Another ridiculous injury claim

Cee-Jay-Cee

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/injured-toddler-settles-10k-action-after-ambulance-rolled-backwards-into-tree-37474629.html

€10k for child who suffered no injuries but was nervous of ambulance sirens following an incident where the ambulance in which she was being treated in (and no doubt was lying down on the gurney/bed) rolled back and bumped into a tree.

If the child had been injured then fair enough but to claim the child now becomes nervous if she hears an ambulance siren is downright ridiculous. Will the parents also now sue the gardai and fire service for frightening their child with their sirens???

The judge yet again displays their complete detachment from reality. First of all the ambulance was stopped while they awaited a doctor (to obviously attend to the sick child) Secondly, as it was stopped the siren would not have been going and lastly, if the child was so ill that they needed to stop in order for a doctor to attend to the child then I think it would be safe to say that the 2yr old child didn't even realise the ambulance had rolled back and bumped into a tree.

Hopefully the €10k will be put into trust for the child when they reach the age of 18yrs old so that the childs greedy and deceitful parents don't benefit from it any time soon.

suicide_circus

be grateful it wasn't €10 million

topper75

I can hardly read stories like this anymore. Too depressing.
There is actually no end to this immorality. Too many vested interests.
Another day in the arena here for me. Must just keep my head down and pay my dues.

ELM327

Can I have €50k for how much suffering and distress reading about these ridiculous payouts have caused me?

Faith+1

ELM327 wrote: »

Can I have €50k for how much suffering and distress reading about these ridiculous payouts have caused me?

We'll make it 100k

D3V!L

Its going to be used for thermal insulation to stop the child from melting.

Fr_Dougal

ELM327 wrote: »

Can I have €50k for how much suffering and distress reading about these ridiculous payouts have caused me?

Now I’m nervous because I feel that it’s something I should be worried about.

I’ll settle for €25k

PLOPS

One time i got a lump of glass in my eye as a waitress had dropped a tray of drinks and a shard went into my eye. Had to go straight to the eye and ear, my eye has been sliced to the side of my pupil. My whole eye filled with blood. No lasting damage though. Went to a solicitor and they recommended that i don't bring a case. Since then, every time i hear a case with a big payout for a stupid reason i wonder why i was advised to not proceed with a case.

Keyzer

This BS boils my p!ss.

Why is the first thing that comes into the parents heads "lets claim". Absolute joke. And the judge, should have fúcked this out the window.

Sh!t happens, people make mistakes. How can a 16 month old be nervous from such an incident? My 6 year doesn't like to sleep with the light off.

DrumSteve

So it rolled back into a tree? That 10 grand is to cover whoever left the handbrake off.

gctest50

It should come out of the drivers wages

Sabre0001

Geez, if the bank incident had happened to the Rubberbandits today, they'd make a fortune!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8OrE_wVU_4

On a serious note, who could be complained to about these rulings and payouts? Saw a kid cycling full pelt behind a Luas the other day and my first thought was wondering how much they'd get if it braked and they went into the back of it...

There are clearly cases where payment is justified, but some of these are crazy.

Dalomanakora

PLOPS wrote: »

One time i got a lump of glass in my eye as a waitress had dropped a tray of drinks and a shard went into my eye. Had to go straight to the eye and ear, my eye has been sliced to the side of my pupil. My whole eye filled with blood. No lasting damage though. Went to a solicitor and they recommended that i don't bring a case. Since then, every time i hear a case with a big payout for a stupid reason i wonder why i was advised to not proceed with a case.

I had a legitimate claim against a job a number of years ago - I've been left with lasting damage due to their negligence (I literally asked them to change the dangerous situation one week before my accident and they said no because it was expensive to fix lol).


My solicitor begged me to take it to court and reject their offers. I accepted an offer of a few grand more than my medical bills.


I fecking wish I went to court now. If we're comparing my lasting injury to this child, I'd be a bloody millionaire!

ohnonotgmail

Why do judges always get it in the neck on these threads? It wasn't the judge who came up with the €10,000 figure. And why are people so quick to dismiss the injuries that a child received based on a newspaper article?

If the child had been injured

Apparently psychological injuries are imaginary now. What a shower of ***** AH attracts.

