Woman crosses dual carriageway on foot, gets hit by car, gets €3.2M

Atlantic Dawn

Another case of idiots getting their pockets lined by crazy compensation, is there anything to be said for a swift kick up the hole instead...

A part-time model who suffered a traumatic brain injury after she was struck by a car when she attempted to cross a dual carriageway has settled her High Court action for €3.2m.

Jodie Regazzoli was in a coma for weeks and given a three percent chance of survival after she was hit by the car in 2018 — and later became homeless for a time and lived in a hotel.


The claims were denied and it was alleged that Mr Regazzoli failed to use the pedestrian flyover to cross the carriageway

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/part-time-model-settles-court-action-for-32m-after-being-struck-by-car-on-dual-carriageway-40052486.html

yaknowski

Cue a load of diving in front of cars as per Asia.

fryup

i'd just became very distressed reading that ...i'm suing you OP

Kimbot

fryup wrote: »

i'd just became very distressed reading that ...i'm suing you OP

OMG I cant believe your suing the OP, you have me traumatised now. Im going to sue you.

helimachoptor

Be as stupid as you want, then sue someone and get rich, sounds like a plan

suicide_circus

Another victory for stupid.

Next time you renew your insurance and the premium has gone up, you'll know why.

"He said the settlement was fair and reasonable and he wished her well for the future."

€3.2m is fair and reasonable for being hit walking across a place you shouldn't ever be?

I shudder to think what he'd consider generous to be.

fryup

ah sure it'll help to pay for the mascara and fake tan

SEPT 23 1989

Teenager who wouldn't stop singing Fields of Athenry to police told to learn whole song and fined £610 :pac:

KevRossi

I live in Swords. The Dual Carraigeway and methods of crossing it is a total shltshow. Cars use it as a racetrack and it's mental attempting to cycle alongside it. Not surprised the accident happened, but the driver was local and must have known people cross in front of the bus.

Apart from that, she seems to be OK, €3.2m is excessive. I also think her 'homeless' situation needs to be looked at properly, and I doubt she would have made millions from her modelling. It's not a reason to get €3.2m or even a substantial part of it.

monkeybutter

excessive yes but lads there could have been witnesseses and cctv, who knows what the driver was doing or how reckless she was being they give these settlements so someone will have to appeal it, the gravy train continues no wonder insurance companies settle so many cases

Riddle101

Imagine what the driver who hit her is going through right now. To have something like that hanging over your head.

pwurple

Surely the point is that where the bus stop was, it was common practice for people who worked in the shopping center to get off the bus and walk across the road.

A footbridge down the road was not generally used...

Therefore, there is a fundamental design flaw there in the road design. The busstop was not in the correct place. What should happen there, is the bus should pull in at the base of the footbridge, so it is a natural place to walk from. Fault is with the design.

Liberalbrehon

Riddle101 wrote: »

Imagine what the driver who hit her is going through right now. To have something like that hanging over your head.

If I was the driver, I would sue the model for distress, etc

pwurple

And to add, I see this all over the place in irish roads. There is a place near me where 3 people have been killed crossing the road. It's actually a signalled pedestrian crossing, but it's position near a junction means that cars coming around a corner from one direction can't actually see the pedestrian lights. They drive straight through the red lights, all the time.

That's bad design.

There's multiple places where those raised bumps, with a slope down to the road on footpaths indicating a place to cross (it's like braille on the ground, probably not explaining that right!). but they are in no way safe places to cross...

