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

Gaoth Laidir

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

Just came in to post this.

Is anyone in the least bit surprised?

You remove bloated payouts for frivolous/false/exaggerated/unprovable injuries then you remove the bulk of the issues. Insurers have given assurances that if award levels reduce this will be reflected in all our premiums.

The only ones that do not want to see premiums reduced are the majority of the legal fraternity and the gougers that claim for everything.

There was another article in the times yesterday relating to a payout for a cut lip to a child who was two and got a bump in gob while staying in a hotel with his family.

It was claimed there was failure to ensure the family room was appropriately furnished for families with young children and to ensure the corners of the family room bedframe did not present an unnecessary or unreasonable danger to young children.

Link to article

On what fcuking planet should a toddler and his parents be paid €40,000 for doing what toddlers across the world are doing every hour of every day?

This case has been rumbling on for over 4 years so I can guarantee that the €40k compo is only the tip of the iceberg for what it will ultimately cost the insurer. Add on legal fees for the claimant, probably at least €20k, defence fees for the insurer, something similar, ancillary costs like investigation fees, handler fees etc. Probably going to cost the guts of €100k when all is said and done.

Even the case in the OP, its all about painting a sympathetic picture. Using terms like part-time model indicate that she had a burgeoning modeling career and could have been Americas next top model, cha-ching. She was apparently left homeless for a time after the incident, begs the question, where were her family / friends in all this but you cant ask those questions, she was homeless because the defendant had the audacity to drive their car that morning, cha-ching! As for the payout of €3.2m, you can add on an extra €1m at a minimum.

For cases like this, where the claimant is purely the author of their own misfortune, Id have no qualms with the person being provided what ever medical care they required following the accident but making someone a millionaire because of their own laziness and outright fcuking stupidity is as disgusting as it gets.

Did the parents not first check for this type of thing when they entered the room? If it was so unsuitable I'm sure they were immediately on the blower to reception to complain and ask for a different room or some protection to be immediately installed. That's what any parent would do, isn't it?

This sort of shít really pisses me off.

El Gato De Negocios

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Bollox. I was in holiday in Madeira in 2007 and my son (almost 2) tripped and hit his head on the metal corner of a pull-out bed in the hotel room. Got a gash just above the eye. Was lucky not to lose it. Went to the local emergency doctor and was seen to immediately for the princely sum of just €5.

What's the statute of limitations, does anyone know? You reckon I could still claim for him? No, I wasn't paying attention to him at that moment and sure, it's my duty to look after him, but none of that seems to matter...

My now 4 year old was bitten on the foot by a pony in a petting zoo when he was 18 months. It didn't break the skin and it was entirely my fault as I had him sitting on the fence but he now has a terrible fear of horses and PTSD. The signs they had up advising that horses may bite were not big enough and didn't have neon flashing arrows on them so it's obviously not my fault and I he deserves reparations!!!!

knucklehead6

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

My now 4 year old was bitten on the foot by a pony in a petting zoo when he was 18 months. It didn't break the skin and it was entirely my fault as I had him sitting on the fence but he now has a terrible fear of horses and PTSD. The signs they had up advising that horses may bite were not big enough and didn't have neon flashing arrows on them so it's obviously not my fault and I he deserves reparations!!!!

My son has ginger hair. Who can i sue?

knucklehead6

knucklehead6 wrote: »

My son has ginger hair. Who can i sue?

On second thoughts i should probably be more concerned about being sued by him!

the_syco

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Did the parents not first check for this type of thing when they entered the room?

Depends on the parents, they may have looked for what could cause harm. There are a few families in Dublin that are often in the courts suing over things that caused them to be hurt.

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I see our learned friends are circulating memos amongst themselves arguing against guidelines to reduce personal injury awards
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/senior-judges-argue-against-proposed-guidelines-on-personal-injury-awards-1.4486859

I misread that as memes. Was disappointed. TBH, if they stopped paying cash to whiplash victims, and only paid the hospitals directly, the cost to insurance companies would drop.

jams100 wrote: »

I'm presuming given the high reward this isn't just a whiplash injury and she is in a wheelchair or something for years

Nope. Able to walk around. Says that she still needs surgery, but seems the part-time model minimum wage worker at Pavilions Shopping Centre can walk around. The "part-time model" thing could have been her wearing clothes in the shop that she worked in, for all we know.

