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

Alias G

glenfieldman wrote: »

A crossing on a motorway when a foot bridge was close ? Are you for real ?
I do hope your trolling

People cross the dual carriage way in spite of the bridge all the time. It is the responsibility of the driver to be prepared for such eventualities. Hence the result of partial blame on the driver. If you think that is trolling then you haven't much sense.

AndrewJRenko

glenfieldman wrote: »

A crossing on a motorway when a foot bridge was close ? Are you for real ?
I do hope your trolling

I do hope that you don't actually drive yourself with that attitude.

Alias G

Driving around in a tonne of metal comes with responsibility for driving with care and attention.

KaneToad

F34 wrote: »

Alan Shatter tried and was swiftly shown the door. The legal “profession” is a closed shop in this country and the knives quickly come out for anyone that tries to upset the apple cart.

While I don’t particularly like Shane Ross the opposition to his bill to reform judicial appointments was blocked at every opportunity.

If you look at the judicial review of pay outs for soft tissue injuries, instead of using European norms to base awards at, they started looking at the UK awards amounts which of course are higher then they started to focus on the Northern Ireland’s payouts which of course are among the highest in the UK. They of course want to use the Northern Irish awards as a base for here.

This is the real problem. There is millions to be made in the legal "industry". It extends to criminal cases too. It is all theatrics. Faux outrage, adjournments, legal arguments...all with the net result of an extra days pay for counsel who are on daily rates.

But, given that these are learned gentlemen (& ladies), they know more than us plebs. They are there to uphold the Irish justice system. We wouldn't understand. Shatter understood. It didn't work out well for him. A hard man to like but a man who was brave to put his money where his mouth was.

Jimmy Bottlehead

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

In the case where two drivers caused the death of an innocent person then I have no problem with a payout. The fault was with the drivers.

But in this original case of someone running across in front of a car in Swords, why should there be ANY payment at all? Or over half a million to a kid who was tram-surfing? People who broke the law completely through their own actions and decisions deserve no award, regardless of how bad their injuries are. A kid who gets leukemia or some other illness doesn't get a penny and the parents will scrimp and save to get treatment, yet if you break the law and do something completely reckless and stupid, someone ELSE must foot the bill? Fūcking ridiculous.

I never said that there should be a payout in this case, I'm not arguing that point. I actually believe that someone who flaunts a provided safe passageway (in this case, ignoring a safe route and running across a dual carriageway) should assume personal responsibility and the penalties that come with that.

I posted in general terms about awarded costs in injured v dead cases. And my point is still correct; injured humans cost more than dead humans to maintain.

You may wish to take your poorly aimed outrage elsewhere.

glenfieldman

Alias G wrote: »

People cross the dual carriage way in spite of the bridge all the time. It is the responsibility of the driver to be prepared for such eventualities. Hence the result of partial blame on the driver. If you think that is trolling then you haven't much sense.

I do drive, and I drive on the N4 and M50 everyday and in 15 years I never encountered a moron crossing
Also the speed limit on most motorways is 80 km so any moron crossing and hit at that speed has no chance, therefor it totally their fault

Alias G

glenfieldman wrote: »

I do drive, and I drive on the N4 and M50 everyday and in 15 years I never encountered a moron crossing
Also the speed limit on most motorways is 80 km so any moron crossing and hit at that speed has no chance, therefor it totally their fault

The incident didn't occur on a national road or a motorway so your comparisons are not equivalent. It was a regional road which happens to be dual carriagway through a significantly urbanised locality with large volumes of cyclists, pedestrians and vulnerable road users in the immediate environs. Your attitude is typically motorist centric and selfish. Pedestrians can and do cross the road frequently. Any driver not conscious of the risk to themselves and others is not worthy of a license.

B.A._Baracus

Am a little confused. So the driver who hit her owes her 3.2 million?! Lol.

TheChizler

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Am a little confused. So the driver who hit her owes her 3.2 million?! Lol.

The insurance company does.

B.A._Baracus

TheChizler wrote: »

The insurance company does.

Cheers. Silly me, of course it's the insurance company. Brain fart.

Tis a mad amount alright.

TheChizler

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Cheers. Silly me, of course it's the insurance company. Brain fart.

Tis a mad amount alright.

