Boy awarded €5m after being struck by car

Pro Hoc Vice · 27-07-2016 11:34AM

scdublin wrote: »

Am I the only person who finds it surprising that there was such a large settlement in this case?

Also, people went crazy at the parents of the kid who got into that gorilla enclosure a while back or at the parents of the kid who was taken by the alligator in Florida - should more of the responsibility and "blame" lie on the adults who were meant to be watching him?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0726/805008-mitchelstown-settlement/

Just a few facts the maxium payment in Ireland for pain and suffering is if I remember no more than €350,000 as set out in case law. That would be for a person in sever pain and disability. The majority of the million plus awards is to provide for past medical care future medical care. This may involve incare treatment for the rest of the person life or adaption of the home and maintenance and care of machines. Or do you think the sate should take up this burden even though the defendant was insured and insurance will pay.

27-07-2016 11:34AM

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

So basically the woman's insurance company has to fork out for something that in reality is not her fault just because there is no one else to sue?

It came up here recently, it's called the Deep Pockets doctrine, where a court may prefer to attach liability to the person who has greatest ability to pay, usually because of an insurance policy, or because they are indemnified by the State, etc.

SEPT 23 1989 · 27-07-2016 11:34AM

doc11 wrote: »

Define "severly"? cause "he is an active boy who loves horse riding" apparently. Like many injury's can be exaggerated, a few trips to a speech therapist to ad a few million to the claim. No more then going to PT for "whiplash" and making out your a cripple.

he may never be able to work or lead a normal life

ohnonotgmail · 27-07-2016 11:35AM

doc11 wrote: »

Define "severly"? cause "he is an active boy who loves horse riding" apparently. Like many injury's can be exaggerated, a few trips to a speech therapist to ad a few million to the claim. No more then going to PT for "whiplash" and making out your a cripple.

there is always somebody on a thread like who seems to think they know better than the medical experts used by the courts.

looksee · 27-07-2016 11:36AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I believe they were 5 when the accident happened?

Ok, I missed that, but it is still covered by the fact that the adults should have been more aware of the child's safety. A child of 5 says they don't want to go, and is then left apparently unsupervised on the other side of a road?

As to the child needing ongoing care, yes this is true, and I am not taking from the tragedy of that case when I say that children are born with disabilities that are going to require full time care for the rest of their lives. 5m would be a great help.

Lollipops23 · 27-07-2016 11:36AM

I think they were pointing out that the kid isn't in a vegetative state. Yes, he has a lot of problems that will require attention and therapies for the rest of his life. But he has a quality of life by the sounds of it.

A friend of mine pulled a hot kettle down on himself at 18months of age. Had to get several skin grafts throughout his childhood, was very traumatic for him. Still has enormous scars on one side of his body.

Should he sue the kettle company? OF COURSE NOT. A) His mother shouldn't have left the chord where he could grab it and

People make mistakes and accidents happen. It's sad, but a fact of life.

TheChizler · 27-07-2016 11:39AM

Speaking from personal experience 5 million isn't a lot considering the type of injury. Between adapting the home to make it suitable, replacing expensive medical equipment, medical supplies, and pretty much 24 hour care for the rest of his (what will likely be a normal length) life, they're not exactly going to be living in luxury.

Presuming he's a ward of court as well, any expense out of the ordinary will require approval.

dub_skav · 27-07-2016 11:39AM

I find it extremely worrying that the driver didn't even know what happened. So, it is not like she did not have time to react, she did not see the boy at all.
I assume that is why she was found to be 60% at fault. I know that people often say "he came out of nowhere" in relation to other cars, pedestrians, cyclists. But, nobody ever comes out of nowhere, they come from where they were and into the path of the car.

So, was she displaying due care and attention passing a house with people on the other side of the road, that she in fact didn't even see the boy, never mind not have time to react?

We do not have access to all of the facts, but the fact is that a driver has to be driving at an appropriate speed and aware of their surroundings. Parents also have to be responsible for their children, but in apportioning blame the judge ruled the driver to be 60% at fault and I can certainly see how that would be possible

jimmycrackcorm · 27-07-2016 11:43AM

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote:

So basically the woman's insurance company has to fork out for something that in reality is not her fault just because there is no one else to sue?