She wasn't crossing an autobahn, it a dual carriageway with a low speed limit, the driver was presumably going too fast and not watching what they were doing.

monkeybutter

Riddle101 wrote: »

Imagine what the driver who hit her is going through right now. To have something like that hanging over your head.

nothing is hanging over anyone's head in this






Old judge Kevin Cross does seem to be very loose with these settlements in his old age

Kivaro

There are some fundamental tenets that we all follow in life e.g. not walking off a cliff or walking across an active dual carriageway. It is astounding that some people are trying to justify her actions. And therein lies a major part on why we pay among the highest rates of insurance in Europe. Massive financial awards (rewards?) for even minor injuries forces the rest of us to pay for these insane judgements. Of course, the higher the awards that are "agreed" upon in the courts, the more money that the judge's colleagues in Irish legal firms lap up.

monkeybutter

Kivaro wrote: »

There are some fundamental tenets that we all follow in life e.g. not walking off a cliff or walking across an active dual carriageway. It is astounding that some people are trying to justify her actions. And therein lies a major part on why we pay among the highest rates of insurance in Europe. Massive financial awards (rewards?) for even minor injuries forces the rest of us to pay for these insane judgements. Of course, the higher the awards that are "agreed" upon in the courts, the more money that the judge's colleagues in Irish legal firms lap up.

can firms charge on a percentage of the winnings?

Esse85

As ridiculous as suing your neighbour because you stuck your hand in their fire and got burnt.

Kivaro

Kivaro wrote: »

There are some fundamental tenets that we all follow in life e.g. not walking off a cliff or walking across an active dual carriageway..................

I went to school near an active dual carraigeway that was next to a shopping centre.............. it has been walked across by plenty people for decades, loads of folk cross a hundred metres or so away from the pedestrian crossing.
Comparing walking off a cliff to crossing a road is absolutely fnkcing retarded.
Folk seem to consider all dual carriageways to be 100kph zones, they aren't.

Kivaro

monkeybutter wrote: »

can firms charge on a percentage of the winnings?

What happens in these cases is that higher awards corelates "coincidentally" with higher legal firm costs and expenses.

knucklehead6

The worst thing about this is that its a settlement. The judge didn't award this amount of money, the two teams of lawyers decided it.

The defence must've been terrified what the judge was going to award if this was what they settled for

knucklehead6

pwurple wrote: »

Surely the point is that where the bus stop was, it was common practice for people who worked in the shopping center to get off the bus and walk across the road.

A footbridge down the road was not generally used...

Therefore, there is a fundamental design flaw there in the road design. The busstop was not in the correct place. What should happen there, is the bus should pull in at the base of the footbridge, so it is a natural place to walk from. Fault is with the design.

The footbridge was there before the shopping centre was

fryup

monkeybutter wrote: »

Old judge Kevin Cross does seem to be very loose with these settlements in his old age

maybe he was driving the car

1874

Augeo wrote: »

I went to school near an active dual carraigeway that was next to a shopping centre.............. it has been walked across by plenty people for decades, loads of folk cross a hundred metres or so away from the pedestrian crossing.
Comparing walking off a cliff to crossing a road is absolutely fnkcing retarded.
Folk seem to consider all dual carriageways to be 100kph zones, they aren't.

That doesn't mean the people crossing it were right or it was a sensible thing to do though, traffic is heavier now than years gone past, I'll even say many drivers are careless, but you dont add to that by walking across a dual carriageway and if you do, you do so at your own risk.
It would be downright dangerous to slam on the brakes on a dual carriageway, Id actually be afraid of getting ploughed into myself, added to that, with ohter traffic, its possible a pedestrian could come out of nowhere from the drivers perspective and there simply might not be time to react let alone stop.



If this has been a situation where they were walking across a pedestrian crossing on a dual carriageway and they were hit, Id think they were right to get a settlement/payout, but it should depend on their injuries, it doesnt actually say what they are?
It says her life was turned upside down, but other than that?
As for her being homeless? are they saying she doesnt have family in Swords, in her condition whatever it was, they couldnt make some arrangement to let her stay at her family home?? She wasnt on the streets, so how is it relevant, she was living in a Hotel.


This is lunacy

pgj2015

Too lazy to use the footbridge. I see it all the time, people crossing the road forcing traffic to stop while there is a pedestrian crossing a few feet away.me me me me me.

pwurple

knucklehead6 wrote: »

The footbridge was there before the shopping centre was

So it wasn't connected to the shopping center as integrated design? Makes even more sense that it wasn't used.

