuff, not particularly malevolent or anything about their actions. It wasn’t fighting in any way”. They were “bobbing”"

What can a driver do if a passenger comes up to them and starts asking questions.
This happens all the time.

So does this mean a person driving their car cannot speak to other passengers?

It's only been brought up because it's in db Bye Laws.

Pro Hoc Vice

punisher5112 wrote: »

We bus driver's I can say are not paid enough and by the way things are going have to be able to see into the future.

I myself have had people bounce off the bus walking out or running out, cyclists cycling into the side and many many more incidents.

Did I force them to do these things NO I did not.

As I said in previous post why aren't people been held responsible for their own actions.

Dublin Bus drivers are some of the highest trained drivers out there and I would guess that shows in that there isn't more accidents and deaths.

While I agree with you, and the judgement says once the bus driver say the child he did everything possible. The reason DB was held liable is that is a period of seconds the driver did not notice the youths early enough and most importantly the injured boy, from the HC judgement "“4.14 The holding of a conversation with a passenger though of itself prohibited does not automatically render the driver to be negligent. What is required is that the driver be alert to the possibility of danger. Mr. J McN and Mr. O’S state and I will accept for the purpose of this judgment that conversation had ceased between them by 16.53:38, however, even if conversation had ceased, both their faces maintained smiles (which suggest that a joke had been exchanged) almost up to the accident. In the case of Mr. O’S the smiling is continued up to 16.53:41 and in the case of Mr. J McN up to 16.53:43, it seems clear that the previous if terminated conversation was of such a nature as to have distracted Mr. O’S from what was in front of him."

Pro Hoc Vice

punisher5112 wrote: »

What can a driver do if a passenger comes up to them and starts asking questions.
This happens all the time.

So does this mean a person driving their car cannot speak to other passengers?

It's only been brought up because it's in db Bye Laws.

A bus driver is a professional and has control of a much larger vehicle than a car, which I assume requires far more skill. But if a car driver hit a child in the same circumstances he to would be held liable as the conversation distracted him from seeing what may happen. Every day as drivers we get distracted but as drivers it is our duty to other road users not to be distracted and to drive with full attention on the road, any one of us could have been that driver, that fact does not absolve any one of us of liability in the same situation.

BTW my opinion any driver could face a prosecution in an accident for at least careless driving if their was evidence that the driver was distracted by talking with a passenger.

The High a Court judge went on to say

"Cross J. was of the view that had Mr. O’S seen the boys on the pavement acting boisterously and changing position he would have slowed down. He went further and added that Mr. O’S “could have and should have” applied his brakes from about fifty yards back. He also concluded that the bus could and should have been moved out towards the right. He added that had the driver seen the boys acting boisterously, the driver would have and should have blown his horn. Critically, he concluded that the bus driver, because of the distraction of the conversation with the passenger, or otherwise, did not see the boys for a number of seconds after they were available to be seen and in those circumstances, Cross J. concluded that the bus driver did not have the time to make the judgment he ought to have made as to the potential hazard presented by the boys earlier. He added that the driver did not have the time to be conscious of the fact that the boys were acting boisterously."

That is the case in a nutshell.

darkpagandeath

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

A bus driver is a professional and has control of a much larger vehicle than a car, which I assume requires far more skill. But if a car driver hit a child in the same circumstances he to would be held liable as the conversation distracted him from seeing what may happen. Every day as drivers we get distracted but as drivers it is our duty to other road users not to be distracted and to drive with full attention on the road, any one of us could have been that driver, that fact does not absolve any one of us of liability in the same situation.

BTW my opinion any driver could face a prosecution in an accident for at least careless driving if their was evidence that the driver was distracted by talking with a passenger.

How do you stop a passenger talking at you ? Even if your not engaged in the conversation that is still distracting. If the child was not in the bus drivers peripheral vision for example should one be only looking at the pavements and not the road ? surely then you are distracted looking at pavements ? and not concentrating on driving on the road you are on. I would argue swinging your had from left to right checking pavements for children and not looking at the road ahead would be worse.

Patser

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

That's not what it says, it say drivers must be aware of possible issues with children and should not be engaged in conversations with passengers when approaching a number of youths. As put in evidence "they were engaged in “just young teenaged boy stuff, not particularly malevolent or anything about their actions. It wasn’t fighting in any way”. They were “bobbing”"

It's pretty much exactly what it says, and as you state above this was just general kids stuff happening, nothing out of the ordinary. Yet the recomendations from the Judges was

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

He went further and added that Mr. O’S “could have and should have” applied his brakes from about fifty yards back. He also concluded that the bus could and should have been moved out towards the right. He added that had the driver seen the boys acting boisterously, the driver would have and should have blown his horn.

So brake, swerve and beep as I said, if you see kids acting normally on the footpath

Pro Hoc Vice

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How do you stop a passenger talking at you ? Even if your not engaged in the conversation that is still distracting.

If a driver feels distracted by any issue he can control he should stop it, "shut the feck up" might work or slow the vehicle down and politely ask the person to stop annoying you, I would rather hurt a passengers feelings than injury a person or kill them.

theKillerBite

punisher5112 wrote: »

We bus driver's I can say are not paid enough and by the way things are going have to be able to see into the future.

Dublin Bus drivers are the 6th highest paid drivers in the world. http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/paying-too-much-for-everything-has-cost-us-26562147.html

Dublin Bus should get rid of the interaction with the driver. Not only does it increase dwell time, but from this incident distracts the driver and increased the danger. We should move towards the Luas model, with off-street ticketing.

Pro Hoc Vice

Patser wrote: »

It's pretty much exactly what it says, and as you state above this was just general kids stuff happening, nothing out of the ordinary. Yet the recomendations from the Judges was



So brake, swerve and beep as I said, if you see kids acting normally on the footpath

Read the judgement, but the important bit,

"Cross J. was of the view that had Mr. O’S seen the boys on the pavement acting boisterously and changing position he would have slowed down."

Its a high standard all drivers are held to and good reasons for that.

punisher5112

theKillerBite wrote: »

Dublin Bus drivers are the 6th highest paid drivers in the world. http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/paying-too-much-for-everything-has-cost-us-26562147.html

Dublin Bus should get rid of the interaction with the driver. Not only does it increase dwell time, but from this incident distracts the driver and increased the danger. We should move towards the Luas model, with off-street ticketing.

I wish we were highly paid for been a proffesional as they like to call us why aren't we paid as one.

How could the bus work like the Luas there are over 5000 bus stops.

theKillerBite

punisher5112 wrote: »

How could the bus work like the Luas there are over 5000 bus stops.

Off the top of my head:

• Use your phone to buy the ticket - like the Bus Éireann app allows currently - with a tag on/off feature to prevent fraud
• Buy tickets from a shop & on-street vending machines
• Buy your ticket online and print it yourself - just like most concert tickets are nowadays

Custardpi

theKillerBite wrote: »

Off the top of my head:

• Use your phone to buy the ticket - like the Bus Éireann app allows currently - with a tag on/off feature to prevent fraud
• Buy tickets from a shop & on-street vending machines
• Buy your ticket online and print it yourself - just like most concert tickets are nowadays

Not everyone has a smart phone or access to a printer, especially not at the side of the road. If you suddenly have to get a bus in an area where the nearest ticket agent is a good distance away what do you do?

Pumpkinseeds

I'm probably missing something but why was a 12 year old child from a foreign country wandering around Dublin, without adult supervision?

punisher5112

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I'm probably missing something but why was a 12 year old child from a foreign country wandering around Dublin, without adult supervision?[/QUOTE


Seems to be all the rage...

Let someone else worry about it from what I see is the attitude.