Boy awarded €5m after being struck by car

scdublin

Am I the only person who finds it surprising that there was such a large settlement in this case?

Also, people went crazy at the parents of the kid who got into that gorilla enclosure a while back or at the parents of the kid who was taken by the alligator in Florida - should more of the responsibility and "blame" lie on the adults who were meant to be watching him?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0726/805008-mitchelstown-settlement/

godtabh

scdublin wrote: »

Am I the only person who finds it surprising that there was such a large settlement in this case?

Also, people went crazy at the parents of the kid who got into that gorilla enclosure a while back or at the parents of the kid who was taken by the alligator in Florida - should more of the responsibility and "blame" lie on the adults who were meant to be watching him?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0726/805008-mitchelstown-settlement/

The parents were 40% to blame

scdublin

scdublin wrote: »

Am I the only person who finds it surprising that there was such a large settlement in this case?

Am I the only person who finds that the thrice weekly compensation thread often starts with "am I the only person surprised"?

This case has nothing whatsoever to do with a gorilla or an alligator. The Court determined that 60% liability rested with the driver.

€5m seems like an understandable figure - this boy now has to live with a traumatic brain injury, which has destroyed his upcoming life, has left him permanently impaired and, likely, will need specialist treatment for the rest of his life.

frozenfrozen

It seems like a large amount of money, is the drivers insurance paying out 5 million or 60% of that?

1900 euro per week for the next 50 years, I'm sure the kid will get to ride a lot of horses for that money

HensVassal

frozenfrozen wrote: »

It seems like a large amount of money, is the drivers insurance paying out 5 million or 60% of that?

1900 euro per week for the next 50 years, I'm sure the kid will get to ride a lot of horses for that money

Hmm, in 40 years time 1900 euros will probably by you a burger and chips.

frozenfrozen

HensVassal wrote: »

Hmm, in 40 years time 1900 euros will probably by you a burger and chips.

he can eat the horses when he is done with them

frozenfrozen

frozenfrozen wrote: »

1900 euro per week for the next 50 years, I'm sure the kid will get to ride a lot of horses for that money

That's a very dismissive reference to a brain injury that sees a boy needing "a lot of assistance" 8 years after the event.

Sure he can still ride horses. He has all he needs.

The majority of the money will likely go on the special assistance that, realistically, he's going to need for the rest of his life.

frozenfrozen

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a very dismissive reference to a brain injury that sees a boy needing "a lot of assistance" 8 years after the event.

Sure he can still ride horses. He has all he needs.

I think you've completely misinterpreted what I wrote, go outside and get some fresh air.

it says in the article he likes riding horses. I was inferring that it seems like a lot of money but he won't be wanting for more.

jobless

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a very dismissive reference to a brain injury that sees a boy needing "a lot of assistance" 8 years after the event.

Sure he can still ride horses. He has all he needs.

id call it more a reference made by a complete asshole

scdublin

Deleted User wrote: »

scdublin wrote: »

Am I the only person who finds it surprising that there was such a large settlement in this case?

Am I the only person who finds that the thrice weekly compensation thread often starts with "am I the only person surprised"?

This case has nothing whatsoever to do with a gorilla or an alligator. The Court determined that 60% liability rested with the driver.

This is a discussion forum and I've connected the case with the gorilla and alligator incidents because they all involve a child being injured and inevitability garner the "who's at fault?" questions. The parents took a lot of blame for those incidents so I'm curious if people think these parents/guardians should have been looking after the child more carefully and therefore if the 60/40 liability breakdown is fair.

eviltwin

frozenfrozen wrote: »

I think you've completely misinterpreted what I wrote, go outside and get some fresh air.

it says in the article he likes riding horses. I was inferring that it seems like a lot of money but he won't be wanting for more.

I'm sure riding horses are the least of his concerns. A member of my family was awarded money after an accident. He never actually got cash in hand. The money was kept in a fund and used to pay for house modifications and health treatment. Maybe it's changed since then but the needs of this kid are going to require a lot of money and if part of that is a few excursions to go horse riding so be it.

scdublin

scdublin wrote: »

This is a discussion forum and I've connected the case with the gorilla and alligator incidents because they all involve a child being injured and inevitability garner the "who's at fault?" questions.

I don't think the allocation of blame was determined by a Court in those other cases.

We are comparing speculation based on media reports with a case where a Court has considered the issue and made a determination. Not that it's not above question, mind you.

Mr. Incognito

€5 million to care for a severly disabled boy for the entiritiy of his life is not a lot imo.

SEPT 23 1989

No amount of money will get their son back its just one less worry for them

eviltwin

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think the allocation of blame was determined by a Court in those other cases.