Headline should read "shop assistant who was brain damaged on her way to work, using infrastructure the council designed, awarded damages."

feelings

That stretch of road is 80km/h. People are regularly crossing over the road rather than using the foot bridge. All the council have to do is block the median with a fence of some sort. Surprised Fingal Co Co weren't name in the litigation.

I cycle that road as well and I've had far more close calls with pedestrians wandering across and down that road.

Augeo wrote: »

She wasn't crossing an autobahn, it a dual carriageway with a low speed limit, the driver was presumably going too fast and not watching what they were doing.

monkeybutter

feelings wrote: »

That stretch of road is 80km/h. People are regularly crossing over the road rather than using the foot bridge. All the council have to do is block the median with a fence of some sort. Surprised Fingal Co Co weren't name in the litigation.

On what basis

charlietheminxx

I know the area well. Instead of walking to the footbridge and coming out at the main entrance to pavilions, she crossed the dual carriageway to go in one of the closer side entrances. I think the speed limit along there is 80kph but traffic is usually much slower as it's coming up to a busy roundabout (where the main entrance/footbridge is).

Hard to know what happened as none of us were there but the payout is shocking. I've often seen pedestrians dash out from the gap in hedges along the median and across the road there and it's unfortunately not surprising that there's been an accident.

Gaoth Laidir

I assume this is roughly where it happened. The shopping centre is on the left here, so maybe that bus stop on the right is where she was coming from.

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4529952,-6.2160748,3a,75y,37.71h,82.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shr6EgVrXDMgV9qQRhYcc6w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

<SNIP>

knucklehead6

pwurple wrote: »

So it wasn't connected to the shopping center as integrated design? Makes even more sense that it wasn't used.

Headline should read "shop assistant who was brain damaged on her way to work, using infrastructure the council designed, awarded damages."

I don't think the council designed the shopping centre. I can't remember if there was a bus stop at that particular location when I was working out in swords, it was 25 years ago and before I was driving a car. The footbridge was there to allow people living along the R106 to have access to Swords village.

The shopping centre came along and the need for a bus stop 200 feet away from the roundabout arose.

They should have made the developers of the centre put a footbridge in at the shopping centre, because as has been mentioned, laziness with a good dollop of stupidity will result in cases like this

pgj2015

this is why every car should have a dash cam, especially the ones that show what speed you are going. too many people around who do crazy things like this. some people run or cycle across the road without even looking.

tallaghtfornia

I have worked in this area for many years and I see stupid people trying to cross this road on a daily basis I have also seen many accidents from people trying to cross the road - the main people who attempt to cross are people walking from office buildings over to the pavilions etc. also I have seen people dressed in black clothes on a winters evening attempting to cross.

This road is 80KHM per hour and has many erratic drivers between Audis & Land Rovers who think they own the road to Northen reg cars who basically have no regard for the rules for the road - there is absolutely no way I would attempt to cross unless it was using the foot bridge.

This stretch of road has two foot bridges that can be used safely and people still wont bother there backside to use them.

They should simply put up signs saying that anyone crossing the road, without using the footbridge will be prosecuted, along with hefty fines. And then actually prosecute people.

There's a lot of talk here about the driver being held responsible, but pedestrians should be responsible too. They create a risk to the driver and anyone else on the road.

knucklehead6

Deleted User wrote: »

They should simply put up signs saying that anyone crossing the road, without using the footbridge will be prosecuted, along with hefty fines. And then actually prosecute people.

There's a lot of talk here about the driver being held responsible, but pedestrians should be responsible too. They create a risk to the driver and anyone else on the road.

I think only one person here is saying the driver is responsible. Most are saying its more down the the former shop assistant who will never need to work a day in her life

feelings

Is this in relation to Fingal?

Failure to maintain the divide, failure to make reasonable effort to stop pedestrians crossing the dual carriageway, failure to fix street lighting etc.