No idea of what her current situation is but speaking from personal experience that kind of money doesn't go far if serious brain injuries are involved. Hopefully it is a ridiculous amount and not needed cause I wouldn't wish that situation on anybody.

AndrewJRenko

glenfieldman wrote: »

I do drive, and I drive on the N4 and M50 everyday and in 15 years I never encountered a moron crossing
Also the speed limit on most motorways is 80 km so any moron crossing and hit at that speed has no chance, therefor it totally their fault

This case wasn't on a motorway.

Gaoth Laidir

TheChizler wrote: »

The insurance company does.

Meaning you and I

Gaoth Laidir

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Was she driving in a manner that allowed her to stop within the distance she could see to be clear, as is required by law? Was she scanning for pedestrians crossing as she approached?

There's more to responsible driving than just complying with the speed limit.

Alias G wrote: »

People cross the dual carriage way in spite of the bridge all the time. It is the responsibility of the driver to be prepared for such eventualities. Hence the result of partial blame on the driver. If you think that is trolling then you haven't much sense.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I do hope that you don't actually drive yourself with that attitude.

Alias G wrote: »

Driving around in a tonne of metal comes with responsibility for driving with care and attention.

Alias G wrote: »

The incident didn't occur on a national road or a motorway so your comparisons are not equivalent. It was a regional road which happens to be dual carriagway through a significantly urbanised locality with large volumes of cyclists, pedestrians and vulnerable road users in the immediate environs. Your attitude is typically motorist centric and selfish. Pedestrians can and do cross the road frequently. Any driver not conscious of the risk to themselves and others is not worthy of a license.

To the both of you, are you saying that every road incident is automatically the fault of the driver? If a kid runs out from behind a parked car, also fault of the driver? Is there ANY case in which you would argue for the case of the driver if someone deliberately choses to run out in front of a car?

I know that road very well and I have never seen anybody running across there. Significant amount of pedestrians, pedestrian and vulnerable road users? Who are these vunerable users?

All drivers know the risks and responsibilities that come with driving a car, including due care and attention and anticipation, but that is all within reasonable bounds. For you two it seems that the responsibility of the driver extends to infinity and that of the pedestrian is zero.

Do you question the actions of the pedestrian in this case at all or what?

Kermit.de.frog

TheChizler wrote: »

The insurance company does.

Erm no, you do.

You pay in premiums to the insurance company doing the paying.

That's how this gig works. The "injured" get paid and you pay the insurance company to get them paid. This person was clearly injured but many would argue due to her own actions.

Alias G

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

To the both of you, are you saying that every road incident is automatically the fault of the driver? If a kid runs out from behind a parked car, also fault of the driver? Is there ANY case in which you would argue for the case of the driver if someone deliberately choses to run out in front of a car?

I know that road very well and I have never seen anybody running across there. Significant amount of pedestrians, pedestrian and vulnerable road users? Who are these vunerable users?

All drivers know the risks and responsibilities that come with driving a car, including due care and attention and anticipation, but that is all within reasonable bounds. For you two it seems that the responsibility of the driver extends to infinity and that of the pedestrian is zero.

Do you question the actions of the pedestrian in this case at all or what?

I know the road well myself. I have seen people alight the bus and proceed across the road countless times. It sounds like you should be paying more attention. And it was stated during the trial that people are on the habit of crossing at that very point

Vulnerable road users quiet obviously consist of pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists etc.

Nobody has absolved the pedestrian of culpability. Nor did the judgement in fact.

What I am stating is that motorists are responsible for operating their vehicle with due consideration of their surroundings. Unfortunately I witness a distinct lack of this responsibility in motorists on a daily basis. In this instance there was an alleged failure to apply the brakes promptly. This would indicate the driver was not paying due care and attention.

It is a dual carriage way which intersects the urban area of swords which is the 7th most populous urban area in the state and consequently has large volumes of pedestrians and cyclists utilising and crossing at various points. A failure to anticipate other road users places culpability on the motorist.

OMM 0000

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

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...

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

This doesn't make sense.

Is the judge corrupt? He's related to her...?

How can someone possibly get millions for stupidly walking across a dual carriageway? Holy **** the world gets dumber by the day.

kippy

Alias G wrote: »

I know the road well myself. I have seen people alight the bus and proceed across the road countless times. It sounds like you should be paying more attention. And it was stated during the trial that people are on the habit of crossing at that very point

Vulnerable road users quiet obviously consist of pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists etc.

