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

Patches oHoulihan

She was in a bus lane. She's not a bus.

Patches oHoulihan

poisonated wrote: »

I agree. Have you ever tried to cross the road in Vietnam? Madness!

Luckily I have and its scary but you realise that traffic avoids you.

feelings

I agree with you.

Strumms wrote: »

If somebody robs a gun, shoots themselves in the head... should the state get sued for not preventing said act ? Slashes their wrist, same ?

The state and local councils , fair enough they have responsibilities to its citizens but they are not baby sitters, or idiot sitters...not responsible for somebody choosing to disregard their safety and welfare and meeting life ending consequences...

I was taught as a kid of 2/3 whatever onwards ... that when you exit a car, van, bus or whatever vehicle... you cross ‘behind’ said vehicle, only when you’ve verified it is safe to do so... educated by parents and the school..the safe cross code hammered home to us...

Now if you climbed the fence at Dublin airport, ran onto the runway, got killed by a landing 737.... your family will probably get about 5 million because there were not announcements and security guards to prevent you from being a stupid cûnt... why is personal responsibility spat upon.....?

The rest of us end up paying more to fly too as the DAA have their insurance skyrocket....

Make stupid cünts history, please.

Itssoeasy

Maybe I’m being too logical here, but what happened to personal responsibility and cop on ? Why should someone get money for doing an inherently dangerous thing of walking along a dual carriageway but gets compensated because the fact she got hit by a car was somehow unexpected ? It’s like walking along a railway line and being shocked when a train is coming towards you.

Fake Scores

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

Incorrect.

Making a statement immediately after an accident, while not advisable, eg admitting fault, doesn't ultimately effect how a claim will play out. Any half competent barrister will argue it away by saying the driver was in shock in the immediate aftermath and wasn't thinking straight.

You misread my post. I spoke of his/her written statement. This is the voluntary statement made after caution and signed. Usually made in the weeks after such an incident. If you think anything said in that is of no relevance or can be “argued away” then you don’t know what you’re talking about.

donegal_man

Whilst I agree the sum certainly appears excessive we are basing that on a synopsis of the case in the media.
The fact it's an agreed settlement based on two thirds of the liability being placed on the defendant would suggest we are not seeing the full story.

knucklehead6

donegal_man wrote: »

Whilst I agree the sum certainly appears excessive we are basing that on a synopsis of the case in the media.
The fact it's an agreed settlement based on two thirds of the liability being placed on the defendant would suggest we are not seeing the full story.

Or, as has been said in this thread, the defendant company were so terrified of what the judge would give that this is the cheaper option

donegal_man

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Or, as has been said in this thread, the defendant company were so terrified of what the judge would give that this is the cheaper option

Which again suggests that they were not confident they had a strong defence. Why would they admit two thirds liability if all they wanted was for the case to go away? They could have offered a settlement with no admission of liability.
As I said it seems excessive but we don't have the full facts of the case. Just a synopsis and a headline figure guaranteed to whip up outrage against the "compo culture".

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

xzanti wrote: »

I agree the settlement is excessive, but I watched the video on the independent page.

She was in hospital for 7 months. She had to learn to walk again, one of her arms doesn't work properly now. She was missing all of her hair and part of her skull when she came out of the coma. She still has to have a hip replacement and other surgeries in the future.

Can anyone here actually, honestly say they haven't ever in their lives crossed a road where they shouldn't?

And people posting her photo hoping to start a slagging spree on the girl :rolleyes: the absolute begrudgery.

My thoughts too. The settlement is excessive but no, I wouldn’t think myself lucky to receive it if I had to take a traumatic brain injury to go with it.

DaveyDave

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

My thoughts too. The settlement is excessive but no, I wouldn’t think myself lucky to receive it if I had to take a traumatic brain injury to go with it.

She made a decision to walk into traffic, she should be greatful her actions didn't get her killed.

This isn't a driver running a red at a pedestrian crossing. She chose not to use a pedestrian bridge and walked into a dual carriageway.

Vestiapx

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.

Who had right of way?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

DaveyDave wrote: »

She made a decision to walk into traffic, she should be greatful her actions didn't get her killed.

This isn't a driver running a red at a pedestrian crossing. She chose not to use a pedestrian bridge and walked into a dual carriageway.

I’m just saying, I wouldn’t trade places with her for a second despite the huge settlement.

1874

1874 wrote: »

..........
It would be downright dangerous to slam on the brakes on a dual carriageway.......

