Girl who injured her lower lip in crèche 13 years ago awarded €30,000

eggerb · 02-10-2018 8:46pm #1

A 14-year-old schoolgirl, who injured her lower lip in a crèche 13 years ago, was today awarded €30,000 damages in the Circuit Civil Court.

Barrister John Martin, counsel for Lauren L’Estrange, told Judge Sarah Berkeley that Lauren was only 14 months old when she suffered the injury in Giraffe Child Care crèche at International Financial Services Centre, Dublin.

Mr Martin, who appeared with Eamonn J. Walsh solicitors, said Lauren had been playing in the toddler’s play area of the defendant’s crèche on 9th July 2005 and somehow had been struck by the handlebars of a tricycle.

He said no-one had witnessed the accident so no-one knew how it had happened.

Lauren, who sued through her father John Paul L’Estrange, Old Quay, Strand Road, Sutton, Dublin13, had been struck to the left side of her lower lip, suffering a small laceration.

Mr Martin said Lauren had not been supervised at the time and somehow had been struck in the mouth by the handlebars of the tricycle. She may have pulled it forward on herself.

Lauren had been treated at a doctor’s clinic near the crèche before having been taken to Our Lady’s Hospital, Crumlin.

“The injury has resolved very well but there is a small residual scar about one millimetre in length which is not obvious from conversational distance,” Mr Martin told the court.

He said a plastic surgeon had advised that there was no necessity for cosmetic surgery.

Judge Berkeley approved a settlement offer of €30,000 from the crèche.

© independent.ie - 2nd October 2018

eggerb · 02-10-2018 8:53pm

Somehow the young girl ‘had been struck by the handlebars of a tricycle’. No-one had witnessed the accident so no-one knew for sure how it had happened. She may have pulled her tricycle forward onto herself.

Is part of the issue here that the crèche didn’t know what really happened so they were negligent and breached their duty of care?

If the accident had been witnessed by an employee and thoroughly documented to the effect that she pulled the tricycle forward onto herself, may the outcome of the claim been any different?

Samuel T. Cogley · 02-10-2018 9:18pm

No different if witnessed IMHO Creche is in loco parentis, they should have been watching to ensure this sort of thing didn't happen.

iamwhoiam · 02-10-2018 9:26pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

No different if witnessed IMHO Creche is in loco parentis, they should have been watching to ensure this sort of thing didn't happen.

I worked in a paeds A and E . Believe me no one can watch to ensure nothing happens a toddler . It happens the best of parents and it happens daily . Or are you saying if this happened at home a parent is negletful ? Accidents happen and toddlers fall or pull down something or choke . My own tripped and split her head open on my watch . Another stuck a pea up his nose . Its life with a toddler

Samuel T. Cogley · 02-10-2018 9:29pm

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I worked in a paeds A and E . Believe me no one can watch to ensure nothing happens a toddler . It happens the best of parents and it happens daily . Or are you saying if this happened at home a parent is negletful ? Accidents happen and toddlers fall or pull down something or choke . My own tripped and split her head open on my watch . Another stuck a pea up his nose . Its life with a toddler

I'm not saying anything other than whether witnessed or not it makes no difference to the case - IMHO. A Judge on a full hearing of the case has awarded 30K, or approved a volantary settlement, I'm not sure which here. A Judge approved the settlement the defendant offered, they did not assess the damages themselves.

iamwhoiam · 02-10-2018 9:30pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I'm not saying anything other than whether witnessed or not it makes no difference to the case - IMHO. A Judge on a full hearing of the case has awarded 30K, or approved a volantary settlement, I'm not sure which here.

More fool him/ her

KevinCavan · 02-10-2018 9:33pm

Is there not a time limit on such cases? I thought they would have had to sue quite quickly in the years following the incident?

iamwhoiam · 02-10-2018 9:34pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Oh you were at the hearing? What point of law did you disgaree with?

What law stipulates 30k for a minor cut ? Really ?

jon1981 · 02-10-2018 9:34pm

This has put me in a bad mood. There better be some very important backstory to this ...

The the defendent offer it or did the defendents insurance company.

Samuel T. Cogley · 02-10-2018 9:34pm

KevinCavan wrote: »

Is there not a time limit on such cases? I thought they would have had to sue quite quickly in the years following the incident?

2 years (AFAIR) for personal injury once the minor child turns 18.

Samuel T. Cogley · 02-10-2018 9:35pm

iamwhoiam wrote: »

What law stipulates 30k for a minor cut ? Really ?

jon1981 wrote: »

This has put me in a bad mood. There better be some very important backstory to this ...other the judge needs to be removed from his job.

Please read the edit to my above post. Apologies for causing confusion, although it is right there in the OP.