We are comparing speculation based on media reports with a case where a Court has considered the issue and made a determination. Not that it's not above question, mind you.

Conor we know you're a legal eagle but this is a discussion forum not a law lecture. People just want to discuss it without being patronized all the time.

Dr Turk Turkelton

Obviously I feel for the kid left with a permanent brain injury but how can the woman be seen as 60% in the wrong when all she was doing was driving and the kid ran out in front of her?
In my eyes she was 0% responsible,the kid should have been watched by adults.

duffman3833

this case i think for once the amount awarded is actually fair because it completely changes the child's life. He will need a lot of care. As to who is at fault, hard one to call but im leaning towards the parents, even if the driver did spot the child there is no way a driver can be at fault as its impossible to react to different situations and different drivers have different reactions.
In my mind, based on the info in the article, its all parents fault for neglect, not much the driver could do really

scdublin

scdublin wrote: »

This is a discussion forum and I've connected the case with the gorilla and alligator incidents because they all involve a child being injured and inevitability garner the "who's at fault?" questions. The parents took a lot of blame for those incidents so I'm curious if people think these parents/guardians should have been looking after the child more carefully and therefore if the 60/40 liability breakdown is fair.

They're dissimilar, though.

From what we know of this particular case, the siblings and father went to look at cows grazing. This little boy said he'd stay behind, but then changed his mind, at which point he went to follow. So it wasn't a case of a parent getting distracted by something, it was their acting according to the child's decisions.

This is a rather pointless discussion in some ways, because we're very likely only getting snippets of what happened behind the court's closed doors.

The main point is - the boy's life is never going to be the same and whatever hopes and dreams his parents had for him are likely to be unattainable. I don't know what the health system is like in Belgium, where the boy seems to be based, but I'd imagine that his sort of injury will cost the family a lot of money in the duration of his life.

frozenfrozen

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm sure riding horses are the least of his concerns. A member of my family was awarded money after an accident. He never actually got cash in hand. The money was kept in a fund and used to pay for house modifications and health treatment. Maybe it's changed since then but the needs of this kid are going to require a lot of money and if part of that is a few excursions to go horse riding so be it.

I'm sure if you read the article you'd see he wants to ride horses. I was saying he would have money to ride horses with 1900 a week. Not every word in a post has to be picked to bits as if there's some subtext.

I was plainly saying, 5 million euro sounds like a lot. (it does, especially considering it's arguably not the drivers fault)

next point, from his perspective, he will get to ride a lot of horses for 1900 a week, so you know, he won't be wanting for money anyway after that payout, so it's worked out grand for him.


I don't see what there is to get upset about

frozenfrozen

frozenfrozen wrote: »

I'm sure if you read the article you'd see he wants to ride horses. I was saying he would have money to ride horses with 1900 a week. Not every word in a post has to be picked to bits as if there's some subtext.

I was plainly saying, 5 million euro sounds like a lot. (it does, especially considering it's arguably not the drivers fault)

next point, from his perspective, he will get to ride a lot of horses for 1900 a week, so you know, he won't be wanting for money anyway after that payout, so it's worked out grand for him.


I don't see what there is to get upset about

... you do realize that the €5m is going to be for the rest of his life, right? The assumption is that the older he gets, the more expenses are going to be accumulated, especially if he requires specialized housing as an adult.

The Backwards Man

Aye, I'd be fairly critical of big compensation for relatively minor incidents but this isn't the case here.

A neighbour of mine got a multi million euro compensation settlement for injuries to their child who now requires 24 hour care and will do as long as they live, and it's just a drop in the ocean.

looksee

There is no doubt that it is a tragedy for the child and his parents, but it does seem unreasonable to put that much blame on the driver. Unless there are things that have not been made clear in the article there does not appear to be any more than a tiny fraction of blame on the driver.

Yes, you watch the situation on the road and environs as you drive, and are prepared to react as necessary. A driver should read the road and see places where situations might occur. But equally a 13 year old should either have been taught road safety, or have been under direct supervision.

looksee

looksee wrote: »

There is no doubt that it is a tragedy for the child and his parents, but it does seem unreasonable to put that much blame on the driver. Unless there are things that have not been made clear in the article there does not appear to be any more than a tiny fraction of blame on the driver.

Yes, you watch the situation on the road and environs as you drive, and are prepared to react as necessary. A driver should read the road and see places where situations might occur. But equally a 13 year old should either have been taught road safety, or have been under direct supervision.

I believe they were 5 when the accident happened?

