Woman claims after driving to scene of accident and hears husbands screams

Beta Ray Bill

I read this article today:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/rsquohis-screams-stayed-with-mersquo-woman-sued-for-damages-after-witnessing-husband-trapped-in-car-795709.html

Basically a woman got a phone call that her husband had been in an accident.
She went to the scene and saw him still in the car while the rescue team tried to free him.
She said she heard his screams and is claiming she was a secondary victim having witnessed her husbands suffering.
She is therefore suing damages, having witnessed that.

The case was settled out of court in the afternoon (Insurance companies must have given in, we'll never know what she got)

I have to say, I think that this is seriously taking the p1ss.
I've witnessed people die and I've never felt entitled to compensation off anyone.

I think the entire insurance industry needs a massive shake up.
The insurance companies and "claiming" that the cost of settlements is sky rocketing, It's hard to know whether this is true or false.

I think that details on any money a person gets in compensation should be made available on a public database.
IE, you type in someones name and address and you can see what they have claimed for or what they have attempted to claim for.
I think it's justified as I am legally obligated to pay insurance, therefore if it goes up substantially I should have a detailed reason as to why.

This article only made it to the news because it initially went to court. I'd imagine there are hundreds of p1ss take claims like this being paid out on a weekly basis that are settled before it goes to a judge.

I think there's terrible case of compensation culture in Ireland at the moment.

The Minister is now giving "more power" to the Personal Injuries Board, but every cat and dog in the street knows that a Solicitor will always reject the recommendation by Personal Injuries Board and bring the case to court.
You don't even need a Solicitor if you're going though the Personal Injuries Board.

The only way to stem these outages claims is complete and utter transparency.

ScumLord

grahambo wrote: »

I have to say, I think that this is seriously taking the p1ss.

There's no other way to describe it. If the insurance company will pay out on bizarre nonsense claims like this they have no right to run ads blaming every one else for claiming on personal accidents where they're not as injured as they make out to be. At least an accident happens to them.

I don't know whether to curse the woman or give her a round of applause. To have the balls to make that claim and get away with it is pretty thug life.

Insurance companies, banks, and solicitors are taking us all for a ride, they show no signs of changing and are only getting worse. Our public servants are colluding with them against us.

Guy:Incognito

ScumLord wrote: »

There's no other way to describe it. If the insurance company will pay out on bizarre nonsense claims like this they have no right to run ads blaming every one else for claiming on personal accidents where they're not as injured as they make out to be. At least an accident happens to them.

They're obviously being told by the legal teams I'm sure they pay a lot of money too that there's a high chance they will lose the case and end up paying out. I doubt the solicitor is telling them the person has no case and theyll beat it for them, only for the claims team to go "nah, **** it, just give her a pile of money"

Harry Palmr

As long as it costs far too much money and time to challenge a vexatious claim this will continue to happen.

Pelvis

I can imagine hearing your husband/wife screaming in pain while being cut out of a car and airlifted to hospital after a head on collision can be quite traumatizing. This kind of thing affects people in different ways, she could well have experienced PTSD as a result.

Just because you've seen worse and weren't affected doesn't mean others can do the same.

ScumLord

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

They're obviously being told by the legal teams I'm sure they pay a lot of money too that there's a high chance they will lose the case and end up paying out.

How was there any case here?? Although listening to the **** that comes out of Irish courts these days I guess anythings possible.

Harry Palmr

Pelvis wrote: »

I can imagine hearing your husband/wife screaming in pain while being cut out of a car and airlifted to hospital after a head on collision can be quite traumatizing. This kind of thing affects people in different ways, she could well have experienced PTSD as a result.

Just because you've seen worse and weren't affected doesn't mean others can do the same.

I'm sure witnessing ones loved one/s in trauma is er traumatic, get some professional counselling it should help more than a bag of cash.

sentient_6

Insurance companies are obviously in the business of assessing risk. With legal costs at astronomical levels they will assess the risk of paying out to be better than fighting it.

