Family awarded a pittance for the loss of their child

Cathy.C

I am absolutely gobsmacked, and disgusted quite frankly, at the decision to award a family what I consider to be a pittance in compensation after a road traffic accident last year in which they lost their four year old son. Especially considering that the insurance company of the driver of the car that hit them has accepted liability.

The boy's mother (who was driving the car which was hit) is now in a wheelchair also.

The full award breaks down as follows: €10,000 for the mental distress of each parent, €5,000 for his little brother and sister and €1,250 for each of his grandparents.

It must be harrowing enough to lose a child and attempt to come to terms with that loss, along also with all the 'what ifs' that will inevitably plague them for the rest of their lives, without (literally) adding insult to injury by awarded these people the paltry amount of money which they have been given. I say insult as surely that is what it is the context of it supposedly being what is being deemed as a suitable amount to compensate them for their loss.

I know money won't bring their boy back, nor restore the mother's health, but surely this amount of money was a wholly inadequate amount to award a family that have lost a four year old child as a result of another driver's misjudgment (of which appears unclear).

I have known many people who have just been injured to the degree that they were on crutches for a couple of months and perhaps needed some ongoing physiotherapy and received three or four times what this family has received in total. Recently we seen the same amount of money given to the injury sustained from jumping on a trampoline for heaven's sake.

My car insurance is up in a few weeks times and earlier this week I got a letter asking me for over €475 more than it was last year, despite my having no claims, penalty points or accidents this year. Insurance companies stick it to us constantly and yet here when surely they should be spending money where it is needed to show suitable restitution in an effort to go someway to redressing and acknowledging what the family have lost and what they have to attempt to live with, they skimp.

Maybe I am missing something but on the face of it this looks like a disgusting decision by all concerned.

herald.ie/news/courts/parents-awarded-10k-each-for-crash-that-killed-son-4-30780088.html

Macavity.

The trampoline boy got 35k for his broken leg.

conorh91

What is a child worth OP?

Put a value on a child.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I'm kind of disgusted that they're "paying" compensation for the death of a little boy. I'm horrified to be honest. No money could ever be enough, or even enough to lessen the pain. It should not be about the money at all.

Cathy.C

conorh91 wrote: »

What is a child worth OP?

Put a value on a child.

Did you miss..

Cathy.C wrote: »

I know money won't bring their boy back, nor restore the mother's health, but surely this amount of money was a wholly inadequate amount to award a family that have lost a four year old child as a result of another driver's misjudgment (of which appears unclear).

In any case. Just because a monetary figure can never truly reflect the loss of a child, does not mean we should attempt to try. Or do you feel the millions that hospital's regularly pay out to a family when a child dies as a result of medical malpractice is futile as well, how can you "put a value on a child".

Tokyo

Dead bodies are far cheaper than live casualties. Sad but true fact of life when it comes to compensation.

Guy:Incognito

Cathy.C wrote: »

In any case. Just because a monetary figure can never truly reflect the loss of a child, does not mean we should attempt to try. Or do you feel the millions that hospital's regularly pay out to a family when a child dies as a result of medical malpractice is futile as well, how can you "put a value on a child".

It kind of is actually. It would be better to be given to research in to diseases or to provide care for people that are alive and in need of it. Taking it out of the medical system (either directly or through increased insurance costs) doesn't help anyone.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Was this settled outside of court with the insurance company?

SEPT 23 1989

If my kids died in a crash I would want enough money to start my life over far away

Ave Sodalis

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I'm kind of disgusted that they're "paying" compensation for the death of a little boy. I'm horrified to be honest. No money could ever be enough, or even enough to lessen the pain. It should not be about the money at all.

I do think there should be enough to cover medical bills and therapy bills. The medical bills which the mother needs, and the therapy bills which the whole family are going to need. I don't think it should be given out because of the death of the child, it's too much like placing a value on the child's life.

Cathy.C

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I'm kind of disgusted that they're "paying" compensation for the death of a little boy. I'm horrified to be honest. No money could ever be enough, or even enough to lessen the pain. It should not be about the money at all.

Same comment applies to you.

Of course money cannot replace a child but it makes life a even a little easier for a family that lose a child as a result of somebody else's negligence, then they should be given it. We pay car insurance for precisely this reason. Physical loss is compensated for and so I'm not sure why people think we shouldn't also at least try and compensate for emotional distress also.

ardle1

What a 'moment' for a judge to decide that compo culture in Ireland has gotten out of hand!?
Fcukin disgrace.

matchthis

Friend who worked for insurance company told me that it is cheaper if the victim were to die. Shocking, but as above. Cost of care recovery/ rehabilitation can be far greater.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Cathy.C wrote: »

Same comment applies to you.

Of course money cannot replace a child but it makes life a even a little easier for a family that lose a child as a result of somebody else's negligence, then they should be given it. We pay car insurance for precisely this reason. Physical loss is compensated for and so I'm not sure why people think we shouldn't also at least try and compensate for emotional distress also.

