256k for PTSD

knucklehead6

Judge Anthony Barr yesterday awarded €256000 to a woman yesterday who developed PTSD after being knocked down by a car in Dublin in 2011.

Seems like a lot, doesn't it? She was studying accounting and after the accident she lost her only source of income and became homeless.

Oh yeah.... The dumb bitch was crossing the road at a red pedestrian light.

So, we may all thank our learned friend when our insurance takes another hike next year.

Outlaw Pete

Hahaha, yeah, the dumb bitch getting knocked down.


Wait, what?

seamus

Traffic lights mean "proceed if it is safe to do so", not "you can go no matter what". A pedestrian actively crossing the road still has right of way over a turning vehicle regardless of the light sequence.

Her awarded was reduced by 45% because she crossed at the red light.

You can thank the stupid inattentive driver who crashed into a slow-moving visible hazard on a city centre street for any rise in insurance premiums.

Mint Sauce

I'm on the fence of this one. Yes. once she stepped into the road, she had right of way, but some personal responsibility has to be taken. Did the driver get anything for the unexpected hazard in the road, and the shock he might have received?

Does this mean that any of us can just decide to walk into traffic, even if the payout is reduced?

seamus

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Does this mean that any of us can just decide to walk into traffic, even if the payout is reduced?

Technically, yes. Off you go. Let us know if it was worth it.

Gatling

Crazy payout ,

Seems to be the new whiplash PTSD payouts are getting mad with a diagnosis

suicide_circus

If you care to check the medical literature you'll see that the recognised cure for PTSD is a big wedge of cash.

King of Kings

seamus wrote: »

Traffic lights mean "proceed if it is safe to do so", not "you can go no matter what". A pedestrian actively crossing the road still has right of way over a turning vehicle regardless of the light sequence.

Her awarded was reduced by 45% because she crossed at the red light.

You can thank the stupid inattentive driver who crashed into a slow-moving visible hazard on a city centre street for any rise in insurance premiums.

you make a fair point regarding hazards but i dont think its fair to blame the driver in the absence of evidence the driver was driving without due care.
She did cross when it was Red for her and its not unreasonable to assume that the driver was taken by surprise and/or didnt see her. Not all hazards can be accomodated.

She is a grown woman and although the driver should be mindful of dangers on the road etc...the bulk of the blame ( i mean 90% ish) should lie with her.

From the report I read (indo online) I got an impression that the judge was swayed by his positive impressions of the lady rather than the facts of the case.

Its a whopper payout even with 45% deduction its whopper...

Its a dangerous ruling i think

Mint Sauce

seamus wrote: »

Technically, yes. Off you go. Let us know if it was worth it.

As I dont particualy fancy getting thrown a few foot in the air, I will pass. But am sure there are plenty who would. Although now with dash cams...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r5kfCJHR6Y

I would have considered waiting on the police to show, and then point out the camera, and claim damages my self.

SEPT 23 1989

A fairly traumatic thing to go through I would have thought

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

knucklehead6

seamus wrote: »

You can thank the stupid inattentive driver who crashed into a slow-moving visible hazard on a city centre street for any rise in insurance premiums.

Couldn’t disagree more. While we all have a reaponsibility to be careful on the roads the greater responsibility lies with the person who has a great big red fkn light saying DON’T MOVE, and yet chooses to ignore it

KaiserGunner

Mint Sauce wrote: »

As I dont particualy fancy getting thrown a few foot in the year, I will pass. But am sure there are plenty who would. Although now with dash cams...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r5kfCJHR6Y

I would have considered waiting on the police to show, and then point out the camera, and claim damages my self.

If that is real, well then that is one of the most pathetic things I’ve ever seen in my life. I actually fear for humanity when I watch things like that.

tabby aspreme

What physical injuries did she receive as a result of being knocked down.

Liam McPoyle

PTSD is even more difficult to prove than whiplash.

It is also a common enough symptom tacked onto whiplash claims.

I'm a nervous passenger now your honour.

I wake up with night terrors now your honour.

As its virtually impossible to disprove the law will invariably side with the injured party and payment will be made.

Based on the limited details available here it does seem like the claimant suffered psychological damage following the accident but rather than paying her a big fat cheque, I'd be much more in favour of having insurers fully covering the cost of all medical needs, getting the best psychologists money can buy and getting her intensive therapy.

Instead, due to her own recklessness she walks away with a quarter of a million and a precedent has now been set.

Joke shop judiciary strikes again.

Hector Savage

What a ****, absolute parasites
And the f*cking judge ...

knucklehead6

tabby aspreme wrote: »

What physical injuries did she receive as a result of being knocked down.