Yes. I don't even think she should have been sued. She was blamed for not guessing that somehow a child could have appeared because one of the parents was across the road.

Not disputing the need for the award but that the parents were solely to blame. As the courts awarded 5 million as 60% driver blame, does that mean the parents have to cough up 4 million for the other 40%? Somehow I think not.

scdublin · 27-07-2016 11:45AM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

scdublin wrote: »

Am I the only person who finds it surprising that there was such a large settlement in this case?

Also, people went crazy at the parents of the kid who got into that gorilla enclosure a while back or at the parents of the kid who was taken by the alligator in Florida - should more of the responsibility and "blame" lie on the adults who were meant to be watching him?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0726/805008-mitchelstown-settlement/

Just a few facts the maxium payment in Ireland for pain and suffering is if I remember no more than 350,000 as set out in case law. That would be for a person in sever pain and disability. The majority of the million plus awards is to provide for past medical care future medical care. This may involve incare treatment for the rest of the person life or adaption of the home and maintenance and care of machines. Or do you think the sate should take up this burden even though the defendant was insured and insurance will pay.

I don't think it's fair that the higher percentage of blame should be placed with the driver solely because they're insured and will pay out the money through them. Obviously we don't know if that was the case with this incident, but if it was it wouldn't sit well with me.

Like someone mentioned, the driver having that blame placed upon them is also life changing (no, not as life changing as the child, I know). And I agree that with such little time to react and driving within the speed limit, their fault should not have been at 60%.

seamus · 27-07-2016 11:47AM

You must drive at a speed that allows you to stop within the distance you can see to be clear. Where there is an entrance to a field or a property, the distance you can see to be clear ends before that entrance.

Every driver should assume that a vehicle, animal or human could emerge from an entrance at the side of the road at any given time and drive at an appropriate speed past it. If that means crawling at 30kph or less down some country roads, so be it.

The Backwards Man · 27-07-2016 11:48AM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Yes. I don't even think she should have been sued. She was blamed for not guessing that somehow a child could have appeared because one of the parents was across the road.

Not disputing the need for the award but that the parents were solely to blame. As the courts awarded 5 million as 60% driver blame, does that mean the parents have to cough up 4 million for the other 40%? Somehow I think not.

In fairness, on the road you shouldn't be guessing, you should be expecting. It could happen to any one of us, but if someone runs out in front of you and you hit them then you're the cause of their injuries, doesn't matter who is at fault, them's the breaks and that's why we pay insurance.

The Bishop Basher · 27-07-2016 11:55AM

Based on the information that we have...

This is yet another example of people failing to take responsibility for themselves and their children and seeking to apportion blame elsewhere when it all goes wrong.

And once again the courts seem to agree that we are no longer responsible for ourselves and our actions.

I just don't get it.

27-07-2016 11:57AM

dub_skav wrote: »

I find it extremely worrying that the driver didn't even know what happened. So, it is not like she did not have time to react, she did not see the boy at all.
I assume that is why she was found to be 60% at fault. I know that people often say "he came out of nowhere" in relation to other cars, pedestrians, cyclists. But, nobody ever comes out of nowhere, they come from where they were and into the path of the car.

So, was she displaying due care and attention passing a house with people on the other side of the road, that she in fact didn't even see the boy, never mind not have time to react?

Apparently she had a grand total of 1.75 seconds to react, meanwhile she was probably keeping an eye on the out-of-towners who were on the other side of the road, looking at cattle.

So here we have a driver, who was not speeding, with 1.75 seconds to see everything and react, and she is declared to be mostly liable, but what about the person who was supposed to be looking after the child? Why is their liability so diminished?

Probably because of insurance. And that is very unfair on the driver of the car, because she now has to live with the repercussions of what may be a matter of convenience.

TheChizler wrote: »

Presuming he's a ward of court as well, any expense out of the ordinary will require approval.

No idea why you're presuming that, there's no suggestion of it and no reason to believe it. The boy is living in Belgium, presumably with his parents.

Keane2baMused · 27-07-2016 11:59AM

frozenfrozen wrote: »

I'm sure if you read the article you'd see he wants to ride horses. I was saying he would have money to ride horses with 1900 a week. Not every word in a post has to be picked to bits as if there's some subtext.

