Electrician-who-suffered-brain-injury-settles-accident-case-for-2.6m

ampleforth

It appears like that the law really is with those who do not use common sense for life:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/electrician-who-suffered-brain-injury-settles-accident-case-for-2-6m-38299981.html

Does everybody now need to insure him/herself for 10 Mio Euro just in case of not seeing dark-clothed people in the dark (the report says 'walked on a road near his home in the early hours' --- so it was presumably dark(er) and he was on the road, but I might be wrong here)?

Should we perhaps all drive 10 km/h from now on just in case so we do not loose everything we ever worked for to such an unaware participant of life in our midst?

I am fully aware that one has to drive carefully at all times and if we do not see clearly, we stop and look. However, who here has not once seen a biker on the country road or a health-seeking jogger in dark clothing unknowingly yawning for death? Despite all the pain involved (and I am sure this electrician (not sure why his profession was stated) experienced a fair deal of it) I can also not help myself to see that he brought most of it on himself by just not following the rules of life. This is similar for all those 100s of people who every year fall off cliffs trying to get their perfect selfies. We all know that without that cliff they would still be breathing. I also think that all of those cliff-falling users of modern technology are also potentially good and amazing people but gravity got them regardless. Should we sue gravity now, or cliffs, or train drivers who did not see them because they where wearing black t-shirts that day? Where is the line?

Any form of road accident seems always to be the drivers fault (even thought in this case the claim was apparently lowered) regardless how much the pedestrian contributed to not being seen and, ultimately, being run over.

This is similar to various tea spilling stories where 5 digit numbers are handed out for people who do not understand that a tea or a coffee is per definition hot and the skin is not:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/girl-12-whose-arm-was-scalded-when-tea-carried-under-her-elbow-spilled-settles-for-85k-38270105.html

Overall, I can't help myself to see more and more in the news that seems to discourage personal responsibility or, even simpler, human brain activity.

Sad.

Your Face

Electricians wouldn't be the brightest sparks to begin with.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Your Face wrote: »

Electricians wouldn't be the brightest sparks to begin with.

Of all the trades to use that generalization, you chose incorrectly.

Another car seen him just moments before, why did the driver who hit him not see him? Would high viz have made a difference?

Of course a road accident is going to be the drivers fault, why would the fault lie with the vulnerable road users?

There's zero comparison to the other case involving tea-girl.

ampleforth

Would it have been ironic if he would have carried tea?

branie2

Awful

Varik

ampleforth wrote: »

Would it have been ironic if he would have carried tea?

Don't think it was tea he was drinking.

alchemist33

Kristopher Careful Crumb wrote: »

Of course a road accident is going to be the drivers fault, why would the fault lie with the vulnerable road users?

Being vulnerable shouldn't absolve people of responsibility for their own actions. Blaming drivers all the time is just ridiculous.

Ronaldinho

Sure 45mins trapped in a lift will get ya a 40k payout. (today's Irish Times)

Pkiernan

The court heard the plaintiff was weaving eratically along the road at 1am.

There was a footpath on the other side of the road.

Ffs

Wheety

Pkiernan wrote: »

The court heard the plaintiff was weaving eratically along the road at 1am.

There was a footpath on the other side of the road.

Ffs

Yup. That's why the payout was reduced from over €6m.

It's all madness. Then we have that traveller case were 5 of them were suing for €60k each. At least they lost that one.

fallen01angel

I'm not remotely familiar with that area......can anyone answer if there is street lighting etc or is it a rural road?

He was wearing dark clothing, ignored a footpath across the road and he was weaving........he certainly didn't do himself any favours 🙄

ampleforth

Pkiernan wrote: »

The court heard the plaintiff was weaving eratically along the road at 1am.

There was a footpath on the other side of the road.

Ffs

Let us imagine, for a moment, that the driver was elderly (I see a lot of those who drive around 50 everywhere and react hardly to anything) and enjoyed his good-old country music, however, his favourite channel somehow temporarily switched to Rap and because of that he eagerly searched for a Philomena Begley CD that made him not see the 'dark clothed' electrician standing in the middle of the road looking forward to his impact to the world... and, of course, the weaving friend in the dark... just before 'Mr Vickers [went] in[to] the air'.