SAMTALK

She's nervous of ambulance sirens now. Wonder how she feels about trees ???

I'm sorry but the court that entertained this should be ashamed

Samuel T. Cogley

Yet again this was a settlement, the court didn't make the award.

ohnonotgmail

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Yet again this was a settlement, the court didn't make the award.

Too late, the outrage bus has already arrived.

Samuel T. Cogley

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Too late, the outrage bus has already arrived.

FFS make sure the handbrake is on.

Hector Savage

I just don't understand why judges entertain these cases ?
Don't they have the power just to throw it out of court ?

Samuel T. Cogley

Hector Savage wrote: »

I just don't understand why judges entertain these cases ?
Don't they have the power just to throw it out of court ?

No, it's a settlement. The only function they have is to affirm the settlement if they deem it sufficient. The defendant can be as generousd as they want.

Badly Drunk Boy

Whether it's a settlement or a payout decided by the court, we're the ones paying the increased fees as the insurance companies justify their increases.

KevinCavan

Do out of court settlements not occur anymore. What’s the point in going before a judge if it’s already settled? I thought insurance companies settled out of court to avoid the cost of going to court? Seriously confused?!:-)

TheChizler

KevinCavan wrote: »

Do out of court settlements not occur anymore. What’s the point in going before a judge if it’s already settled? I thought insurance companies settled out of court to avoid the cost of going to court? Seriously confused?!:-)

I'm probably wrong but I think once it involves a minor a judge has to approve the settlement.

KevinCavan

TheChizler wrote: »

I'm probably wrong but I think once it involves a minor a judge has to approve the settlement.

Oh okay that makes sense. Thanks.

Guy:Incognito

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Yet again this was a settlement, the court didn't make the award.

If they thought they'd win presumably they wouldn't be settling. Solicitors are obviously telling them they've a good chance of losing and be on the hook for multiples of that amount.

If these stupid claims were dismissed out of hand, the settlements wouldn't be happening.

ohnonotgmail

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If they thought they'd win presumably they wouldn't be settling. Solicitors are obviously telling them they've a good chance of losing and be on the hook for multiples of that amount.

If these stupid claims were dismissed out of hand, the settlements wouldn't be happening.

How could the defendants win? They were negligent. Not putting on the handbrake when an ambulance is stopped causing it to roll back into a tree is negligent. The only question was how much that negligence going to cost them.

Raisins

The irony that insurance companies make this offer and then brief newspapers to write about it so that they can drum up outrage is lost on 99% of people. The truth is the child’s barrister probably told the court this is a great offer we might well lose the case and the judge probably responded and said yeah I agree I have to approve it it’s a brilliant offer. That’s what happens in courts on infant rulings day in day out.

JohnCleary

FFS, I broke my spine when I was 17 in an RTA (RTC now, by definition). Never claimed a penny, I was just glad to be able to walk again*

* Took several months, and thankfully had an excellent health insurance (family) policy in place, hence no costs.

When I read this sh1t, I almost wish I made a substantial claim.

PS. From my investigations after (I had no intention of claiming, it was basic research. Proof I had no intention was the statue of limitations had been long reached. Knowledge re. statute of limitations was from an interest in legal studies during my teens), this would have been a guaranteed payout as it was classed as a hit-and-run hence would have gone through MIBI. Again, I was just glad to be able to walk.

ohnonotgmail

Raisins wrote: »

The irony that insurance companies make this offer and then brief newspapers to write about it so that they can drum up outrage is lost on 99% of people. The truth is the child’s barrister probably told the court this is a great offer we might well lose the case and the judge probably responded and said yeah I agree I have to approve it it’s a brilliant offer. That’s what happens in courts on infant rulings day in day out.

How could the child lose the case? the ambulance service were negligent. Or do you not think that not putting on the handbrake and rolling into a tree is negligent?

PLOPS

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

How could the child lose the case? the ambulance service were negligent. Or do you not think that not putting on the handbrake and rolling into a tree is negligent?

If she had fell out and broken her face or arm, she'd deserve a payout. The parents are claiming she has a fear now. Complete and utter bull****.

gctest50

PLOPS wrote: »

If she had fell out and broken her face or arm, she'd deserve a payout. The parents are claiming she has a fear now. Complete and utter bull****.

And what qualification have you to be declaring that ?