There are street lights on that road, near the Pavilions end that do not get fixed for months (I have reported broken lights a few times).

How do the know the driver was driving with 'excessive speed' btw?

monkeybutter wrote: »

On what basis

weldoninhio

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I think only one person here is saying the driver is responsible. Most are saying its more down the the former shop assistant who will never need to work a day in her life

Unfortunately, the only person who matters when it comes to a payout (the judge) said the driver was 2/3rds the drivers fault.

alexonhisown

Ridiculous decision and payout. Hopefully the driver will now sue the pedestrian for walking out in front of her. People are just too lazy to use that footbridge.

Kivaro

Augeo wrote: »

Comparing walking off a cliff to crossing a road is absolutely fnkcing retarded.

That is an inappropriate insult. Often we see some who lack the ability in making reasonable statements on their position resort to insults, and that is generally the proof to confirm their position is flawed.

funkey_monkey

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I assume this is roughly where it happened. The shopping centre is on the left here, so maybe that bus stop on the right is where she was coming from.

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4529952,-6.2160748,3a,75y,37.71h,82.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shr6EgVrXDMgV9qQRhYcc6w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Stupid bint should not be crossing there. End of.

Why is BUS painted the wrong way around on the ground?

Absolutely outrageous payout. There is a footbridge close by.

Stupidity rewarded and the judges comments...

Jesus wept that clown is on a different planet.

Kivaro

Kivaro wrote: »

That is an inappropriate insult. Often we see some who lack the ability in making reasonable statements on their position resort to insults, and that is generally the proof to confirm their position is flawed.

I consider it to be a very appropriate insult.:D

Nope. The position is pretty clear/reasonable, and considering the person involved to be retarded doesn't diminish that position.

So, you consider it perfectly normal, and acceptable that people cross a dual carriageway, as opposed to using the footbridge?

Kivaro

Deleted User wrote: »

I consider it to be a very appropriate insult.:D

Nope. The position is pretty clear/reasonable, and considering the person involved to be retarded doesn't diminish that position.

So, you consider it perfectly normal, and acceptable that people cross a dual carriageway, as opposed to using the footbridge?

You got it all mixed up Klaz. Have a gander again.

Kivaro

Kivaro wrote: »

You got it all mixed up Klaz. Have a gander again.

Ahh gotcha.

knucklehead6

weldoninhio wrote: »

Unfortunately, the only person who matters when it comes to a payout (the judge) said the driver was 2/3rds the drivers fault.

The judge didn't decide anything, the two teams of lawyers did

weldoninhio

knucklehead6 wrote: »

The judge didn't decide anything, the two teams of lawyers did

The judge decided it was a suitable settlement

Approving the settlement ,Mr Justice Cross said Ms Regazzoli’s life had been turned upside down.

He said the settlement was fair and reasonable and he wished her well for the future.

knucklehead6

weldoninhio wrote: »

The judge decided it was a suitable settlement

Approving the settlement ,Mr Justice Cross said Ms Regazzoli’s life had been turned upside down.

He said the settlement was fair and reasonable and he wished her well for the future.

the judge didnt decide the driver was 2/3rds to blame. The judge APPROVED the settlement, we have no way of knowing what he would have done in trial, but as i said earlier, the defence must've been terrified of what he WOULD have given if they offered a settlement

pwurple

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I don't think the council designed the shopping centre.

The council approve planning. They are accountable.

And when I look at that map link, I see a huge gap in the hedge, and worn grass showing that this is the routine way for people to cross. The footbridge is in the opposite direction. It isn't even clear that it would lead to the shopping center. It looks like it doesn't.


If you were to take that footbridge, I'd guess it's roughly 1km additional walking, instead of crossing the road with a worn path right in front of you as you get off the bus.

I guarantee you there are plenty of people insulting this victim, who would consider themselves to be idiots to take that bridge instead of walking directly to the destination in front of their face.

McGinniesta

It sounds like the judges dont want the insurance company's arseholes closing up