El Gato De Negocios

the_syco wrote: »

I misread that as memes. Was disappointed. TBH, if they stopped paying cash to whiplash victims, and only paid the hospitals directly, the cost to insurance companies would drop.

Research has indicated that somewhere in the region of 80 to 90% of people receiving pain management treatment stop doing so post settlement of a claim.

SeanW

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

Research has indicated that somewhere in the region of 80 to 90% of people receiving pain management treatment stop doing so post settlement of a claim.

Haven't seen that research, but in this country, I wouldn't be surprised. When even sitting TDs chance their arm and get away with it, you know we're in trouble and events like the "tram surfing girl" getting over half a million etc become much easier to understand. It does seem that there's no end to the level of stupidity that can be made someone else's fault if there's a business or insurance policy to milk for the benefits of lawyers and idiots.

It was disheartening to read all the defenses of this settlement/award, either because they supports Ireland's "compo culture" in general or just have a blind spot when it comes to motorists and thinks that motorists in particular should be "fair game" for reckless morons and ambulance chasing lawyers. Unfortunately, it was only going to be a matter of time before those defenses degenerated into outright falsehoods. Like these:

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Roads aren lethal. Drivers are lethal. They kill 2 or 3 people each week on the roads.

Firstly, the claim that road/street profile does not effect (whether positively or negatively) safety along that passage is not just a falsehood, but a dangerous one. It's a provable fact that well designed roads (designed to get people and goods from place to place quickly) and well designed streets (designed to capture value in a space) will have better safety records than routes that are unclear in their function or poorly designed.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/10/30/the-stroad
To claim otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme, a falsehood that could get people killed.
Secondly, the claim that "Irish drivers kill X people per week" is also misleading, because the causes of fatal accidents are mutli-variate. As we've seen with serious accidents, very often the motorist is simply in the wrong place at the wrong time while another road user does something insane.
The final misleading claim was by implication, the poster indirectly claimed that Ireland has a bad safety record when it comes to road fatalities. Again, the data and evidence directly contradicts this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Global data shows that risk associated with road usage are inherent and unavoidable in all countries, but that fatalities in this country are relatively rare. That suggests that most routes are reasonably well designed and that genuinely dangerous behaviour by Irish motorists is rare.

jmreire

SeanW wrote: »

Haven't seen that research, but in this country, I wouldn't be surprised. When even sitting TDs chance their arm and get away with it, you know we're in trouble and events like the "tram surfing girl" getting over half a million etc become much easier to understand. It does seem that there's no end to the level of stupidity that can be made someone else's fault if there's a business or insurance policy to milk for the benefits of lawyers and idiots.

It was disheartening to read all the defenses of this settlement/award, either because they supports Ireland's "compo culture" in general or just have a blind spot when it comes to motorists and thinks that motorists in particular should be "fair game" for reckless morons and ambulance chasing lawyers. Unfortunately, it was only going to be a matter of time before those defenses degenerated into outright falsehoods. Like these:

Firstly, the claim that road/street profile does not effect (whether positively or negatively) safety along that passage is not just a falsehood, but a dangerous one. It's a provable fact that well designed roads (designed to get people and goods from place to place quickly) and well designed streets (designed to capture value in a space) will have better safety records than routes that are unclear in their function or poorly designed.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/10/30/the-stroad
To claim otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme, a falsehood that could get people killed.
Secondly, the claim that "Irish drivers kill X people per week" is also misleading, because the causes of fatal accidents are mutli-variate. As we've seen with serious accidents, very often the motorist is simply in the wrong place at the wrong time while another road user does something insane.
The final misleading claim was by implication, the poster indirectly claimed that Ireland has a bad safety record when it comes to road fatalities. Again, the data and evidence directly contradicts this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Global data shows that risk associated with road usage are inherent and unavoidable in all countries, but that fatalities in this country are relatively rare. That suggests that most routes are reasonably well designed and that genuinely dangerous behaviour by Irish motorists is rare.