You could give that family 100 million euro and it would not be enough to even try compensate for the emotional distress suffered by that family.

Frigga_92

It's strange to see a fatal accident case, particularly when it involved a minor, dealt with in the Circuit Court.
The award handed out would've been limited by the monetary jurisdiction in the Circuit Court, which changed substantially this year but it depends when proceedings were issued.
I would assume the mother has her own separate civil case pending against the same parties involved in the fatal action.

Cathy.C

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Was this settled outside of court with the insurance company?

Seems that it was in the civil court and the driver was not present. At least that what I think "ex-parte" means. Seems odd that an insurance company would be in the civil court making an offer that was "subject to the court's acceptance".

They sued the car maker also, so perhaps there are some missing pieces here that explain the low amount, as the fact that mother is in a wheelchair alone surely should see a far higher amount being awarded.

Cathy.C

LexieOnRale wrote: »

You could give that family 100 million euro and it would not be enough to even try compensate for the emotional distress suffered by that family.

I agree but so what? What's your point. That we shouldn't at least try?

Yes, we all know money can't replace a child, there is nothing profound in being aware of that. Money can't replace being able to walk and move and yet if a member of your family were paralyzed from the neck down tomorrow as result of another's incompetence on the roads, I'm pretty sure you'd want them to receive adequate compensation above and beyond what would cover their care and medical expenses.

Life impact has to be compensated for. It may seem crass to attempt to put a monetary amount on the loss of a child but that's life. Sometimes unfortunately it has to be done.

LexieOnRale

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I'm kind of disgusted that they're "paying" compensation for the death of a little boy. I'm horrified to be honest. No money could ever be enough, or even enough to lessen the pain. It should not be about the money at all.

No, but it might be enough money to set up home elsewhere as you can't bare to live in your own home any more. It might be enough to buy a new car - one that you feel safe travelling in. It might pay for a much much needed holiday to get some sort of respite from the pain you're struggling to get through. It might be enough to pay for hospital bills. It might be enough to pay psychiatrist bills. To pay for the time you need to take off work to recover from your loss. Cover the bills when you can't physically go to work any more because your mental health is at zero.

There is nothing unusual or atypical here. A four year old child has no dependents requiring financial support, and being dead has no requirement for ongoing medical care. Its sad but true.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Cathy.C wrote: »

I agree but so what? What's your point. That we shouldn't at least try?

Yes, we all know money can't replace a child, there is nothing profound in being aware of that. Money can't replace being able to walk and move and yet if a member of your family were paralyzed from the neck down tomorrow as result of another's incompetence on the roads, I'm pretty sure you'd want them to receive adequate compensation above and beyond what would cover their care and medical expenses.

Life impact has to be compensated for. It may seem crass to attempt to put a monetary amount on the loss of a child but that's life. Sometimes unfortunately it has to be done.

What do you mean what's my point?
Thanks to the compo culture in this country, and people suing others left right and centre, means that there isn't the funds here to hand out to everyone and the result is premiums for the rest of us just keeps on rising. No matter how much money you give this (deserving) case isn't going to be enough, no matter how hard we try. And paying out really large sums of money isn't going to fix anything. Obviously they should not be out of pocket for any treatment they need to help them get through the accident and the aftermath but it's disgusting to think they should be given XX amount of cash to compensate for the loss of w member of their family.

If idiots weren't suing for falling off trampolines or getting burned because their coffee was hot then maybe more deserving cases could be allocated more.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Deleted User wrote: »

No, but it might be enough money to set up home elsewhere as you can't bare to live in your own home any more. It might be enough to buy a new car - one that you feel safe travelling in. It might pay for a much much needed holiday to get some sort of respite from the pain you're struggling to get through. It might be enough to pay for hospital bills. It might be enough to pay psychiatrist bills. To pay for the time you need to take off work to recover from your loss. Cover the bills when you can't physically go to work any more because your mental health is at zero.

I agree that all that needs to be done to help the family should be done, no question. It's an absolutely horrific thing to happen a family and absolutely, whatever they need to try heal, they should be supported.

But I don't know if you can pick a sum of money, and say "well that's adequate". It's never going to be adequate.

conorh91

Cathy.C wrote: »

Just because a monetary figure can never truly reflect the loss of a child, does not mean we should attempt to try.

Of course. The underlying principle behind the assessment of damages in any case is to attempt to put the wronged party back into the position in which that party would have been had the relevant wrong not occurred.

But the statutory ceiling in fatal injuries is €35,000. And that's what was agreed by the parties. The full amount.

I know that's an obscure fact and fair enough you may not have been aware of it, but we can't blame the courts for this.

ardle1 wrote: »

What a 'moment' for a judge to decide that compo culture in Ireland has gotten out of hand!?
Fcukin disgrace.

Nothing to do with the judge. The Court is obliged to vet the settlement in cases of this nature, and that's all he did. As described above, the limit of damages in fatal injury is €35,000