PLOPS

Dalomanakora wrote: »

I had a legitimate claim against a job a number of years ago - I've been left with lasting damage due to their negligence (I literally asked them to change the dangerous situation one week before my accident and they said no because it was expensive to fix lol).


My solicitor begged me to take it to court and reject their offers. I accepted an offer of a few grand more than my medical bills.


I fecking wish I went to court now. If we're comparing my lasting injury to this child, I'd be a bloody millionaire!

I had a legitimate case, but the solicitor basically said unless I have lasting damage i had no case. She was obviously an honest solicitor as another could have told me to claim i had ongoing problems etc. I didn't want to go down the road of pretending I had an issue with my eye, but i did feel the waitress had carried an over loaded tray, and my eye did get glass in it, and it took a month before the blood left it that i deserved some compensation, not 1000's but something.

Raisins

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

How could the child lose the case? the ambulance service were negligent. Or do you not think that not putting on the handbrake and rolling into a tree is negligent?

Negligence is not the only thing you need to prove to win a case. I don’t think that’s the criticism. The criticism is the level of damages and the discomfort people have with damages for psychological injury. The public just don’t believe the veracity of psychiatric evidence in these types of cases. Whether correct or not it suggests a culture where something happens to an infant that’s the fault of a well funded organization, child has no physical injury, you want a few quid, get your solicitor to organize a psychological assessment, tell them of a loss of sleep, upset etc = automatic 10k and as you said you can’t lose. Insurance companies won’t run infant cases and of they do run costs orders are never made its a fee shot.

Samuel T. Cogley

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If they thought they'd win presumably they wouldn't be settling. Solicitors are obviously telling them they've a good chance of losing and be on the hook for multiples of that amount.

If these stupid claims were dismissed out of hand, the settlements wouldn't be happening.

I suspect it's more likely the costs would be the issue, even if they won I'm not sure (open to correction) that costs automatically follow. Even if they did follow the chances of actually getting them are probably not great.


Many stupid claims are dismissed out of hand, the Judge also commented in the recent case with Luas surfing that there was a good chance of the case being dismissed - the issue is it's easier for insurance companies to just settle as they know the Courts will just get blamed rather than them. They then have all the justification for increasing premiums to cover it plus a nice juicy chunk of profit all while we fight over it blaming anyone but them. They're almost as good at diverting attention from the real issue as the Goverment is over rental issues.

PLOPS

gctest50 wrote: »

And what qualification have you to be declaring that ?

I'm a parent.

The Bishop Basher

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

How could the child lose the case? the ambulance service were negligent. Or do you not think that not putting on the handbrake and rolling into a tree is negligent?

Being afraid of sirens is farsical.

The child, and in particular the parents, need to get over it.

We shouldn’t be entertaining this nonsense at all.

It’s costing each and every one of us. Someone has to fund this nonsense and it’ll always be the customer..

As was mentioned above, if there wasn’t a significant risk of a major payout these settlements wouldn’t ever make it near the table.

Too many vested interests feeding from the trough as always..

Samuel T. Cogley

I'm sorry plus +1 on a 16 month old having feck all idea what was going on, all they got was a jolt probably no worse than mammy's driving during the school run. The injury is a total crock and the medical profession should be better regulated.

gctest50

PLOPS wrote: »

gctest50 wrote: »

And what qualification have you to be declaring that ?

I'm a parent.

Really OMG!!!!!11!!!

sorry i didn't know

Much cheaper knock someone up than go to university i suppose

I must tell the next doctor i see that they were silly spending all that money and those countless hours

all they had to do was go out n knock some slapper up - sorted

PLOPS

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I'm sorry plus +1 on a 16 month old having feck all idea what was going on, all they got was a jolt probably no worse than mammy's driving during the school run. The injury is a total crock and the medical profession should be better regulated.

A 16 month wouldn't have a clue what just happened. It rolled into a tree, it didnt roll down the side of a mountain. Its the same with people suing Creches, claiming their child has a 1mm scar on their finger (in the paper last week). My young lad fell in the yard, face first playing an organised game of bull dogs with the teacher. were we happy? No! but we didn't think we could sue the school, kids fall, they get up.