I'd agree with all of the above, but no matter how well road's / building's etc. are designed with safety in mind, it will not eliminate the compo scammer.....or the more than generous amounts awarded here in Ireland. Which is the crux of the matter, causing insurance costs to rise and businesses to close.

Mimon

knucklehead6 wrote: »

My son has ginger hair. Who can i sue?

The milkman? :pac:

Or ask the wife.

knucklehead6

Mimon wrote: »

The milkman? :pac:

Or ask the wife.

Hi Helen.

Mimon

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Hi Helen.

What did she say, was it Pat Mustard

El Gato De Negocios

As it happens, the case file on this one came across my desk the other day. Without going into too much detail, it's not nearly as black and white as I initially thought. Yes, the claimant was in the wrong but the defendant was also in the wrong too. Compo is very much a grey area but the laws of the land are very clear. The medical reports paint a different story compared to some pictures that were circulated and if accurate (given other details of the case I'm now aware of there is no reason to think they aren't) then the settlement figure is not as outrageous as it appears.

To add, the compo rules in this country for minor injuries are fcuked up but this one is far beyond anything minor.

Gaoth Laidir

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

As it happens, the case file on this one came across my desk the other day. Without going into too much detail, it's not nearly as black and white as I initially thought. Yes, the claimant was in the wrong but the defendant was also in the wrong too. Compo is very much a grey area but the laws of the land are very clear. The medical reports paint a different story compared to some pictures that were circulated and if accurate (given other details of the case I'm now aware of there is no reason to think they aren't) then the settlement figure is not as outrageous as it appears.

To add, the compo rules in this country for minor injuries are fcuked up but this one is far beyond anything minor.

She's still responsible for running out in front of a car on a dual carriageway. Nothing can change that.

fonecrusher1

Gutless judicial system = open season for parasitic compo culture.

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

Firstly, the claim that road/street profile does not effect (whether positively or negatively) safety along that passage is not just a falsehood, but a dangerous one. It's a provable fact that well designed roads (designed to get people and goods from place to place quickly) and well designed streets (designed to capture value in a space) will have better safety records than routes that are unclear in their function or poorly designed.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/10/30/the-stroad
To claim otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme, a falsehood that could get people killed.

You seem to be arguing against something that I never said. I never said that "road/street profile does not effect (whether positively or negatively) safety along that passage". I simply pointed out that roads, on their own, aren't lethal. Roads don't kill people. People get killed when you put motor vehicles on those roads.

SeanW wrote: »

Secondly, the claim that "Irish drivers kill X people per week" is also misleading, because the causes of fatal accidents are mutli-variate. As we've seen with serious accidents, very often the motorist is simply in the wrong place at the wrong time while another road user does something insane.
The final misleading claim was by implication, the poster indirectly claimed that Ireland has a bad safety record when it comes to road fatalities. Again, the data and evidence directly contradicts this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Funny how the motorist 'being in the wrong place at the wrong time when another road user does something insane' rarely gets mentioned in formal research by the RSA or others.

For a start, the other road users doing something insane is generally another motorist. Most road deaths are motorists killing other motorists and passengers.

If you want to look at any proper research into the causes of road deaths, they are down to inappropriate speed, mobile phone use, lack of seat belts, fatigue driving as the major causes. Not quite the 'unavoidable accidents' that you suggest.

SeanW wrote: »

Global data shows that risk associated with road usage are inherent and unavoidable in all countries, but that fatalities in this country are relatively rare. That suggests that most routes are reasonably well designed and that genuinely dangerous behaviour by Irish motorists is rare.

How exactly did you conclude 'inherent and unavoidable'? They are only inherent and unavoidable as long as we tolerate endemic levels of law breaking by motorists. We must have different understandings of 'relatively rare'. Something that happens 2 or 3 times a week, every week, week in week out, doesn't seem relatively rare to me.

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You seem to be arguing against something that I never said. I never said that "road/street profile does not effect (whether positively or negatively) safety along that passage". I simply pointed out that roads, on their own, aren't lethal. Roads don't kill people. People get killed when you put motor vehicles on those roads.