Kimbot

Harry Palmr wrote: »

I'm sure witnessing ones loved one/s in trauma is er traumatic, get some professional counselling it should help more than a bag of cash.

ah but they need the bag of cash to pay for the counselling tho :P

Call Me Jimmy

Higher premiums for all! It's the result of many years of (well-intentioned) promotion of mental health awareness. But because its a nebulous and vague topic it is all too easy to take the piss with it and there is very little argument against it short of calling someone a liar and 'impacting their health' further. No real metrics.

I would have assumed even in the current climate this would have been laughed out but there ye go what do i know

sentient_6

sentient_6 wrote: »

Insurance companies are obviously in the business of assessing risk. With legal costs at astronomical levels they will assess the risk of paying out to be better than fighting it.

A quick settlement could be a hell of a lot cheaper than a drawn out courtcase they may or may not win.

iwillhtfu

I appreciate the claim culture we currently have in our country but I'm not sure I'd be so quick to judge.

It's very difficult to gauge the emotional distress arriving on the scene of accident creates particularly a bad one.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/boss-suffers-fatal-heart-attack-after-arriving-at-co-antrim-crash-that-killed-worker-34260742.html

Liam McPoyle

Ptsd / trauma is the back bone of thousands of claims.

I have nightmares after I was rammed from behind at 2kmph your honour.

I'm now a nervous passenger because the car I was in got blindsided by someone reversing in Tescos car park your honour.

Money for old rope.

Weak judicial system + hefty payouts + solicitors coaching claimants in maximising payments = modern day Ireland.

Amusingly there is also scope for a woman to claim if her husband cannot "perform" as the result of an accident. She could be potentially entitled to compo.

However there is no compensation culture in this country.

The insurance companies are to blame for the rising prices.

retro:electro

If she'd seen her husband die I may have been able to understand her plight- but he didn't. She should be thankful her husband got out alive and that they get to live the remainder of their lives together, and appreciate that there are services out there who see worse everyday because we don't have to and be thankful that they exist.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

There's no other way to describe it. If the insurance company will pay out on bizarre nonsense claims like this they have no right to run ads blaming every one else for claiming on personal accidents where they're not as injured as they make out to be. At least an accident happens to them.

I don't know whether to curse the woman or give her a round of applause. To have the balls to make that claim and get away with it is pretty thug life.

Insurance companies, banks, and solicitors are taking us all for a ride, they show no signs of changing and are only getting worse. Our public servants are colluding with them against us.

At the same time when they do fight this can happen... https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/man-who-tripped-over-hole-at-halting-site-gets-60-000-1.3041074

Grayson

Rod Munch wrote: »

Ptsd / trauma is the back bone of thousands of claims.

I have nightmares after I was rammed from behind at 2kmph your honour.

I'm now a nervous passenger because the car I was in got blindsided by someone reversing in Tescos car park your honour.

Money for old rope.

There's a difference between that and what happened to the woman. The judge is there to decide if there was actual pain and suffering and at what level it's at.

So by all means sue because someone stood on your toe but at the same time expect a judge to throw it out of court.

valoren

The irony is that it's those people who actually suffer proper grievances or injuries are the one's who don't go about it.

gimli2112

I'm pretty sure there's legal precedent here for this type of emotional distress claim. I'm no fan of insurance companies but depending on the circumstances they were probably going to lose here anyway.

ScumLord

gimli2112 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there's legal precedent here for this type of emotional distress claim. I'm no fan of insurance companies but depending on the circumstances they were probably going to lose here anyway.

Just another instance where capitalism ruins justice, we're forced to do the wrong thing because it's cheaper.

I'll be suing RTE for their coverage of Syria so.

Beta Ray Bill

valoren wrote: »

The irony is that it's those people who actually suffer proper grievances or injuries are the one's who don't go about it.

Completely agree with this.

I was knocked off my motorcycle a few years ago.
Took an exceptionally bad hit in the family jewel's. Was on medication for months to make sure I healed correctly.
Couldn't walk for weeks, couldn't run for nearly a year, but I wouldn't have been looking for the likes of €60k for "tripping over a hole in a halting site".

And I was genuinely seriously injured,

gimli2112

gimli2112 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there's legal precedent here for this type of emotional distress claim. I'm no fan of insurance companies but depending on the circumstances they were probably going to lose here anyway.

