Suing for child's injury timeframe?

Prettyblack

About 6 years ago one of my kids suffered an injury in the creche, he split his head on an unprotected side of a bookshelf when he fell over. He had to get stitches and has a large scar on his forehead to this day.

We didn't do anything at the time as we had another kid in the place and we wanted them to stay.

Yesterday I read about the girl who injured her lower lip and got 30K compensation for an accident that happened 13 years ago. We never did any kind of follow up but this story makes me curious. He is essentially scarred for life due to him suffering an injury under their care.

My question is, where do I stand with regards to my situation? Could I make a case or is it too late?

lawred2

Two years I think.

But really? You weren't actually serious about taking this were you?

F34

You have until the child turns 18 to make a claim unfortunately.

endacl

“If you wouldn’t mind taking care of my other kid for a few years before I sue you for not looking after my first one, that’d be great. Thanks.”

Seriously?

lawred2

F34 wrote: »

You have until the child turns 18 to make a claim unfortunately.

Actually this is correct - the child under 18 is exempt from being statute barred.

That's disappointing.

Gravelly

If you're serious about this, I hope you lose.

The Bishop Basher

Gravelly wrote: »

If you're serious about this, I hope you lose.

And I hope it costs you a bleedin fortune..

Unbridled greed..

The boom is back

frisbeeface

Gravelly wrote: »

If you're serious about this, I hope you lose.

It'll just be settled by insurance company or by arbitration. Insurance company wouldn't bother bringing this to court, just pay up and raise premiums.

Prettyblack

Don't get me wrong now, I'm just curious what my position is / would be. The girl in the news story cut her lip, whereas my child has a permanent inch-long scar right down the middle of his forehead. Which he is conscious of.

Perhaps in our own naivety we didn't know what we should've done; in hindsight we should've taken them to another creche.

I'm not saying I'm now going to call a solicitor or anything like that, I was just interested to know what the time frame could be, were such a course of action to be explored.

Prettyblack

Rennaws wrote: »

And I hope it costs you a bleedin fortune..

Unbridled greed..

The boom is back

Wow, take a step back there. I was just posing a question. Wasn't expecting such negative / nasty comments on what is essentially something of interest from a legal point of view.

iamwhoiam

Prettyblack wrote: »

Don't get me wrong now, I'm just curious what my position is / would be. The girl in the news story cut her lip, whereas my child has a permanent inch-long scar right down the middle of his forehead. Which he is conscious of.

Perhaps in our own naivety we didn't know what we should've done; in hindsight we should've taken them to another creche.

I'm not saying I'm now going to call a solicitor or anything like that, I was just interested to know what the time frame could be, were such a course of action to be explored.

My daughter has a inch long scar on her forehead too .It happened here in my house when she thundered into a door frame while I was in the room .Should I have looked for new parents for her .?These things happen and they happen daily somewhere . Its life

Prettyblack

iamwhoiam wrote: »

My daughter has a inch long scar on her forehead too .It happened here in my house when she thundered into a door frame while I was in the room .Should I have looked for new parents for her .?

That's not really the point here.

iamwhoiam

Prettyblack wrote: »

That's not really the point here.

I think it actually is . Toddlers trip and fall , must we always blame someone for every litttle mark ?

lawred2

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I think it actually is . Toddlers trip and fall , must we always blame someone for every litttle mark ?

well when there's a handy 30k in the offing!

CrankyHaus

The statutory limitation period will not expire until your child's 20th birthday.

meeeeh

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I think it actually is . Toddlers trip and fall , must we always blame someone for every litttle mark ?

Well it's handy. The little darling will be "conscious" about the scare for life but parents will get a holiday or two or a car out of it.

Gravelly

Prettyblack wrote: »

Wow, take a step back there. I was just posing a question. Wasn't expecting such negative / nasty comments on what is essentially something of interest from a legal point of view.

Those of us who pay for all this scammery tend to be a teeny bit sensitive about it. My children have less because I have to pay towards this kind of scamming. Essentially you are stealing from the hard-working and honest.

Kevin Finnerty

I wouldn't question the Ops morals here. It's the system thats wrong.

Gravelly

Kevin Finnerty wrote: »

I wouldn't question the Ops morals here. It's the system thats wrong.

That doesn't make those who profit from it right.

ThunbergsAreGo

The next time people ask why creche fees and insurance premiums are so high in this country........