Drivers behind you are meant to be at a safe distance back, fyi. If you need to stop to avoid hitting someone who stop instinctively if you are watching the road ahead.

the beer revolu

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’m just saying, I wouldn’t trade places with her for a second despite the huge settlement.

Sure a fella here had the same thing happen.
Oh, wait, he broke his arm, but apart from that it was just the same!

Potential-Monke

Augeo wrote: »

Drivers behind you are meant to be at a safe distance back, fyi. If you need to stop to avoid hitting someone who stop instinctively if you are watching the road ahead.

Ok, what about if there are 2 cars, one in each lane, but the one on the outside lane is about a cars length behind. She runs across the road, car on the inside lane sees this and magically comes to a stop from 80kph before hitting her, but the car on the outside lane would not have seen her but was driving legally in their own lane. They haven't a hope of even braking, let alone stopping in time.

I can only speak for myself, but a dual carriageway has always been a road I never expect people to run across. Sake like, most roads don't allow you to drive across 2 lanes of traffic without traffic lights, so the last thing I expect is someone to run across 2 lanes.

Crazy payout for yet another example of personal stupidity, which apparantly has no place in the courts. I agree we don't have all the info, but I genuinely fail to see how the driver could be in any way responsible for this, even if they were speeding as no one can actually say how fast or slow the driver was going without the GoSafe/Gatso/speed cameras. I'm sure there's more to it, but it is just another example of someone getting a massive payout for being a complete and utter idiot.

Really must get around to getting a dash cam.

.anon.

sugarman wrote: »

No, but I'd like to think most people would at least take extreme caution when doing so. Its an 80KPH dual carriageway FFS, nobody would be able to stop a car in time if someone darts out in front of you.

The fact that it's an 80km/h road doesn't mean that you have to drive at that speed, especially when there's a bus stop and a shopping centre nearby. It's the driver's responsibility to be able to anticipate, rather than react to, unexpected events and hazards. In this case, the driver was local, so there's no excuse whatsoever. Like it or not, driving a three-tonne car confers a higher level of responsibility on you than walking. That'll be why you don't need a licence to walk. It's hugely unsurprising that so many people on here fail to recognise that. Appalling driving standards are the reason for high insurance premiums. Too many people drive straight to the scene of their accident because they've been taught too much about 'right-of-way' and not enough about hazard perception.

sugarman wrote:

Shes just lucky it was a car and not a double decker bus or 40ft truck.

Last year, a child fell off her bike, into the bus lane on the Stillorgan dual carriageway, right in front of me. I was driving a double decker bus. I had actually been driving slightly over the legal limit too (it was 60, I was doing 64). I managed to stop in plenty of time - not because I have particularly great reaction speeds or because I'm a great driver, but because I was taught about the importance of spotting potential hazards, which meant my foot was touching the brake pedal before she started wobbling. If it was a bus and the driver was trained to do their job properly, there probably wouldn't have been an accident in the first place.

Potential-Monke

.anon. wrote: »

The fact that it's an 80km/h road doesn't mean that you have to drive at that speed, especially when there's a bus stop and a shopping centre nearby. It's the driver's responsibility to be able to anticipate, rather than react to, unexpected events and hazards.

While I see the point, I don't agree with this. If the road is not suitable for doing 80kph, it shouldn't be 80kph. While not a target, it's also the upper legal limit and driving at or just below that speed should not be used against the driver because the state has said it's ok to do that speed on that stretch of road.

Maybe the fault lies with bad council planning, but you can't say the law is X and then tell people they're wrong for obeying the law.

Simple matter is she shouldn't have crossed the road there. If it wasn't a local person, it would have been someone else. I don't know Dublin, but if I was on a dual carriageway that says 80kph, and it's safe to do so, I'll do it. I'm not local so I wouldn't have known to slow down because idiots cross a dual carriageway. Someone mentioned it's coming up to a roundabout, so most drivers would be slowing down anyway. Which is why we can't 100% say who's at fault, but common sense says it's 100% hers. Anything else is a "but, but, but..." argument.

A judgement like this is basically saying that even though you may 100% obey the law, you'll still be found part to blame for someone elses idiocy.

weldoninhio

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’m just saying, I wouldn’t trade places with her for a second despite the huge settlement.

Me either. Imagine having to navigate life being that stupid.

Homelander

Doubt anyone's overly surprised at this. It's incredible how the law can be so technically inclined to reward complete idiotic personal fault.