Lollipops23

In this instance I think it's ridiculous that the driver was held at all accountable. She was diving within the speed limit, and had "1.75" seconds to react. What exactly could she have done to avoid this tragedy?

The adults in his life failed him- who the hell doesn't watch a 5 year old near a busy road?

Dr Turk Turkelton

duffman3833 wrote: »

this case i think for once the amount awarded is actually fair because it completely changes the child's life. He will need a lot of care. As to who is at fault, hard one to call but im leaning towards the parents, even if the driver did spot the child there is no way a driver can be at fault as its impossible to react to different situations and different drivers have different reactions.
In my mind, based on the info in the article, its all parents fault for neglect, not much the driver could do really

So basically the woman's insurance company has to fork out for something that in reality is not her fault just because there is no one else to sue?

doc11

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

€5 million to care for a severly disabled boy for the entiritiy of his life is not a lot imo.

Define "severly"? cause "he is an active boy who loves horse riding" apparently. Like many injury's can be exaggerated, a few trips to a speech therapist to ad a few million to the claim. No more then going to PT for "whiplash" and making out your a cripple.

I agree it doesn't sound like enough money to compensate for a lifetime of intellectual disability and presumably other medical complications, too.

My main concern would be for the Driver.

I can see the attraction of attaching liability to the Driver, because her insurance policy is an easy source of income.

But think of the fact that she will have to live with her name being published in the media, and a Court determining that she is mostly responsible for the injury. There hasn't been a trial, and this woman almost certainly wasn't represented at the settlement hearing (an insurance company makes the decision to settle, it isn't the driver's decision)

I feel terribly sorry for the boy, but I feel very sorry for the stigma that the imposition of liability may have on the driver, too.

doc11

doc11 wrote: »

Define "severly"? cause "he is an active boy who loves horse riding" apparently. Like many injury's can be exaggerated, a few trips to a speech therapist to ad a few million to the claim. No more then going to PT for "whiplash" and making out your a cripple.

Skull fracture. Brain trauma. Speech difficulties. Requiring special assistance for the rest of his life.

That sounds pretty damn severe to me.

frozenfrozen

Deleted User wrote: »

... you do realize that the €5m is going to be for the rest of his life, right? The assumption is that the older he gets, the more expenses are going to be accumulated, especially if he requires specialized housing as an adult.

they can't un-car accident him so really what else can you do. The courts worked out that 5 million was enough

no idea why everyone is replying to me as if I'm saying he just pocketed 5 million in cash.

Pro Hoc Vice

scdublin wrote: »

Am I the only person who finds it surprising that there was such a large settlement in this case?

Also, people went crazy at the parents of the kid who got into that gorilla enclosure a while back or at the parents of the kid who was taken by the alligator in Florida - should more of the responsibility and "blame" lie on the adults who were meant to be watching him?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0726/805008-mitchelstown-settlement/

Just a few facts the maxium payment in Ireland for pain and suffering is if I remember no more than €350,000 as set out in case law. That would be for a person in sever pain and disability. The majority of the million plus awards is to provide for past medical care future medical care. This may involve incare treatment for the rest of the person life or adaption of the home and maintenance and care of machines. Or do you think the sate should take up this burden even though the defendant was insured and insurance will pay.

Dr Turk Turkelton

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

So basically the woman's insurance company has to fork out for something that in reality is not her fault just because there is no one else to sue?

It came up here recently, it's called the Deep Pockets doctrine, where a court may prefer to attach liability to the person who has greatest ability to pay, usually because of an insurance policy, or because they are indemnified by the State, etc.

SEPT 23 1989

doc11 wrote: »

Define "severly"? cause "he is an active boy who loves horse riding" apparently. Like many injury's can be exaggerated, a few trips to a speech therapist to ad a few million to the claim. No more then going to PT for "whiplash" and making out your a cripple.

he may never be able to work or lead a normal life

ohnonotgmail

doc11 wrote: »

Define "severly"? cause "he is an active boy who loves horse riding" apparently. Like many injury's can be exaggerated, a few trips to a speech therapist to ad a few million to the claim. No more then going to PT for "whiplash" and making out your a cripple.

there is always somebody on a thread like who seems to think they know better than the medical experts used by the courts.

looksee

Deleted User wrote: »

I believe they were 5 when the accident happened?

Ok, I missed that, but it is still covered by the fact that the adults should have been more aware of the child's safety. A child of 5 says they don't want to go, and is then left apparently unsupervised on the other side of a road?

As to the child needing ongoing care, yes this is true, and I am not taking from the tragedy of that case when I say that children are born with disabilities that are going to require full time care for the rest of their lives. 5m would be a great help.

