RTA claims on behalf of children?

Reati

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/girl-injured-following-fall-when-tram-surfing-settles-personal-injury-claim-for-550000-876892.html

Girl injured following fall when 'tram surfing' settles personal injury claim for €550,000.

I don't understand why these get entertained let alone half a million euro.

She admitted doing it. Said she shouldn't be doing it etc

Can explain explain the logic that is used to make a judgement like this? I feel like I read about these kind of settlements but I can't seem to understand why they occur.

punisher5112

Wow, now I know what I need to do to get a house.

I'm going to hang on to an object that moves and fall.

Great little country we have.

marieholmfan

There are two main reasons:
We don't have staged payments in Ireland so they can't assign €50,000 a year for five years for rehabilitation then review
Because judges perceive the public health care system as inadequate they will fund completely private care

Reati wrote: »

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/girl-injured-following-fall-when-tram-surfing-settles-personal-injury-claim-for-550000-876892.html

Girl injured following fall when 'tram surfing' settles personal injury claim for €550,000.

I don't understand why these get entertained let alone half a million euro.

She admitted doing it. Said she shouldn't be doing it etc

Can explain explain the logic that is used to make a judgement like this? I feel like I read about these kind of settlements but I can't seem to understand why they occur.

hullaballoo

What is the legal discussion angle here?

There's enough populist aimless ranting about personal injuries elsewhere on this site. This forum has a very specific purpose and that is not addressed by the content of this thread thus far.

marieholmfan

hullaballoo wrote: »

What is the legal discussion angle here?

There's enough populist aimless ranting about personal injuries elsewhere on this site. This forum has a very specific purpose and that is not addressed by the content of this thread thus far.

Also where children regularly engage in a dangerous activity this creates a relationship that can give rise to a duty of care and this has happened here.

This is settled Irish law since the early '60s.

Reati

Reati wrote: »

...........

Can explain explain the logic that is used to make a judgement like this?...........

Presumably the Luas shouldn't move off with people "tram surfing"

hullaballoo

I think it's important to note that there was no judgment reached here. The settlement between the parties was approved, this means the judicial function was not to assess liability but was solely concerned with whether the damages were sufficient for the injury.

Obviously, the defendant felt there was a risk in proceeding to trial. We can speculate as to they felt there was such a risk but no more really.

Personally, what struck me was that the operators were aware kids were doing this ridiculously dangerous thing for an astonishing 5 years without taking steps to tackle it and only implemented measures after this incident.

Reati

hullaballoo wrote: »

What is the legal discussion angle here?

There's enough populist aimless ranting about personal injuries elsewhere on this site. This forum has a very specific purpose and that is not addressed by the content of this thread thus far.

I want to understand the legal basis and reasoning that go into the decisions to payout in cases like this or are these things a force onto themselves outside of legal discussion and debate? This is one of many payouts reported late. If you feel there is no legal merit, I'll found a different example. At the end of the day I'm interested in how such payouts are evaluated. Has it become a thing where its easier to payout than fight a just cause? Is it down the the mood of the judge. What would a judge take ino account? Why is the fact the person engaged in a dangerous act not enough to protect the LUAS operator legally from recourse?

I have zero interest in populist ranting on this topic and if you have a problem with the thread report it to a mod.

Samuel T. Cogley

Reati wrote: »

I want to understand the legal basis and reasoning that go into the decisions to payout in cases like this or are these things a force onto themselves outside of legal discussion and debate? This is one of many payouts reported late. If you feel there is no legal merit, I'll found a different example. At the end of the day I'm interested in how such payouts are evaluated.

I have zero interest in populist ranting on this topic and if you have a problem with the thread report it to a mod.

Who like himself? :pac:

Joking aside I these threads only go one way and early mod intervention is required IMHO.

The legal basis for the entertainment of such claims is access to the justice system, which should be a very low bar indeed.

Reati

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Who like himself? :pac:

Joking aside I these threads only go one way and early mod intervention is required IMHO.

The legal basis for the entertainment of such claims is access to the justice system, which should be a very low bar indeed.

In fairness he wasn't posting as a mod. Hence he should report to another mod to independently review. Unless he was posting as a mod? Its always hard to tell on boards.

To the second point, which is a pedantic play on my words, you get my wider point. Anyway doesn't feel like there is much interest in helping me learn more on the topic. I posted here to learn more rather than start off a AH rant least ya know what you will get there!

Samuel T. Cogley

Reati wrote: »

In fairness he wasn't posting as a mod. Hence he should report to another mod to independently review. Unless he was posting as a mod? Its always hard to tell on boards.

To the second point, which is a pedantic play on my words, you get my wider point. Anyway doesn't feel like there is much interest in helping me learn more on the topic. I posted here to learn more rather than start off a AH rant least ya know what you will get there!

I'm not playing with your words, you asked why it was entertained, if that's not what you meant clarify so we can all move on. People have already commented on the wider point.

Reati

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I'm not playing with your words, you asked why it was entertained, if that's not what you meant clarify so we can all move on. People have already commented on the wider point.

You are but it's fine. I found a AH have a rant thread going so I'm going over there instead.

Samuel T. Cogley

Reati wrote: »

You are but it's fine. I found a AH have a rant thread going so I'm going over there instead.

Probably better suited over there if you can't have an rational argument tbh. You've not seemed very open to taking anyone's points or discussing them.

sexmag

It's simple really.

The child suffered server brain damage and will require life long care.