Ginger83 · 02-10-2018 9:36pm

The world has gone mad.

jon1981 · 02-10-2018 9:37pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Please read the edit to my above post. Apologies for causing confusion, although it is right there in the OP.

I had already edited mine before you posted this

Harry Palmr · 02-10-2018 9:39pm

Ginger83 wrote: »

The world has gone mad.

Yep 13 years to get a conclusion is beyond the joke.

jon1981 · 02-10-2018 9:39pm

If the defendents insurance offered this then there is nothing the defendent could do...do we know if this was the case?

Boggles my mind why insurers pay silly money to stop things like this getting to court.

iamwhoiam · 02-10-2018 9:43pm

jon1981 wrote: »

If the defendents insurance offered this then there is nothing the defendent could do...do we know if this was the case?

Boggles my mind why insurers pay silly money to stop things like this getting to court.

My husband attended court for a case where a guy sued a company . He allegedly walked into a ladder sticking out of the back of a truck . The company proved the guy would have to be 7 and half foot for it to hit him in the forehead
The insurers still handed the guy 15k on a silver platter for a scratch on his forehead

Samuel T. Cogley · 02-10-2018 9:45pm

I dont want to backseat mod but there's a general rant on this in After Hours. The OP asked a very specific question and thus far has had only one answer.

Ginger83 · 02-10-2018 9:47pm

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Yep 13 years to get a conclusion is beyond the joke.

Thats the attitude that has society beyond ****ed. We'll all end up suing each other.

vg88 · 02-10-2018 10:31pm

I think you have to be a **** of a parent to do this, not just for the money.

When you google this young girls name, i.e. in 3/4 years when she may look for a job, and the article will appear and will carry with her for life. Is 30K enough to have your childs name plastered over the internet for showing how much of a chancer the father is? Probably some would jump on 30K but a good name IMO is invaluable.

_Whimsical_ · 02-10-2018 10:38pm

Creche care is about to get more expensive then if they're going to need insurance to pay out on every single little scratch.

Peregrinus · 03-10-2018 1:35am

eggerb wrote: »

Somehow the young girl ‘had been struck by the handlebars of a tricycle’. No-one had witnessed the accident so no-one knew for sure how it had happened. She may have pulled her tricycle forward onto herself.

Is part of the issue here that the crèche didn’t know what really happened so they were negligent and breached their duty of care?

Possibly. Or there may have been much stronger evidence of negligence. Becauase this was a settlement, the matter of negligence was admitted, so didn't have to be proved in court, so no evidence on the details of the negligence was led.

(It occurs to me that a possible explanation for the ostensibly very generous settlement offer may be that if the matter had been contested, and evidence about the negligence was given, it might have showed quite a scandalous degree of negligence, and that it was only the grace of God that the injury was so minor, and reputational damage to the creche might have been severe. Hence the settlement. But that's entirely speculative.)

eggerb wrote: »

If the accident had been witnessed by an employee and thoroughly documented to the effect that she pulled the tricycle forward onto herself, may the outcome of the claim been any different?

No, I don't think so. The child was one year old at the time. It would obviously be reckless of a creche to put the child in a position where her own safety depended on her exercising common sense. One-year-olds don't have any common sense.

jimmycrackcorm · 03-10-2018 1:48am

Samuel T. Cogley wrote:

No different if witnessed IMHO Creche is in loco parentis, they should have been watching to ensure this sort of thing didn't happen.

If that's the case then privacy every parent could be sued.

I was watching my 5 year old son when he was young in a playground and he ran behind someone swinging who hit his head.

Cue a visit to A&E for a cut to the head.
If only i had looked away he could have gotten a free 30k.

RayCun · 03-10-2018 9:51am

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I was watching my 5 year old son when he was young in a playground and he ran behind someone swinging who hit his head.

Cue a visit to A&E for a cut to the head.
If only i had looked away he could have gotten a free 30k.

From you?

Samuel T. Cogley · 03-10-2018 11:30am

RayCun wrote: »

From you?

Possibly from his insurance, it's not like we've not seen the parent effectively sue themsleves before for the benefit of the minor child against insurance.

RayCun · 03-10-2018 11:34am

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Possibly from his insurance,

I didn't know you could get parent insurance :eek:

Samuel T. Cogley · 03-10-2018 11:39am

RayCun wrote: »

I didn't know you could get parent insurance :eek:

Seems like some people might need it!

eggerb · 03-10-2018 2:17pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I'm not saying anything other than whether witnessed or not it makes no difference to the case - IMHO. A Judge approved the settlement the defendant offered, they did not assess the damages themselves.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Possibly. Or there may have been much stronger evidence of negligence. Because this was a settlement, the matter of negligence was admitted, so didn't have to be proved in court, so no evidence on the details of the negligence was led.