Lollipops23

I think they were pointing out that the kid isn't in a vegetative state. Yes, he has a lot of problems that will require attention and therapies for the rest of his life. But he has a quality of life by the sounds of it.

A friend of mine pulled a hot kettle down on himself at 18months of age. Had to get several skin grafts throughout his childhood, was very traumatic for him. Still has enormous scars on one side of his body.

Should he sue the kettle company? OF COURSE NOT. A) His mother shouldn't have left the chord where he could grab it and People make mistakes and accidents happen. It's sad, but a fact of life.

TheChizler

Speaking from personal experience 5 million isn't a lot considering the type of injury. Between adapting the home to make it suitable, replacing expensive medical equipment, medical supplies, and pretty much 24 hour care for the rest of his (what will likely be a normal length) life, they're not exactly going to be living in luxury.

Presuming he's a ward of court as well, any expense out of the ordinary will require approval.

dub_skav

I find it extremely worrying that the driver didn't even know what happened. So, it is not like she did not have time to react, she did not see the boy at all.
I assume that is why she was found to be 60% at fault. I know that people often say "he came out of nowhere" in relation to other cars, pedestrians, cyclists. But, nobody ever comes out of nowhere, they come from where they were and into the path of the car.

So, was she displaying due care and attention passing a house with people on the other side of the road, that she in fact didn't even see the boy, never mind not have time to react?

We do not have access to all of the facts, but the fact is that a driver has to be driving at an appropriate speed and aware of their surroundings. Parents also have to be responsible for their children, but in apportioning blame the judge ruled the driver to be 60% at fault and I can certainly see how that would be possible

jimmycrackcorm

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote:

So basically the woman's insurance company has to fork out for something that in reality is not her fault just because there is no one else to sue?

Yes. I don't even think she should have been sued. She was blamed for not guessing that somehow a child could have appeared because one of the parents was across the road.

Not disputing the need for the award but that the parents were solely to blame. As the courts awarded 5 million as 60% driver blame, does that mean the parents have to cough up 4 million for the other 40%? Somehow I think not.

scdublin

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

scdublin wrote: »

Am I the only person who finds it surprising that there was such a large settlement in this case?

Also, people went crazy at the parents of the kid who got into that gorilla enclosure a while back or at the parents of the kid who was taken by the alligator in Florida - should more of the responsibility and "blame" lie on the adults who were meant to be watching him?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0726/805008-mitchelstown-settlement/

Just a few facts the maxium payment in Ireland for pain and suffering is if I remember no more than 350,000 as set out in case law. That would be for a person in sever pain and disability. The majority of the million plus awards is to provide for past medical care future medical care. This may involve incare treatment for the rest of the person life or adaption of the home and maintenance and care of machines. Or do you think the sate should take up this burden even though the defendant was insured and insurance will pay.

I don't think it's fair that the higher percentage of blame should be placed with the driver solely because they're insured and will pay out the money through them. Obviously we don't know if that was the case with this incident, but if it was it wouldn't sit well with me.

Like someone mentioned, the driver having that blame placed upon them is also life changing (no, not as life changing as the child, I know). And I agree that with such little time to react and driving within the speed limit, their fault should not have been at 60%.

seamus

You must drive at a speed that allows you to stop within the distance you can see to be clear. Where there is an entrance to a field or a property, the distance you can see to be clear ends before that entrance.

Every driver should assume that a vehicle, animal or human could emerge from an entrance at the side of the road at any given time and drive at an appropriate speed past it. If that means crawling at 30kph or less down some country roads, so be it.

The Backwards Man

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Yes. I don't even think she should have been sued. She was blamed for not guessing that somehow a child could have appeared because one of the parents was across the road.

Not disputing the need for the award but that the parents were solely to blame. As the courts awarded 5 million as 60% driver blame, does that mean the parents have to cough up 4 million for the other 40%? Somehow I think not.

In fairness, on the road you shouldn't be guessing, you should be expecting. It could happen to any one of us, but if someone runs out in front of you and you hit them then you're the cause of their injuries, doesn't matter who is at fault, them's the breaks and that's why we pay insurance.

The Bishop Basher

Based on the information that we have...

This is yet another example of people failing to take responsibility for themselves and their children and seeking to apportion blame elsewhere when it all goes wrong.

And once again the courts seem to agree that we are no longer responsible for ourselves and our actions.

I just don't get it.

dub_skav

dub_skav wrote: »

I find it extremely worrying that the driver didn't even know what happened. So, it is not like she did not have time to react, she did not see the boy at all.
I assume that is why she was found to be 60% at fault. I know that people often say "he came out of nowhere" in relation to other cars, pedestrians, cyclists. But, nobody ever comes out of nowhere, they come from where they were and into the path of the car.