Remember a year or two ago, a woman was awarded half a million for clinging into the back of the Luas and falling off? Despite the fact that her own lawyer said they 100% accepted she was entirely to blame and shouldn't have been doing it.

But, "technically" Luas was at fault for not having adequate systems in place to stop people clinging onto the trams. :rolleyes:

BattleCorp

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 only gets to rubber stamp settlements when it's an adult involved. It's only when the settlement involves a minor that the judge can actually intervene and say that the settlement is not enough.

.anon.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

While I see the point, I don't agree with this. If the road is not suitable for doing 80kph, it shouldn't be 80kph. While not a target, it's also the upper legal limit and driving at or just below that speed should not be used against the driver because the state has said it's ok to do that speed on that stretch of road.

It's the upper legal limit if, and only if, conditions allow. It is still the driver's responsibility to watch out for potential hazards and be able to react to them in time. In this case, for whatever reason, the driver wasn't able to react in time. Having a licence confers a level of responsibility on drivers, especially where pedestrians and more vulnerable road users are concerned.

Potential-Monke wrote:

A judgement like this is basically saying that even though you may 100% obey the law, you'll still be found part to blame for someone elses idiocy.

No, it's saying you can't run human beings over with your giant lump of metal, even if you have right of way. It's saying that hazard perception is a very basic part of being a competent driver. And it is genuinely terrifying that so many people on here (at least some of whom presumably have driving licences) fail to understand that.

monkeybutter

Potential-Monke wrote: »

While I see the point, I don't agree with this. If the road is not suitable for doing 80kph, it shouldn't be 80kph. While not a target, it's also the upper legal limit and driving at or just below that speed should not be used against the driver because the state has said it's ok to do that speed on that stretch of road.

Maybe the fault lies with bad council planning, but you can't say the law is X and then tell people they're wrong for obeying the law.

Simple matter is she shouldn't have crossed the road there. If it wasn't a local person, it would have been someone else. I don't know Dublin, but if I was on a dual carriageway that says 80kph, and it's safe to do so, I'll do it. I'm not local so I wouldn't have known to slow down because idiots cross a dual carriageway. Someone mentioned it's coming up to a roundabout, so most drivers would be slowing down anyway. Which is why we can't 100% say who's at fault, but common sense says it's 100% hers. Anything else is a "but, but, but..." argument.

A judgement like this is basically saying that even though you may 100% obey the law, you'll still be found part to blame for someone elses idiocy.

It wasn't a judgement, it was a settlement


there must have been something else going on, as in she got hit in the bus lane, right


they said excessive speed, so in excess of the limit would seem logical



i think we all agree it was a stupid thing for her to do and the settlement is way too high

1874

Augeo wrote: »

Drivers behind you are meant to be at a safe distance back, fyi. If you need to stop to avoid hitting someone who stop instinctively if you are watching the road ahead.

Right? but you replied to me saying it would be downright dangerous to slam on the brakes on a dual carriageway, how does your post not make that so? You are making a huge assumption that being far enough back gives you time, but no matter how far back you are from the car in front, if someone runs across just in front of you, that still gives you limited time to respond.

If someone appears in front of you out of nowhere (e.g from behind a car that just passes an errant pedestrian), then the time you have and the options available to deal with that situation are limited, you may have left enough room to the next car, but that doesnt take into account people acting as this person did. If a driver has to stop suddenly or swerve to avoid a pedestrian doing this, they will as likely be involved in some form of collision.

If all the traffic is moving at the same speed, are all the drivers to blame? or was it just bad luck for the person who was driving the car that made contact with the pedestrian in their path? IMO a reasonable person could reasonably expect there wont be pedestrians weaving through traffic moving at any speeds on a dual carriageway, therefore the pedestrian imo is responsible for their own decision and actions.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

While I see the point, I don't agree with this. If the road is not suitable for doing 80kph, it shouldn't be 80kph. While not a target, it's also the upper legal limit and driving at or just below that speed should not be used against the driver because the state has said it's ok to do that speed on that stretch of road.

Maybe the fault lies with bad council planning, but you can't say the law is X and then tell people they're wrong for obeying the law.

Simple matter is she shouldn't have crossed the road there. If it wasn't a local person, it would have been someone else. I don't know Dublin, but if I was on a dual carriageway that says 80kph, and it's safe to do so, I'll do it. I'm not local so I wouldn't have known to slow down because idiots cross a dual carriageway. Someone mentioned it's coming up to a roundabout, so most drivers would be slowing down anyway. Which is why we can't 100% say who's at fault, but common sense says it's 100% hers. Anything else is a "but, but, but..." argument.