PLOPS

gctest50 wrote: »

Really OMG!!!!!11!!!

sorry i didn't know

Much cheaper knock someone up than go to university i suppose

I must tell the next doctor i see that they were silly spending all that money and those countless hours

all they had to do was go out n knock some slapper up - sorted

Kids don't remember things from when they are 16 months.

gctest50

PLOPS wrote: »

Kids don't remember things from when they are 16 months.

source ?

Samuel T. Cogley

gctest50 wrote: »

source ?

I don't remember.

PLOPS

gctest50 wrote: »

source ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood_amnesia

Heard a guy on with Sean Moncrieff a few months ago, said its impossible for children to remember before the age of 3-4.

gctest50

PLOPS wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood_amnesia

Heard o guy on with Sean Moncrieff a few months ago, said its impossible for children to remember before the age of 3-4.

.

PLOPS

gctest50 wrote: »

.

Thanks for your valued input

jmayo

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

How could the child lose the case? the ambulance service were negligent. Or do you not think that not putting on the handbrake and rolling into a tree is negligent?

Yes this really was a case of an ambulance chasing member of the legal profession.

Do you seriously think the kid was owed 10k for what happened ?

Oh wait are you a legal professional ?

monkeysnapper

About 10 years ago I was in night club when bouncers were trying to chuck out a girl , she turned , grabbed a pint glass and threw it at bouncers , they duck and I get hit in face with pint glass.

I have a small scar just above right eye .

The amount of people who told me to sue the night club , I would get a hell of a lot of money !!!!

I suppose they were right , but hay ....i was ok , no harm done . Scars are sexy anyway .

I

Amalgam

PLOPS wrote: »

One time i got a lump of glass in my eye as a waitress had dropped a tray of drinks and a shard went into my eye. Had to go straight to the eye and ear, my eye has been sliced to the side of my pupil. My whole eye filled with blood. No lasting damage though. Went to a solicitor and they recommended that i don't bring a case. Since then, every time i hear a case with a big payout for a stupid reason i wonder why i was advised to not proceed with a case.

You did right by your own internal moral compass. I have worked with people that openly discussed defrauding a county council by claiming to have caught their foot on a bollard in the middle of the night. Intentionally done. Payment just short of 40,000.. Christmas sorted.

I swallowed one of these quick boil spuds recently, inside was a metal bristle from the machine used to scrub them, just about the width of the spud, fully embedded. Caught in the roof of my mouth, took it out, checked for damage, polished off the rest of the spuds and went about my business.

I've had a big chunk of rounded glass in a bag of branded muesli, more living creatures in salads than I could shake a stick at and this week a large hard brown lump in a, 'shredded wheat biscuit that you cover in milk'..

The Bishop Basher

monkeysnapper wrote: »

About 10 years ago I was in night club when bouncers were trying to chuck out a girl , she turned , grabbed a pint glass and threw it at bouncers , they duck and I get hit in face with pint glass.

I have a small scar just above right eye.

An easy 10k..

Kudos to you and anyone else on this thread who walked away from a chance to claim.

Greed has to be one of the ugliest of all human traits and we see it at it's worst in these cases..

Pure unadulterated greed.

There are 2 types of people when presented with a chance of "free" money..

Those that take it and those that don't.

I make sure, as much as possible, to only ever keep the latter in my life.

ohnonotgmail

jmayo wrote: »

Yes this really was a case of an ambulance chasing member of the legal profession.

Do you seriously think the kid was owed 10k for what happened ?

Oh wait are you a legal professional ?

The question i asked in the post you responded to was quite straightforward. Unfortunately you were unable to answer it.

ohnonotgmail

Raisins wrote: »

Negligence is not the only thing you need to prove to win a case. I don’t think that’s the criticism. The criticism is the level of damages and the discomfort people have with damages for psychological injury. The public just don’t believe the veracity of psychiatric evidence in these types of cases. Whether correct or not it suggests a culture where something happens to an infant that’s the fault of a well funded organization, child has no physical injury, you want a few quid, get your solicitor to organize a psychological assessment, tell them of a loss of sleep, upset etc = automatic 10k and as you said you can’t lose. Insurance companies won’t run infant cases and of they do run costs orders are never made its a fee shot.

how can you disbelieve the evidence you are not privy to? You haven't heard the evidence yet you disbelieve it.