Nobody has absolved the pedestrian of culpability. Nor did the judgement in fact.

What I am stating is that motorists are responsible for operating their vehicle with due consideration of their surroundings. Unfortunately I witness a distinct lack of this responsibility in motorists on a daily basis. In this instance there was an alleged failure to apply the brakes promptly. This would indicate the driver was not paying due care and attention.

It is a dual carriage way which intersects the urban area of swords which is the 7th most populous urban area in the state and consequently has large volumes of pedestrians and cyclists utilising and crossing at various points. A failure to anticipate other road users places culpability on the motorist.

I don't disagree that the blame can be apportioned.
BUT on the same basis a failure to adequately asscess the risk of death of injury as a consequence of YOUR OWN ACTIONS (That is the controllable) surely places a considerable portion of blame on the person making the decision to run across the road in the first instance.

Blaming others, when you have had control of your own destiny, is an extremely worrying and consistent trend that appears across the board when it comes to these types of cases.
The lack of ability to adequately make the right decisions, when they have been within your control is a worry.

Alias G

OMM 0000 wrote: »

This doesn't make sense.

Is the judge corrupt? He's related to her...?

How can someone possibly get millions for stupidly walking across a dual carriageway? Holy **** the world gets dumber by the day.

No, just you.

Alias G

kippy wrote: »

I don't disagree that the blame can be apportioned.
BUT on the same basis a failure to adequately asscess the risk of death of injury as a consequence of YOUR OWN ACTIONS (That is the controllable) surely places a considerable portion of blame on the person making the decision to run across the road in the first instance.

Blaming others, when you have had control of your own destiny, is an extremely worrying and consistent trend that appears across the board when it comes to these types of cases.
The lack of ability to adequately make the right decisions, when they have been within your control is a worry.

Again, the privilege of driving around in one tonne of metal with the ability to seriously maim or kill comes with responsibilities. At a very minimum that responsibility includes due diligence with regard to driving in a manner that considers the driving environment and presence of other more vunerable road users. Regardless of the right or wrong actions of the other individuals. Being hit by one tonne at 80 km/h is hardly a fair penalty for Jay walking.

Man Vs ManUre

This chicks brother is an Instagram fella who seems to spend his life on holidays, Dubai, Ibiza, Maldives, Bali. Part of the Sosueme, Wrights bar brigade in Swords. She’s from money is what I’m saying. Sounds like a crazy payout to receive.

Alias G

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

This chicks brother is an Instagram fella who seems to spend his life on holidays, Dubai, Ibiza, Maldives, Bali. Part of the Sosueme, Wrights bar brigade in Swords. She’s from money is what I’m saying. Sounds like a crazy payout to receive.

That depends on the extent of her injuries. If she is brain injured and needs lifetime support and care, 3.2 million possibly won't stretch as far as you would imagine.

Alias G

Alias G wrote: »

That depends on the extent of her injuries. If she is brain injured and needs lifetime support and care, 3.2 million possibly won't stretch as far as you would imagine.

There are pictures of her walking to/from the court on her own. She seems quite independent.

glenfieldman

Alias G wrote: »

No, just you.

Im guessing your a spandex wearing who likes cycling,
You said "In this instance there was an alleged failure to apply the brakes promptly. This would indicate the driver was not paying due care and attention."

You try and drop the anchors at 80km which is the speed limit.
What do you want, us plebs to drive at 20km to avoid the odd moron that has a death wish

Gaoth Laidir

Alias G wrote: »

I know the road well myself. I have seen people alight the bus and proceed across the road countless times. It sounds like you should be paying more attention. And it was stated during the trial that people are on the habit of crossing at that very point

Vulnerable road users quiet obviously consist of pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists etc.

Nobody has absolved the pedestrian of culpability. Nor did the judgement in fact.

What I am stating is that motorists are responsible for operating their vehicle with due consideration of their surroundings. Unfortunately I witness a distinct lack of this responsibility in motorists on a daily basis. In this instance there was an alleged failure to apply the brakes promptly. This would indicate the driver was not paying due care and attention.

It is a dual carriage way which intersects the urban area of swords which is the 7th most populous urban area in the state and consequently has large volumes of pedestrians and cyclists utilising and crossing at various points. A failure to anticipate other road users places culpability on the motorist.