The luas operator did not want to proceed and decided to settle out of court presumably because the solicitor for the girl pointed out their failings,the knew kids has been doing this for years and did not take steps to stop it, there was no active cameras on the side of the luas on the opposite side from the platform as they are only active on the side people get on and off, because of this the driver couldn't see if anyone was hanging on and as such drove off, they should not be driving off with people hanging on regardless and as such this is there failing.

Based on all this the solicitor could prove negligence on the luas behalf and the settled out of court for the fee.

How they came to 500k? I don't know but id assume based on doctors assessment of the treatment she requires for the rest of her life

Simple as that really.

NUTLEY BOY

Reati wrote: »

I want to understand the legal basis and reasoning that go into the decisions to payout in cases like this or are these things a force onto themselves outside of legal discussion and debate? This is one of many payouts reported late. If you feel there is no legal merit, I'll found a different example. At the end of the day I'm interested in how such payouts are evaluated. Has it become a thing where its easier to payout than fight a just cause? Is it down the the mood of the judge. What would a judge take ino account? Why is the fact the person engaged in a dangerous act not enough to protect the LUAS operator legally from recourse?

I have zero interest in populist ranting on this topic and if you have a problem with the thread report it to a mod.

A few pointers FYI.

This type of action is based primarily on the tort of negligence. The first test in a negligence action is whether there is a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. If no, the action dies at that point. If yes, the matter goes onto the next tests for liability and quantum.

The basic definition of negligence was set out in Blyth -v- Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856) Link http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Exch/1856/J65.html

In short, negligence was defined as the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.

The next concept of importance was that of the neighbour principle as set out in Donoghue -v- Stevenson. Link http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.html

In short, per Lord Atkin," the rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be — persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question."

So, to answer your question, a judge would consider the issue of liability on the evidence and against the framework of these elementary principles.

There seems to have been evidence of the prior existence of the danger which led to this accident. Indeed, I understand that there were subsequent structural modifications made to the trams to negate this problem. That puts the defendants on the back foot on liability.

Additionally, a judge would consider the question of contributory negligence. This asks the question of whether or not the plaintiff has shown a lack or want of care for her own safety. Even allowing for the age of the plaintiff at the time of the accident there seems to have been a good argument on this point.

Generally, defendants are better to buy off the risk of a finding on liability if they have significant weaknesses in their case and quantum is potentially large.

I hope this helps your comprehension of the issues.

P.S. Determinations influenced by the mood of the judge are probably more to be seen in the pages of Rumpole of the Bailey

mdebets

Would a victim in a case like this (where the cost of the healthcare would have been probably huge) be required to sue a potentially liable party for the health care costs (past and future) or would it be up to the victim if they wanted to do this or not and the HSE or private insurance would pay for it if they decided not to sue.

hullaballoo

@Nutley boy, probably the most important authority in relation to a case like this is McNamara v. ESB which held that children don't know what they're doing (in more flowery language.)

4ensic15

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

A few pointers FYI.

This type of action is based primarily on the tort of negligence.

The type of action is based entirely on negligence. No other cause of action will be pleaded.

McCrack

4ensic15 wrote: »

The type of action is based entirely on negligence. No other cause of action will be pleaded.

Breach of statutory duty would have been pleaded

NUTLEY BOY

mdebets wrote: »

Would a victim in a case like this (where the cost of the healthcare would have been probably huge) be required to sue a potentially liable party for the health care costs (past and future) or would it be up to the victim if they wanted to do this or not and the HSE or private insurance would pay for it if they decided not to sue.

If a claimant like this received indemnity under a health insurance policy there would be potential recovery rights against a negligent third party. This would apply only to the extent of indemnity provided.

In a contract of indemnity there is an implied right of subrogation. This means that the party providing the indemnity is subrogated to the rights and remedies available to the person who has received the indemnity.

For completeness, subrogation comes in two flavours. Implied subrogation becomes available when the indemnity is actually provided. Expressed subrogation - as found in many insurance contracts - entitles the indemnifier to assert subrogation rights before indemnity is actually provided.

I am not sure about the HSE position in recovering the economic costs of treatment supplied.

sabrewolfe

HSE are obligated to make a charge to recover money by charging for the provision of inpatient services and outpatient charges in respect of injuries caused by RTA's

The legislation is the Health Amendment Act 1986, Section 2

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1986/act/10/enacted/en/print#sec2

The usual rate is considered to be the full economic cost of treatment. For more info on this check Crilly, Farrington & HSE

http://www.supremecourt.ie/Judgments.nsf/60f9f366f10958d1802572ba003d3f45/ff15ecaf4e43a42c80256cc4003af589?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,crilly,farrington

Under His Eye

Also the DSP can recover any payments made in relation to the accident.

sexmag

"This is eight years ago, her child’s got f**k all to do with it. But that money is to set him for life."

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/she-deserves-every-penny-says-family-of-luassurfing-woman-after-550k-payout-37448701.html

Is there any legal issue regarding a personal injury award being used for anything other than to provide care and help for the injured party?

Peregrinus

sexmag wrote: »

"This is eight years ago, her child’s got f**k all to do with it. But that money is to set him for life."

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/she-deserves-every-penny-says-family-of-luassurfing-woman-after-550k-payout-37448701.html

Is there any legal issue regarding a personal injury award being used for anything other than to provide care and help for the injured party?

If you're an adult, your personal injury award is paid to you. How you spend it is your own affair.

If you're a child, your personal injury award is paid into court. Those who look after you, usually your parents, need to apply for funds, and they need to show that the funds are to be spent for your benefit (and not on things that a child wouldn't normally have to pay for, e.g. food, clothing, ordinary expenses).

When you reach 18, you can have (the balance of) your settlement paid to you. How you spend it is your own affair.