A judgement like this is basically saying that even though you may 100% obey the law, you'll still be found part to blame for someone elses idiocy.

I see what you're saying here, but I think the driver of the car seems to have been found completely to blame. I dont see how the pedestrian was given any responsibility for her decision to cross and then acting on it?
It seems her injuries and future medical care were more to mind, and while Im sympathetic, that doesnt mean she should not be held accountable or given some responsibility for that.

Rodin

If she was only thrown 6ft in the air, I doubt the car was excessively speeding.
She also survived - not really consistent with a 80kmh+ speed.

An awful lot of irresponsibility and lies told here.

monkeybutter

1874 wrote: »

Right? but you replied to me saying it would be downright dangerous to slam on the brakes on a dual carriageway, how does your post not make that so? You are making a huge assumption that being far enough back gives you time, but no matter how far back you are from the car in front, if someone runs across just in front of you, that still gives you limited time to respond.

If someone appears in front of you out of nowhere (e.g from behind a car that just passes an errant pedestrian), then the time you have and the options available to deal with that situation are limited, you may have left enough room to the next car, but that doesnt take into account people acting as this person did. If a driver has to stop suddenly or swerve to avoid a pedestrian doing this, they will as likely be involved in some form of collision.

If all the traffic is moving at the same speed, are all the drivers to blame? or was it just bad luck for the person who was driving the car that made contact with the pedestrian in their path? IMO a reasonable person could reasonably expect there wont be pedestrians weaving through traffic moving at any speeds on a dual carriageway, therefore the pedestrian imo is responsible for their own decision and actions.






I see what you're saying here, but I think the driver of the car seems to have been found completely to blame. I dont see how the pedestrian was given any responsibility for her decision to cross and then acting on it?
It seems her injuries and future medical care were more to mind, and while Im sympathetic, that doesnt mean she should not be held accountable or given some responsibility for that.

as you don't know the details of this case why make up the rest?


they could have had plenty of time to see the person, they were driving in a bus lane? they were on their phone? they were driving too fast? etc



there are loads of ways that it could have become at lest partially there fault, which seems to be the case here

monkeybutter

Rodin wrote: »

If she was only thrown 6ft in the air, I doubt the car was excessively speeding.
She also survived - not really consistent with a 80kmh+ speed.

An awful lot of irresponsibility and lies told here.

you can be speeding, right and then you apply the brakes, then what happens next?

Rodin

monkeybutter wrote: »

you can be speeding, right and then you apply the brakes, then what happens next?

The prosecution contended that the brakes were not properly used if at all.

''It was further claimed there was a failure to apply the brakes in time effectively or at all.''

1874

monkeybutter wrote: »

as you don't know the details of this case why make up the rest?

they could have had plenty of time to see the person, they were driving in a bus lane? they were on their phone? they were driving too fast? etc

there are loads of ways that it could have become at lest partially there fault, which seems to be the case here

Running/walking across a dual carriageway is a ridiculous thing to do, 100's or 1000's may have gotten away with it, the person ahead of her may have made it, imo her being on the road in the first place is wrong, she made the wrong decision, she put other people at risk, the only good outcome in this and as unfortunate for her as it is, is that she was hit, and not someone unconnected to her decision.
I would like to think the Council would have started getting railings either on both sides or even on the middle of the road to prevent (or even limit) pedestrians crossing (as I have seen in places elsewhere), they should move the bus stop and direct people where they should be going.
People have to be accountable for their actions, the driver of the car seems to being made more an example of than anything, when the person should never have been on the road at all.
I was taught when I was young, not to even cross at a pedestrian crossing until I knew a car was stopping, because even if you are right, it just isnt worth it, thats a location a pedestrian can reasonably be expected by a driver. It is foolish to cross traffic where you should not be.

monkeybutter

Rodin wrote: »

The prosecution contended that the brakes were not properly used if at all.

''It was further claimed there was a failure to apply the brakes in time effectively or at all.''

If they had been properly used she would not have hit her

Rodin

monkeybutter wrote: »

If they had been properly used she would not have hit her

The point is they were clearly sufficiently used to only throw her 6ft in the air.
That is not an 80kmh+ collision.

At the end of the day, if you set foot on a dual carraigeway, you should be responsible for each and every impact that happens. What if a car swerved to avoid her, hit another car etc...

Why is modern society so devoid of people being responsible for their actions whether is nonsense like this, or criminal behaviour...

I wouldn't have given her a penny.