A severe case of “show-me-the-money-itis”

pickarooney

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Couldn’t disagree more. While we all have a reaponsibility to be careful on the roads the greater responsibility lies with the person who has a great big red fkn light saying DON’T MOVE, and yet chooses to ignore it

Have you passed a driving test? Because it should have been beaten into you that the responsibility lies with the person liable to kill another person with their vehicle. That applies to not hitting cyclists acting the absolute ballbag on the road too, for better or worse.

Mint Sauce

KaiserGunner wrote: »

If that is real, well then that is one of the most pathetic things I’ve ever seen in my life. I actually fear for humanity when I watch things like that.

Plenty of them out there, young and old throwing them selfs on to bonents. Also cash for crash videos, of drivers reversing into cars, and claiming they were driven into.

Weather real or fake, who knows, but would still tempt me into buying a dash cam.

knucklehead6

pickarooney wrote: »

Have you passed a driving test? Because it should have been beaten into you that the responsibility lies with the person liable to kill another person with their vehicle. That applies to not hitting cyclists acting the absolute ballbag on the road too, for better or worse.

Yes, I have passed the test. First time and have 20 years fault free driving under my belt. I had two claims, where I was crashed into but no ptsd or whiplash or anything.

It’s attitudes like yours, the “someone else is always to blame for my mistakes and balls ups” that have this country in the state it’s in

severe lack of links in the OP

pickarooney

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Yes, I have passed the test. First time and have 20 years fault free driving under my belt. I had two claims, where I was crashed into but no ptsd or whiplash or anything.

It’s attitudes like yours, the “someone else is always to blame for my mistakes and balls ups” that have this country in the state it’s in

I don't know where you're getting that "quoted" text from but you can't very well assume your own opinion trumps the law of the land.

I've been hit and run twice by eejits ploughing into roundabouts without looking and never got so much as the cost of repairs. Whatever about the moral or legal implications, the best tactic if you do hit someone is to just drive away as fast as you can.

seamus

King of Kings wrote: »

you make a fair point regarding hazards but i dont think its fair to blame the driver in the absence of evidence the driver was driving without due care.

If you hit a stationary or a slow-moving object, then you've ballsed up. There's not really any way to argue it. A mechanical failure, perhaps, but even then one can argue you've ballsed up by not taking proper care of your vehicle.

Berserker

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Plenty of them out there, young and old throwing them selfs on to bonents. Also cash for crash videos, of drivers reversing into cars, and claiming they were driven into.

Only found out recently that this is a thing/scam going around. Friend of my mothers was driving around a roundabout, man in front of her jammed on the breaks, for no reason (no traffic or people around), hit reverse and backed into her. He got €25K compo due to the fact that he can't sleep properly, can't play golf anymore etc. People need to get a grip, this isn't "free" money. Guard told her that it is happening quite frequently these days.

knucklehead6

pickarooney wrote: »

I don't know where you're getting that "quoted" text from but you can't very well assume your own opinion trumps the law of the land.

I've been hit and run twice by eejits ploughing into roundabouts without looking and never got so much as the cost of repairs. Whatever about the moral or legal implications, the best tactic if you do hit someone is to just drive away as fast as you can.

So you talk about me not being able to assume my opinion trumps the law of the land and the same post advise people to break the law of the land by leaving the scene of an accident.

Riiiight.

Come back to me when you have a coherent non contradictory argument.

pickarooney

knucklehead6 wrote: »

So you talk about me not being able to assume my opinion trumps the law of the land and the same post advise people to break the law of the land by leaving the scene of an accident.

Riiiight.

Come back to me when you have a coherent non contradictory argument.

You're welcome to break or ignore the law, just not really entitled to complain when you're caught and the law is applied against you.

I don't know if you follow sports but it's like insisting to the ref or other fans that something isn't a foul because you don't agree with the rule as opposed to knowingly breaking a rule to gain advantage. You're personally better off doing the latter, up until you get caught and punished, and even then if you've got away with it enough times you might still be in the black.

judeboy101

How about 25k for seeing ur sister ravaged by a tapir

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0710/977716-ruari-owens-court/

He will forever be afraid to go near tapirs if he goes to the Amazon rain forest.

knucklehead6

judeboy101 wrote: »

How about 25k for seeing ur sister ravaged by a tapir

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0710/977716-ruari-owens-court/

He will forever be afraid to go near tapirs if he goes to the Amazon rain forest.

In fairness that kid has absolutely no personal responsibility. While it’s a fair whack, it isn’t 1/4 of a million.

In yesterday’s case the woman either ignored or didn’t see a red light and walked out in front of a moving motor vehicle

pickarooney

judeboy101 wrote: »

How about 25k for seeing ur sister ravaged by a tapir

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0710/977716-ruari-owens-court/

He will forever be afraid to go near tapirs if he goes to the Amazon rain forest.

Why were children in a cage with a wild animal?
I mean...

Edit: I had started a long reply on this but I started to meander and just tapired off near the end.