There is plenty of precedent.

This isn't a modern phenomenon at all, but a leading case does involve the Hillsborough disaster.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

The legal industry in Ireland is poisonous.

It's not really tbh.

minikin

Pelvis wrote: »

I can imagine hearing your husband/wife screaming in pain while being cut out of a car and airlifted to hospital after a head on collision can be quite traumatizing. This kind of thing affects people in different ways, she could well have experienced PTSD as a result.

Just because you've seen worse and weren't affected doesn't mean others can do the same.

And the cure for ptsd is a ball of cash?
She exposed herself to the "trauma"...

Pelvis

Harry Palmr wrote: »

I'm sure witnessing ones loved one/s in trauma is er traumatic, get some professional counselling it should help more than a bag of cash.

What if the trauma results in you not being able to support yourself? A bag of cash may come in handy then. Counseling doesn't pay the bills.

valoren

Post traumatic stress?

She was told over the phone that her husband had been in an accident. She willingly drove to the scene of that accident. Now I'd imagine that if you knew yourself to be of a sensitive disposition that a traffic accident would not be something you would want to see and if you were that sensitive then seeing your husband in a traffic accident will certainly have an effect. But she went to the scene of the accident regardless and suffered from nervous shock. What did she expect to find? Crash victims, paramedics, guards, fire brigade all standing around having tea and biscuits?

Are Am Eye

I feel somewhat traumatised post reading about that
Tertiary trauma/injury if you will.
Anyone have the insurance companies number?

Arcade_Tryer

Pelvis wrote: »

What if the trauma results in you not being able to support yourself? A bag of cash may come in handy then. Counseling doesn't pay the bills.

How on earth is that the responsibility of an insurance company though? Most people who can't support themselves visit the social welfare office. That people can justify this claim is very worrying. Is it any surprise people are making such claims?

valoren

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll be suing RTE for their coverage of Syria so.

They usually say the disclaimer before reports I think?

The following report contains scenes that some viewers may find upsetting.

That's RTE covering their ass.

razorblunt

That is absolutely pathetic.

Next time round lets give the emergency services time to build a sound proof booth around accidents.
That is until someone sues them for duty of care, or for blocking their view or some other bullcrap.

Arcade_Tryer

valoren wrote: »

Post traumatic stress?

She was told over the phone that her husband had been in an accident. She willingly drove to the scene of that accident. Now I'd imagine that if you knew yourself to be of a sensitive disposition that a traffic accident would not be something you would want to see and if you were that sensitive then seeing your husband in a traffic accident will certainly have an effect. But she went to the scene of the accident regardless and suffered from nervous shock. What did she expect to find? Crash victims, paramedics, guards, fire brigade all standing around having tea and biscuits?

It's insane. If a call hadn't been made concerning the accident, would a claim have been put in due to distress at not knowing about the event I wonder? :rolleyes:

Kimbot

Lads im going up and down the motorway looking for crashes........ Tell them im shocked by what I seen and demand money out of them.....

minikin

All crash victims will have to be ball-gagged from now on.

valoren

valoren wrote: »

They usually say the disclaimer before reports I think?

The following report contains scenes that some viewers may find upsetting.

That's RTE covering their ass.

So? If driving to the scene of an accident doesn't prevent a claim how would not changing the channel?

ScumLord

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

It's not really tbh.

It kind of is though. A system that encourages conflict and exaggerates situations for more money. Solicitors that drag the whole process out for more billable hours. The whole system is corrupted and corrupting. I don't accept the claims that it's better than nothing and the best we have. That doesn't make it right, it's deeply flawed and in desperate need of updating.

Beta Ray Bill

jonnycivic wrote: »

Lads im going up and down the motorway looking for crashes........ Tell them im shocked by what I seen and demand money out of them.....

That's basically the problem that been introduced now.

I've seen a few horrific things in my life.
Two which I'll never forget are a truck rolling over part of a cyclist and a guy jumping out in front of a train.
Those images will stay with me forever, but I am not entitled to compensation for viewing them.

valoren

"His screams stayed with me." she said....."TO A BIGGER HOUSE!"