Mmmm, I think there was once a movie about this sort of thing --- Magnolia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec51smvcsDY

will92ie

But who pays out the $2.6m...is it the State?
Seems ridiculous if that's the case....I don't understand why the State would pay out for something that was an accident or due to negligence on the part of the driver. Surely the driver should be liable.

Your Face

Kristopher Careful Crumb wrote: »

Of all the trades to use that generalization, you chose incorrectly.

Another car seen him just moments before, why did the driver who hit him not see him? Would high viz have made a difference?

Of course a road accident is going to be the drivers fault, why would the fault lie with the vulnerable road users?

There's zero comparison to the other case involving tea-girl.

Blow it out your arse.

punisher5112

Many variables at play here as to why driver didn't see in time, lights from oncoming vehicles, dirty windscreen or as mentioned the guy stupid enough to be walking in the middle of the road with no lights or bright clothing.....

Today I had a cyclist veer across from the left side all the way out to the white line for no reason, he turned and gave the fingers and wankle gesture and as I was now in the inside lane he darted straight back in front and hit both brakes.... He nearly got the Darwin award he was looking for as going up against a 18 ton vehicle wouldn't be the brightest idea but I do get the feeling he did do all of the above for a pay out.

Wheety

will92ie wrote: »

But who pays out the $2.6m...is it the State?
Seems ridiculous if that's the case....I don't understand why the State would pay out for something that was an accident or due to negligence on the part of the driver. Surely the driver should be liable.

Insurance company?

Wheety

Wheety wrote: »

Insurance company?

insurance customers

bingbong500

People really need to stop with the duh tea is hot thing. The coffee case against McDonalds was the right decision. McD's were selling coffee far hotter than anywhere else, far hotter than the allowable temperature, and an elderly woman recieved terrible injuries, for which she had no choice to sue for or would have been financially ruined and driven into poverty and death.
So seriously, stop that.

punisher5112

bingbong500 wrote: »

People really need to stop with the duh tea is hot thing. The coffee case against McDonalds was the right decision. McD's were selling coffee far hotter than anywhere else, far hotter than the allowable temperature, and an elderly woman recieved terrible injuries, for which she had no choice to sue for or would have been financially ruined and driven into poverty and death.
So seriously, stop that.

Eh!!!!

Kid had a Cookie, juice or something not hot and put the tea under her arm.... Eh place cookie in pocket...

Varik

And at the same time we've politicians complaining about premiums and probably going to do something that the whole thing worse.

punisher5112 wrote: »

Eh!!!!

Kid had a Cookie, juice or something not hot and put the tea under her arm.... Eh place cookie in pocket...

They're talking about an old thing and not the recent one. The case they're talking about was that the drink was too hot to drink.

Thoie

Kristopher Careful Crumb wrote: »

Another car seen him just moments before, why did the driver who hit him not see him? Would high viz have made a difference?

Of course a road accident is going to be the drivers fault, why would the fault lie with the vulnerable road users?

The other car was travelling in the opposite direction (and possibly facing him, so his face might have been easier to see in the headlights). With dark hair, and his back to the car approaching on his side, it sounds like he was pretty much invisible. Hi-viz would have made a difference in that case. If the car that hit him had come around a corner, it would be easy to hit someone before you even know there's someone there.

There's an old guy who ambles the roads near my parents' house, and even knowing that he'll be around somewhere, and keeping a careful eye out for him, pretty much everyone in the area has narrowly avoided hitting him at some stage or another. I bought him a hi-viz a few years ago, which he thankfully wears, and he's much easier to avoid now.

The vulnerable road user in the case in question put himself in that position. The car didn't mount the a footpath and plough him down. The car probably wasn't even going very fast, given he survived. Saying it's the driver's fault in this scenario is akin to blaming a gun manufacturer if you shot yourself in the face.

jmreire

Always have a dash cam in operation on the front windscreen.......and one on the rear window is not a bad idea either !!!

Fiery mutant

Varik wrote: »

And at the same time we've politicians complaining about premiums and probably going to do something that the whole thing worse.



They're talking about an old thing and not the recent one. The case they're talking about was that the drink was too hot to drink.

Actually no, the case they are talking about is the recent one as referenced to by punisher5112. The link to the particular case is in the OP.