Grayson

knucklehead6 wrote: »

In fairness that kid has absolutely no personal responsibility. While it’s a fair whack, it isn’t 1/4 of a million.

In yesterday’s case the woman either ignored or didn’t see a red light and walked out in front of a moving motor vehicle

The point was that they both have PTSD.
the woman would have been treated and assessed by professionals. They diagnosed her. You have a problem with the diagnosis, bring it up with them.

To award damages the judge would have them worked out how much she would have lost because of the accident. So he assessed potential future earnings. He did that and came up with a figure.

He then knocked a chunk off because she crossed at a red light and was therefore partially responsible.

BTW, calling her a bitch was a really scummy thing to do.

Grayson

pickarooney wrote: »

Why were children in a cage with a wild animal?
I mean...

Edit: I had started a long reply on this but I started to meander and just tapired off near the end.

knucklehead6

Grayson wrote: »

The point was that they both have PTSD.
the woman would have been treated and assessed by professionals. They diagnosed her. You have a problem with the diagnosis, bring it up with them.

To award damages the judge would have them worked out how much she would have lost because of the accident. So he assessed potential future earnings. He did that and came up with a figure.

He then knocked a chunk off because she crossed at a red light and was therefore partially responsible.

BTW, calling her a bitch was a really scummy thing to do.

Good thing she can’t get PTSD twice then, isn’t it?

King of Kings

seamus wrote: »

If you hit a stationary or a slow-moving object, then you've ballsed up. There's not really any way to argue it. A mechanical failure, perhaps, but even then one can argue you've ballsed up by not taking proper care of your vehicle.

you are just being argumentative for the sake of it now or you have have never driven a car.

a person crossing a road when not expected can take a driver by surprise , even at a slow speed , limits the reaction time of the driver.

to argue otherwise is bizarre as fcuk

Nermal

Grayson wrote: »

The point was that they both have PTSD.
the woman would have been treated and assessed by professionals. They diagnosed her. You have a problem with the diagnosis, bring it up with them.

I don't have a problem with the diagnosis, I just don't believe we should award compensation for subjective mental states.

The diagnosis for PTSD is 'this person ticks these answers a multiple choice question set'.

Compensation should be paid for physical injuries that can be verified by objective tests only.

seamus

King of Kings wrote: »

a person crossing a road when not expected can take a driver by surprise , even at a slow speed , limits the reaction time of the driver.

That's not in dispute.

You must at all times drive at a speed which allows you to stop, within the distance you know to be clear.

People do not appear "out of nowhere", teleportation machines do not exist. Unless someone literally throws themselves in front of you as you pass, then your inability to stop for a hazard means you were driving too fast for the conditions.

This means, that where you're in a city centre and there are pedestrians packed on the paths, then yes you should be driving at a speed where you can stop on a penny in case someone stepped out in front of you. Because the distance you "know" to be clear is no more than a couple of metres in front of your vehicle.

Driving 101. Amazing the amount of people who don't seem to realise this.

knucklehead6

seamus wrote: »

Driving 101. Amazing the amount of people who don't seem to realise this.

Personal Responsibility 101. If I’m doing something stupid and I get hurt as a result it’s my own bloody fault.

Amazing the amount of people who don’t seem to realise this.

seamus

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Personal Responsibility 101. If I’m doing something stupid and I get hurt as a result it’s my own bloody fault.

Except when there are two people involved. Then the blame is divided proportionately based on how stupid both people were. In this case she was 45% stupid, he was 55% stupid.

Cars don't drive themselves. Yet. It's not like she stepped out in front of a herd of stampeding wildebeest.

knucklehead6

seamus wrote: »

Except when there are two people involved. Then the blame is divided proportionately based on how stupid both people were. In this case she was 45% stupid, he was 55% stupid.

Cars don't drive themselves. Yet. It's not like she stepped out in front of a herd of stampeding wildebeest.

It’s not like there was a red light there telling her not to step out in front of the maniacal rampaging killer driver.

Oh. There was. Step out on to road at red light = Stupid.

She is 100% responsible for her actions. Her actions caused her to get knocked down.

whisky_galore

Whatever the % of stupid, the awards here are beyond stupid.

MarkY91

So I can get a smack of a car, pretend I'm traumatized and be awarded 250k? Jesus, I'd take that anyday!!

valoren

The whole point of pedestrian lights is to keep pedestrians safe. You're taught such things as soon as you are able to understand it as a kid. It's drilled into you. As an aside, the amount of people for example who think a zebra crossing means it entitles them to right of way is crazy. You're supposed to stop and wait for traffic to yield, not just walk straight across like a numpty, in the dangerous belief that drivers will magically stop.

She is at fault. The pedestrian light was red i.e. don't walk onto the road.