You "corrected" another poster when you had zero cause to do so. It is a fact that there will be less fatalities on well designed streets and roads vs. poorly designed routes with unclear functions. It is a fact that bad layouts cause/contribute to accidents, often fatal. And it is also a fact that this applies as a global, general rule, no matter how good or bad the drivers using the route are. That's why people like the poster you "corrected" call certain routes/junctions "lethal" and (depending on what they are referring to) they may be entirely correct in doing so. Any claim to the contrary is not just a lie, but (if it induces policymakers to ignore inherently dangerous roads/junctions) potentially a killer lie.

Funny how the motorist 'being in the wrong place at the wrong time when another road user does something insane' rarely gets mentioned in formal research by the RSA or others.

They may not use that precise wording, but yes, very often motorists who supposedly "kill" are indeed in the wrong place at the wrong time. Take for example RSA research which found pedestrian culpability in 70% of fatal pedestrian-motorist collisions.
https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Fatal%20Collision%20Stats/Analysis_of_road_user_groups/Pedestrian%20fatalities%20on%20Irish%20Roads%202008%20to%202015.pdf

For a start, the other road users doing something insane is generally another motorist. Most road deaths are motorists killing other motorists and passengers.

Thank you for proving my point. If you're driving down the road and some numpty cuts across you (in their own car) and they die in a resulting collision, did you kill them, or did they die due to their own actions? What about vehicular suicides? Single vehicle collisions?

How exactly did you conclude 'inherent and unavoidable'?

1. Irish demographics.
2. Ireland's road safety records.
3. International data and evidence.
4. Personal knowledge of fatal collisions among friends and family.

International data proves - beyond any doubt - that Irish road safety is pretty much best practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
Slice the data any way you like, deaths per 100,000 people, deaths per 100,000 motor vehicles, deaths per billion km driven, Ireland is as near as makes no difference to the bottom (or top?) of the table. Those are the facts.

I also know personally of 2 people who lost their lives on the roads. Although my knowledge of the circumstances of both are limited, from the details I do have, there's nothing to suggest that either collision could have been foreseen and avoided.

They are only inherent and unavoidable as long as we tolerate endemic levels of law breaking by motorists. We must have different understandings of 'relatively rare'. Something that happens 2 or 3 times a week, every week, week in week out, doesn't seem relatively rare to me.

Given Ireland's population and the amount of kilometres that people drive, our road fatality figures are indeed very good. The data shows 3 things:

1. That genuinely dangerous behaviour by Irish motorists is unusual. Most drivers are reasonably well trained and most do not drive recklessly.
2. Irish road safety compares well against international norms.
3. Fatal collisions are multi-variate in their causes. Contributing factors and culpable parties vary considerably.

feelings

I see that Fingal Co. Co. appear to have fenced the large gaps in the median now. I wonder has that stopped people trying to cross the dual carriageway?

Gaoth Laidir

feelings wrote: »

I see that Fingal Co. Co. appear to have fenced the large gaps in the median now. I wonder has that stopped people trying to cross the dual carriageway?

It's been fenced for a couple of years now, at least since the last Google Streetview in June 2019.

People may still try to climb over that fence to illegally cross the dual carriageway, and if they scratch themselves on the fence then they can claim against the council for it. A scratch to the skin would surely be worth a few hundred grand...

tallaghtfornia

Bad accident just before the first pedestrian bridge this morning poor guy covered in blood - getting dressed by paramedics can only assume it was a cyclist or pedestrian.

feelings

I used to cycle that road regularly (now drive it) and the fencing has definitely been replaced and the gaps filled with new fencing. The older fencing was in piss poor condition.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

It's been fenced for a couple of years now, at least since the last Google Streetview in June 2019.

People may still try to climb over that fence to illegally cross the dual carriageway, and if they scratch themselves on the fence then they can claim against the council for it. A scratch to the skin would surely be worth a few hundred grand...

feelings

Two lads on opposite sides of the dual carriageway running this evening. Are people really that thick?

Potential-Monke

feelings wrote: »

Two lads on opposite sides of the dual carriageway running this evening. Are people really that thick?

Well, they're after seeing you can get a few million just by running in front of oncoming traffic, so probably chancing their arms?