You really have a chip on your shoulder with the arrogant attitude you're displaying. I would bet that you're actually a cyclist, one of those who refuses to use the cycle lanes that are there but yet complains no end about drivers. I see that type every day. Yes, I'm observing all around me when I'm driving, a lot more than they are, and obviously a lot more than this woman was when she decided to run across the road. The same due care and attentions doesn't also equally extend to pedestrians, no?

You seem to be set on this thing of a driver being more responsible for hunking around a tonne of metal, yet what if she had caused that car to swerve to avoid her, hit a pole and killed the driver. Would the pedestrian still be absolved, given that she's not in the car?

The fact that you don't seem in any way slightly miffed that this will have an effect on drivers' insurance premia is probably a further indication that you're a cyclist or pedestrian and hence pay no insurance yourself. Or else you drive around with no insurance. One or the other.

glenfieldman

Alias G wrote: »

Again, the privilege of driving around in one tonne of metal with the ability to seriously maim or kill comes with responsibilities. At a very minimum that responsibility includes due diligence with regard to driving in a manner that considers the driving environment and presence of other more vunerable road users. Regardless of the right or wrong actions of the other individuals. Being hit by one tonne at 80 km/h is hardly a fair penalty for Jay walking.

Your a f**king idiot
So you think we should foot the bill of €3.2 million for a brainless moron.

glenfieldman

Alias G wrote: »

That depends on the extent of her injuries. If she is brain injured and needs lifetime support and care, 3.2 million possibly won't stretch as far as you would imagine.

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

Watch the video, far from a vegetable she is

Alias G

glenfieldman wrote: »

Im guessing your a spandex wearing who likes cycling,
You said "In this instance there was an alleged failure to apply the brakes promptly. This would indicate the driver was not paying due care and attention."

You try and drop the anchors at 80km which is the speed limit.
What do you want, us plebs to drive at 20km to avoid the odd moron that has a death wish

I'm guessing you are hairy neanderthal who has scars on his knuckles from dragging them on the ground and drives a flash car to make up for the deficiency in his pants.

I can make ad hominem insults too. Not sure how it furthers the debate though.

I have already stated what I expect motorists to do. Ie drive with due consideration. But we all know a significant number of them can't be trusted to do so. What we will probably get instead is a reduced speed limit and a pedestrian crossing at the sight of the incident. If not now, then after someone does lose their life.

Alias G

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You really have a chip on your shoulder with the arrogant attitude you're displaying. I would bet that you're actually a cyclist, one of those who refuses to use the cycle lanes that are there but yet complains no end about drivers. I see that type every day. Yes, I'm observing all around me when I'm driving, a lot more than they are, and obviously a lot more than this woman was when she decided to run across the road. The same due care and attentions doesn't also equally extend to pedestrians, no?

You seem to be set on this thing of a driver being more responsible for hunking around a tonne of metal, yet what if she had caused that car to swerve to avoid her, hit a pole and killed the driver. Would the pedestrian still be absolved, given that she's not in the car?

The fact that you don't seem in any way slightly miffed that this will have an effect on drivers' insurance premia is probably a further indication that you're a cyclist or pedestrian and hence pay no insurance yourself. Or else you drive around with no insurance. One or the other.

A lot of assumptions there. Mostly well wide of the mark. At no point did I say this woman bears no personal responsibility for what happened.

Unfortunately I pay insurance for lots of things. Including driving. And there are plenty of examples of insurance fraud that do piss me off. I haven't stated categorically whether the 3.2 million is justified or not in this instance because I don't know the full facts. All I have said is that based on what we know from the trial, the motorist does bear some responsibility for the incident. The driver didn't use their brakes FFS.

Gaoth Laidir

Alias G wrote: »

I'm guessing you are hairy neanderthal who has scars on his knuckles from dragging them on the ground and drives a flash car to make up for the deficiency in his pants.

I can make ad hominem insults too. Not sure how it furthers the debate though.

I have already stated what I expect motorists to do. Ie drive with due consideration. But we all know a significant number of them can't be trusted to do so. What we will probably get instead is a reduced speed limit and a pedestrian crossing at the sight of the incident. If not now, then after someone does lose their life.

There is a more than adequate pedestrian crossing there already and she chose not to use it. You now want one on the road too? That would be great for traffic.

Unbelievable.