So, was she displaying due care and attention passing a house with people on the other side of the road, that she in fact didn't even see the boy, never mind not have time to react?

Apparently she had a grand total of 1.75 seconds to react, meanwhile she was probably keeping an eye on the out-of-towners who were on the other side of the road, looking at cattle.

So here we have a driver, who was not speeding, with 1.75 seconds to see everything and react, and she is declared to be mostly liable, but what about the person who was supposed to be looking after the child? Why is their liability so diminished?

Probably because of insurance. And that is very unfair on the driver of the car, because she now has to live with the repercussions of what may be a matter of convenience.

TheChizler wrote: »

Presuming he's a ward of court as well, any expense out of the ordinary will require approval.

No idea why you're presuming that, there's no suggestion of it and no reason to believe it. The boy is living in Belgium, presumably with his parents.

Keane2baMused

frozenfrozen wrote: »

I'm sure if you read the article you'd see he wants to ride horses. I was saying he would have money to ride horses with 1900 a week. Not every word in a post has to be picked to bits as if there's some subtext.

I was plainly saying, 5 million euro sounds like a lot. (it does, especially considering it's arguably not the drivers fault)

next point, from his perspective, he will get to ride a lot of horses for 1900 a week, so you know, he won't be wanting for money anyway after that payout, so it's worked out grand for him.


I don't see what there is to get upset about

In 20 years 5 million will probably be a drop in the ocean.

This boy will need lifelong care as a result of the accident.

You keep banging on about the horses. Horse therapy is actually a thing!! It can help increase a persons quality of life.

Pro Hoc Vice

scdublin wrote: »

I don't think it's fair that the higher percentage of blame should be placed with the driver solely because they're insured and will pay out the money through them. Obviously we don't know if that was the case with this incident, but if it was it wouldn't sit well with me.

Like someone mentioned, the driver having that blame placed upon them is also life changing (no, not as life changing as the child, I know). And I agree that with such little time to react and driving within the speed limit, their fault should not have been at 60%.

The decision on blame is made by the judge with the assistance of expert evidence provided by people who would have visited the location. A momentary loss of concentration may have been enough. The driver may have been driving too fast in all the circumstances. But the judge does not decide without evidence.

TheChizler

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Not disputing the need for the award but that the parents were solely to blame. As the courts awarded 5 million as 60% driver blame, does that mean the parents have to cough up 4 million for the other 40%? Somehow I think not.

Well yes considering they'll have to come up with any shortfall not covered by allowances and the HSE, then yes, essentially.

TheChizler

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

TheChizler wrote: »

Presuming he's a ward of court as well, any expense out of the ordinary will require approval.

No idea why you're presuming that, there's no suggestion of it and no reason to believe it. The boy is living in Belgium, presumably with his parents.

I presume it because it's typical in cases like this. The parent's don't just get handed a cheque for 5 million. Living in Belgium would probably complicate it though.

http://www.courts.ie/offices.nsf/0/19111E254B2EF547802573D2006CCF26?OpenDocument

Lovely Bloke

seamus wrote: »

You must drive at a speed that allows you to stop within the distance you can see to be clear. Where there is an entrance to a field or a property, the distance you can see to be clear ends before that entrance.

Every driver should assume that a vehicle, animal or human could emerge from an entrance at the side of the road at any given time and drive at an appropriate speed past it. If that means crawling at 30kph or less down some country roads, so be it.

there should be 30kph limits at those points then, and not have drivers expected to second guess clear national road speed limits.

Every driver should assume that parents are going allow their children to run around unattended all over the place and just drive at 20kph everywhere they go is the logical path you are going down.

A friend of mine killed a man who walked out from between parked vans on a busy Dublin CC street ten years ago. He was driving within the prescribed limit, and was (and still is) a professional driver. He was (and still is) a safe driver, but circumstances beyond his control meant a person ended up dead.

He was found to be not liable, because he wasn't liable. That man is dead because he couldn't look after himself.

that young boy is incapacitated because his parents were not looking after him correctly.

Who the hell leaves a five year old to walk out onto any road?

lazybones32

I've no issue with the amount of money awarded. 5 million is a lot but it's no substitute for health. Besides, there is no guarantee there will be no future complications or degenerative issues.

My issue is with the finding against the driver: she was obeying the rules of the road and the child ran out onto the road and she is still 'guilty'? No matter how careful a driver one is, you still are responsible if someone else fcuks up by running in to you on the road.