*I said the loud part quiet and the quiet part loud*

Pelvis

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

How on earth is that the responsibility of an insurance company though? Most people who can't support themselves visit the social welfare office. That people can justify this claim is very worrying. Is it any surprise people are making such claims?

How is it the responsibility of the insurance company?? Look up the meaning of the word insurance and that will become clear.

Most people who get fired visit the social welfare office. Others who suffer significant damages due to the fault of others, damages that may include loss of earnings, go to court.

Kimbot

grahambo wrote: »

That's basically the problem that been introduced now.

I've seen a few horrific things in my life.
Two which I'll never forget are a truck rolling over part of a cyclist and a guy jumping out in front of a train.
Those images will stay with me forever, but I am not entitled to compensation for viewing them.

I recall seeing a lad decapitated on the n7 years and years ago in a car crash. It was horrific but Im still here and no PTSD.

suicide_circus

Do you know what will help her get over hearing her husbands screams?

A big wad of sweaty money.

sjb25

I just drove past an accident from seeing it I'm not right il go back and get the insurance info I think

Grayson

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

How on earth is that the responsibility of an insurance company though? Most people who can't support themselves visit the social welfare office. That people can justify this claim is very worrying. Is it any surprise people are making such claims?

It's not the insurance firm though.

You hit my car and I sue you, your insurance firm pays up. That's why you have insurance. The insurance firm pays out for actions that you do. They will, if it falls within the remit of the policy, accept your liability as theirs.

jade15

There is legal precedent here for these types of claims, they come mostly under nervous shock in Tort Law and depends on the applicants relationship to those involved in the accident and their proximity to the accident and what exactly they witnessed. One of the most infamous examples of this kind of claim is The Hillsborough Disaster.

Grayson

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

It's insane. If a call hadn't been made concerning the accident, would a claim have been put in due to distress at not knowing about the event I wonder? :rolleyes:

If a woman hadn't been trying to change her radio station and had instead been driving safely then the accident wouldn't have occurred. The call wouldn't have been made and the woman would never have gone through it. That's the point of the suit.

McCrack

ScumLord wrote: »

It kind of is though. A system that encourages conflict and exaggerates situations for more money. Solicitors that drag the whole process out for more billable hours. The whole system is corrupted and corrupting. I don't accept the claims that it's better than nothing and the best we have. That doesn't make it right, it's deeply flawed and in desperate need of updating.

Ah the ole conspiracy theories are back I see

The whole system is corrupt yada yada

They are all out to get us

tayto lover

Insurance companies need to come under the spotlight.
There are many very minor cases settled for fairly big money without the other party being told until their insurance comes up for renewal.

McCrack

grahambo wrote: »

That's basically the problem that been introduced now.

I've seen a few horrific things in my life.
Two which I'll never forget are a truck rolling over part of a cyclist and a guy jumping out in front of a train.
Those images will stay with me forever, but I am not entitled to compensation for viewing them.

Correct and the reason you are not entitled to compensation is because you have no familial or personal connection to the injured/deceased

red ears

Expect premiums to rise if this becomes the norm. And it will become the norm sure as night follows day.

Mrs OBumble

We should follow New Zealand's approach, and totally remove the right to sue in return for no-fault 24x7 accident cover paid for by a payroll tax.

Everyone except the lawyers and insurance companies wins.

ScumLord

McCrack wrote: »

Ah the ole conspiracy theories are back I see

The whole system is corrupt yada yada

They are all out to get us

There's nothing conspiratorial about what I said, the courts are adversarial. They do exaggerate claims in an attempt to increase a settlement. The court system is as slow as a dead dog and everything gets dragged out for as long as possible which means more money for solicitors.

Jakey Rolling

grahambo wrote: »

That's basically the problem that been introduced now.

I've seen a few horrific things in my life.
Two which I'll never forget are a truck rolling over part of a cyclist and a guy jumping out in front of a train.

Reminds me of when I was a teenager on my first trip to London - a fella jumped in front of a train on the Northern Line. About 90% of the passengers waiting on the platform groaned, looked at their watches and hurried off to find an alternative route to work.