If the driver had tried to do an 'amber gamble' for example and knocked her down then that's different.
It's not as if she was a newly arrived foreign national sussing the streets of Dublin out and was unfamiliar with the signage etc. She'd been here since 2003 and should have known better.

The exorbitant pay out here has the potential to provoke and enable other 'victims' as they can now see that there is the potential for them getting a significant wad of cash for taking a hit.

omega666

seamus wrote: »

That's not in dispute.

You must at all times drive at a speed which allows you to stop, within the distance you know to be clear.

People do not appear "out of nowhere", teleportation machines do not exist. Unless someone literally throws themselves in front of you as you pass, then your inability to stop for a hazard means you were driving too fast for the conditions.

This means, that where you're in a city centre and there are pedestrians packed on the paths, then yes you should be driving at a speed where you can stop on a penny in case someone stepped out in front of you. Because the distance you "know" to be clear is no more than a couple of metres in front of your vehicle.

Driving 101. Amazing the amount of people who don't seem to realise this.

In theory that sounds great, In reality unless you are going to drive around everywhere at < 20kph then you have to assume people aren't stupid enough to just walk out in front of you.

seamus

knucklehead6 wrote: »

It’s not like there was a red light there telling her not to step out in front of the maniacal rampaging killer driver.

Oh. There was. Step out on to road at red light = Stupid.

She is 100% responsible for her actions. Her actions caused her to get knocked down.

Drive into a hazard = stupid.

The court deemed she was 45% responsible. So you're wrong. Your opinion is irrelevant - find yourself in court in the same circumstances and you too will shoulder some of the blame.

Factor that into how you approach your driving - what you believe is irrelevant, all that matters is what the law thinks.

seamus

omega666 wrote: »

In theory that sounds great, In reality unless you are going to drive around everywhere at < 20kph then you have to assume people aren't stupid enough to just walk out in front of you.

Drive at less than 20kph where it's possible someone might suddenly step out in front of you. Like a housing estate or a busy city street.

Drive at faster speeds where you can see there are no pedestrians nor any chance of them stepping in front of you.

It's not rocket science. People and objects don't just appear out of nowhere.

YFlyer

Wonder will she use the money for treatment?

the_pen_turner

seamus wrote: »

Drive at less than 20kph where it's possible someone might suddenly step out in front of you. Like a housing estate or a busy city street.

Drive at faster speeds where you can see there are no pedestrians nor any chance of them stepping in front of you.

It's not rocket science. People and objects don't just appear out of nowhere.

neither do cars. if she stopped and looked before she blindly walked across she wouldnt have caused a crash

knucklehead6

seamus wrote: »

Drive into a hazard = stupid.

The court deemed she was 45% responsible. So you're wrong. Your opinion is irrelevant - find yourself in court in the same circumstances and you too will shoulder some of the blame.

Factor that into how you approach your driving - what you believe is irrelevant, all that matters is what the law thinks.

It’s not as if the courts have ever made mistakes in terms of stupid awards to dumb people. Look at Theresa Wall for example.

Fortunately that judges opinion was overturned and sanity prevailed.

I can only hope the same happens here

omega666

seamus wrote: »

Drive at less than 20kph where it's possible someone might suddenly step out in front of you. Like a housing estate or a busy city street.

Drive at faster speeds where you can see there are no pedestrians nor any chance of them stepping in front of you.

It's not rocket science. People and objects don't just appear out of nowhere.

But there would generally be a pedestrian walking on nearly every street in Dublin. Any one of them could turn and walk out in front of you so you would drive everywhere <20kph. Try that out and let us know how you get on.

Of course people can appear out of nowhere.
A pedestrian can walk out without warning from behind a parked truck,bus or car where the driver would not physically be able to see them. But most don't just cross without checking for a incoming car first.

bloodless_coup

I was wondering why my car insurance renewal which came in the post this morning was so high.

Stupid bitch.

seamus

omega666 wrote: »

But there would generally be a pedestrian walking on nearly every street in Dublin. Any one of them could turn and walk out in front of you so you would drive everywhere <20kph. Try that out and let us know how you get on.

Yeah, that seems par for the course. Sounds reasonable. Average speed in Dublin city is typically under 20kph anyway.

A pedestrian can walk out without warning from behind a parked truck,bus or car where the driver would not physically be able to see them.

Right. So you therefore cannot know that when you're overtaking a large vehicle parked at the side of the road, whether someone is going to step out from behind it.

So you move out, give it plenty of room and slow down sufficiently so that you may be able to stop if someone did run out from behind it. That's the rules, if you don't like them, don't drive.

Why does, "I should be able to drive fast" override simple safety precautions? If you had to drive everywhere at 20kph you'd still get there quicker than walking. Being able to go any faster is a privilege.

Allinall

doylefe wrote: »

I was wondering why my car insurance renewal which came in the post this morning was so high.

Stupid bitch.

Think you’ll find the judge was a man.