BarryD2

Case sounds mad, surely the insurance company will appeal? Pedestrians have a duty of care to themselves. If the car had mounted the footpath and hit him, that'd be a case for proper compensation but surely you can't just wander out on the road at 1am and expect others to take responsibility for your own stupidity?

Gimme A Pound

bingbong500 wrote: »

People really need to stop with the duh tea is hot thing. The coffee case against McDonalds was the right decision. McD's were selling coffee far hotter than anywhere else, far hotter than the allowable temperature, and an elderly woman recieved terrible injuries, for which she had no choice to sue for or would have been financially ruined and driven into poverty and death.
So seriously, stop that.

She was also idiotic enough to stick the cup between her knees. They were both to blame, and as a result, the award was less than if it had not spilled due to her stupidity.

ohnonotgmail

BarryD2 wrote: »

Case sounds mad, surely the insurance company will appeal? Pedestrians have a duty of care to themselves. If the car had mounted the footpath and hit him, that'd be a case for proper compensation but surely you can't just wander out on the road at 1am and expect others to take responsibility for your own stupidity?

Car drivers also have a responsibility. In this instance both parties were held partly liable for the accident hence the reduced award. In fact it was the pedestrain who was held to be mostly responsible as they only got 30% of what they asked for.

The Bishop Basher

Ronaldinho wrote: »

Sure 45mins trapped in a lift will get ya a 40k payout. (today's Irish Times)

Just looked that up and saw the kids surname is Ward.

Why am I not surprised..

Fierce unlucky those Wards, McDonaghs etc.

ampleforth

Deleted User wrote: »

insurance customers

= You and me, over and over again, for years to come

ampleforth

Btw, just this morning I saw a guy walking on the street in dark clothing in the shadow between the trees (and with the difference to the sunny spots completely invincible) on a small country road. I warned the SUV you came his way...

He was playing with his mobile phone and did not pay attention to the road at all.

JustAThought

He looks a bit shook from that photo . Are disability payments means tested or 'only' contingent on proving you have a disability? At 50k a year 2.5 million will see him out 25 years or so if he can no longer work and earn a living. He looks young enough - not sure what he supposed to.do if he cannot work and lives to 60 or 80.

I agree with the OP - what hope have we if we yave to shell put for every inattentive ,phone using, careless,reckless or drunk pedestrian or cyclist in our 18th century road system. Not to mention the endless stream of free legal aid opportunists - which we also pay for.

Btw there was a story recently where a woman (Kilrush village I.think) -pedestrian - had been involved in 10+ 'walking accidents ' including several with slow moving or reversing cars. Her endless claims slowed down a bit when she had both hips and a leg broken by one - for 40k. She will be a burden on the taxpayer and HSE resources for the rest of her life.

Perhaps we.should be looking at making the payments and activity based costing them on care and state resources, benefits and support given and to be recieved in the future rather than cash handouts to the individual. Tge insurance company.will pay but we will also noy additionally be paying for all the other services they tKe for.free - dole/subsidised house/hospural treatmwnt,bus pass, physio/OT/home care/ social welfare worker etcMight be better for everyone concerned and safer and more reassuring for.roadusers.

Thoie

JustAThought wrote: »

Perhaps we.should be looking at making the payments and activity based costing them on care and state resources, benefits and support given and to be recieved in the future rather than cash handouts to the individual. Tge insurance company.will pay but we will also noy additionally be paying for all the other services they tKe for.free - dole/subsidised house/hospural treatmwnt,bus pass, physio/OT/home care/ social welfare worker etcMight be better for everyone concerned and safer and more reassuring for.roadusers.

One of the reasons for large payouts in this kind of incident is to provide the injured person with the means to live "normally" in the way they want. For some people, that might be a nursing home scenario, for others it may mean moving to a house with suitable adaptations, for others it may mean adapting their own house. Each person is different, has different requirements and desires.

The money isn't meant so much as an income (though that may be part of it), but to provide the additional, expensive things that may be needed for their care, whether those be phsyical things (an adapted car), or help such as carers, respite care, etc.

If you leave it to the government/health care system to manage these things, they will default to a one-size-fits-all scenario, and drop everyone with a major, long term injury into giant nursing homes, whether that's what they want or not.