(It occurs to me that a possible explanation for the ostensibly very generous settlement offer may be that if the matter had been contested, and evidence about the negligence was given, it might have showed quite a scandalous degree of negligence, and that it was only the grace of God that the injury was so minor, and reputational damage to the creche might have been severe. Hence the settlement. But that's entirely speculative.)

What else might come out and the consequential reputational damage hadn't occured to me. Thanks.

Which comes back to jon198's post

jon1981 wrote: »

This has put me in a bad mood. There better be some very important backstory to this ...

The the defendent offer it or did the defendents insurance company.

I can't really see the insurance company being too bothered about the Creche's reputation if it doesn't affect their liability.

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, I don't think so. The child was one year old at the time. It would obviously be reckless of a creche to put the child in a position where her own safety depended on her exercising common sense. One-year-olds don't have any common sense.

So, if there's any lessons to be learned by creches, is it to bin the toys that might cause a 1mm scar? I reckon a lot of creche owners would be keen to know what, if anything, can they can do to avoid litigation such as this?

neris · 03-10-2018 2:23pm

eggerb wrote: »

So, if there's any lessons to be learned by creches, is it to bin the toys that might cause a 1mm scar? I reckon a lot of creche owners would be keen to know what, if anything, can they can do to avoid litigation such as this?

as a creche owner theres nothing we can do but shut up shop as kids will always get scrapes and bumps (same as at home and in the care of parents, garnd parents family etc). The reality is we have to hope for the best and hope the parents are reasonable. Our business has been lucky so far and a friend who works in insurance said they were very surprised we hadnt been taken for a claim. The vast majority of parents we deal with are reasonable enough when an incident occurs and the child is given proper care and attention and we cover the cost of a doctor visit where necessary

eggerb · 03-10-2018 2:35pm

neris wrote: »

as a creche owner theres nothing we can do but shut up shop as kids will always get scrapes and bumps (same as at home and in the care of parents, garnd parents family etc). The reality is we have to hope for the best and hope the parents are reasonable. Our business has been lucky so far and a friend who works in insurance said they were very surprised we hadnt been taken for a claim. The vast majority of parents we deal with are reasonable enough when an incident occurs and the child is given proper care and attention and we cover the cost of a doctor visit where necessary

Glad to hear the vast majority are reasonable. It's the minority of cases like this that must have many owners worried, at a minimum about their insurance premiums.

neris wrote: »

when an incident occurs ... we cover the cost of a doctor visit where necessary

Does this amount to any type of admission of liability? would it be better to have the children covered by a personal accident policy like the one's schools use?

neris · 03-10-2018 2:52pm

eggerb wrote: »

Glad to hear the vast majority are reasonable. It's the minority of cases like this that must have many owners worried, at a minimum about their insurance premiums.

Does this amount to any type of admission of liability? would it be better to have the children covered by a personal accident policy like the one's schools use?

Our insurance costs are high enough as it is and reading that article yesterday evening made me sick and angry. To me that was a very minor injury that was taken care of and looked after by the creche and hospital. We,ve had kids turn up in the morning in casts and bandages from injuries at home and the parents expect us to take them in. We pay high insurance for our business/premises but also for vehicles. A family 7 seater that might cost a few hundred a year t insure for a family can cost us a few thousand even though weve never had an incident with a vehicle. We recently bought a van to be used for carrying tools, furniture and other bits and pieces around. Not being used to carry kids, it took days to get a quote because the broker had to get the right person in the insurance company because if they did over the computer system it would automatically be rejected because our business is a creche

Its not an admission of liability on our part. Its more to compensate the parent to be not out of pocket for a small accident that happened and might need a trip to the doctor for a check up or a stitch however in light of what happened in that article with that child we will probably have to review that as we would take a child to a doctor or hospital at times if the parents arent nearby

Peregrinus · 04-10-2018 12:47am

eggerb wrote: »

So, if there's any lessons to be learned by creches, is it to bin the toys that might cause a 1mm scar? I reckon a lot of creche owners would be keen to know what, if anything, can they can do to avoid litigation such as this?

Well, one of the factors in this case is that the creche couldn't explain how the accident had happened, which is acutely embarrassing; it suggests the children were not under adult supervision at the time. Plus, it's a tactical problem; if they had been supervising properly, it's possible they might have been able to show that the accident had happened without any fault on their part.

So, one of the things creche owners can do to avoid litigation such as this is ensure the place is properly staffed to a level that enable the kids to be properly supervised.

Girl who injured her lower lip in crèche 13 years ago awarded €30,000

Comments