Kevin Finnerty

Gravelly wrote: »

That doesn't make those who profit from it right.

Whether it's right or wrong is a decision they have to make in their own mind. Judges throwing around 30k Willy nilly is the problem here.

Personally I agree with you, just I wouldn't judge anyone who had a legally legitimate case.
It's the legalities needing addressing.

Peregrinus

The general rule is that a personal injury action has to be commenced within 2 years of the injury. This is know as the "limitation period".

There are a number of exceptions. Limitation periods don't run against a child, which is why for a child the relevant period is 2 years from 18th birthday. The reason for this is obvious. Limitation periods don't run if you aren't aware, and couldn't reasonably become aware, of your cause of action. This is so you can't lose your cause of action before you even know you have it. And there are many other exceptions.

LCD

Kevin Finnerty wrote: »

I wouldn't question the Ops morals here. It's the system thats wrong.

I would question them

Peregrinus

meeeeh wrote: »

Well it's handy. The little darling will be "conscious" about the scare for life but parents will get a holiday or two or a car out of it.

Damages go the child, not the parent. One of the reason why the settlement of a child's action has to be ruled in court is so that the court can see that arrangements are in place to see that the benefit of the settlement goes to the child.

Peregrinus

Kevin Finnerty wrote: »

Whether it's right or wrong is a decision they have to make in their own mind. Judges throwing around 30k Willy nilly is the problem here.

The judge didn't "throw it around". This was a voluntary settlement; the parties agreed that sum before the matter ever went near a judge.

RocketRaccoon

Prettyblack wrote: »

Don't get me wrong now, I'm just curious what my position is / would be. The girl in the news story cut her lip, whereas my child has a permanent inch-long scar right down the middle of his forehead. Which he is conscious of.

Perhaps in our own naivety we didn't know what we should've done; in hindsight we should've taken them to another creche.

I'm not saying I'm now going to call a solicitor or anything like that, I was just interested to know what the time frame could be, were such a course of action to be explored.

Just curious?? Bull.
I think everyone here knows you'll be on to a solicitor by the time most of us have sat down to dinner this evening. I despise people like you.

Kevin Finnerty

Peregrinus wrote: »

The judge didn't "throw it around". This was a voluntary settlement; the parties agreed that sum before the matter ever went near a judge.

I stand corrected. Nevertheless it was cheaper settle on the doorstep than pursue it further through the court.

BarryD2

Prettyblack wrote: »

About 6 years ago one of my kids suffered an injury in the creche, he split his head on an unprotected side of a bookshelf when he fell over.

How are you going to prove this after 6 years? Do you have signed statements from the time, photographs of the accident scene? Kids, toddlers particularly fall all the time as you know. It's just part and parcel of growing and learning and that's exactly what your child was doing in the creche - learning about the hazards of life.

blairbear

I'm an emergency dept doctor. I have seen children die through accidents at home, on farms, on the road, while in the care of someone else (and of course while in their parents care.)

Nobody could have prevented these terrible accidents in truth. It is very, very disappointing that you think your child's minor scar deserves a huge pay out. Blame culture at it's finest.

Bereaved families I know have never even considered it. Be grateful you have a happy, healthy child and get on with things.

SeeMoreBut

Is it in a book to say it happened as it is just hear say

I would guess it is.

Gravelly

Kevin Finnerty wrote: »

Whether it's right or wrong is a decision they have to make in their own mind. Judges throwing around 30k Willy nilly is the problem here.

Personally I agree with you, just I wouldn't judge anyone who had a legally legitimate case.
It's the legalities needing addressing.

I'd have no issue with a legitimate claim, the problem is, the vast majority aren't, as the OP's isn't.
Kids get bumps and scrapes all the time, it is part of growing up. I've lost count of the number of cuts, broken bones, and knocks my own got, and they've grown up happy and healthy, and I've never sued because of it.
This is part of the lazy culture of "who's to blame" that leads to suing or running to the papers for every little bump in the road.

realitykeeper

When the law facilitates greed, then the problem is the law. Mind you, it would not surprise me if greedy lawyers were constantly lobbying for laws which encourage this compensation culture.

laotg

As soon as the OP discovers that any payout will be to the child for use from 18th birthday he/she will reconsider.

hullaballoo

Moderator: Closed for mod review.