I was plainly saying, 5 million euro sounds like a lot. (it does, especially considering it's arguably not the drivers fault)

next point, from his perspective, he will get to ride a lot of horses for 1900 a week, so you know, he won't be wanting for money anyway after that payout, so it's worked out grand for him.

I don't see what there is to get upset about

In 20 years 5 million will probably be a drop in the ocean.

This boy will need lifelong care as a result of the accident.

You keep banging on about the horses. Horse therapy is actually a thing!! It can help increase a persons quality of life.

Pro Hoc Vice · 27-07-2016 12:03PM

scdublin wrote: »

I don't think it's fair that the higher percentage of blame should be placed with the driver solely because they're insured and will pay out the money through them. Obviously we don't know if that was the case with this incident, but if it was it wouldn't sit well with me.

Like someone mentioned, the driver having that blame placed upon them is also life changing (no, not as life changing as the child, I know). And I agree that with such little time to react and driving within the speed limit, their fault should not have been at 60%.

The decision on blame is made by the judge with the assistance of expert evidence provided by people who would have visited the location. A momentary loss of concentration may have been enough. The driver may have been driving too fast in all the circumstances. But the judge does not decide without evidence.

TheChizler · 27-07-2016 12:16PM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Not disputing the need for the award but that the parents were solely to blame. As the courts awarded 5 million as 60% driver blame, does that mean the parents have to cough up 4 million for the other 40%? Somehow I think not.

Well yes considering they'll have to come up with any shortfall not covered by allowances and the HSE, then yes, essentially.

TheChizler · 27-07-2016 12:23PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

TheChizler wrote: »

Presuming he's a ward of court as well, any expense out of the ordinary will require approval.

No idea why you're presuming that, there's no suggestion of it and no reason to believe it. The boy is living in Belgium, presumably with his parents.

I presume it because it's typical in cases like this. The parent's don't just get handed a cheque for 5 million. Living in Belgium would probably complicate it though.

http://www.courts.ie/offices.nsf/0/19111E254B2EF547802573D2006CCF26?OpenDocument

Lovely Bloke · 27-07-2016 12:25PM

seamus wrote: »

You must drive at a speed that allows you to stop within the distance you can see to be clear. Where there is an entrance to a field or a property, the distance you can see to be clear ends before that entrance.

Every driver should assume that a vehicle, animal or human could emerge from an entrance at the side of the road at any given time and drive at an appropriate speed past it. If that means crawling at 30kph or less down some country roads, so be it.

there should be 30kph limits at those points then, and not have drivers expected to second guess clear national road speed limits.

Every driver should assume that parents are going allow their children to run around unattended all over the place and just drive at 20kph everywhere they go is the logical path you are going down.

A friend of mine killed a man who walked out from between parked vans on a busy Dublin CC street ten years ago. He was driving within the prescribed limit, and was (and still is) a professional driver. He was (and still is) a safe driver, but circumstances beyond his control meant a person ended up dead.

He was found to be not liable, because he wasn't liable. That man is dead because he couldn't look after himself.

that young boy is incapacitated because his parents were not looking after him correctly.

Who the hell leaves a five year old to walk out onto any road?

lazybones32 · 27-07-2016 12:31PM

I've no issue with the amount of money awarded. 5 million is a lot but it's no substitute for health. Besides, there is no guarantee there will be no future complications or degenerative issues.

My issue is with the finding against the driver: she was obeying the rules of the road and the child ran out onto the road and she is still 'guilty'? No matter how careful a driver one is, you still are responsible if someone else fcuks up by running in to you on the road.

seamus · 27-07-2016 12:37PM

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

there should be 30kph limits at those points then, and not have drivers expected to second guess clear national road speed limits.

Ah yes, the convenient, "I was doing the speed limit" defence.

Every driver should assume that parents are going allow their children to run around unattended all over the place and just drive at 20kph everywhere they go is the logical path you are going down.

Perhaps. Ultimately the vehicle creates the danger. No vehicle, no danger. So the person driving the vehicle is the one creating the danger for everyone around them and has the least to lose in a collision.
So 90% of the responsibility for the safety of people around the vehicle should automatically rest on the driver.

The attitude of drivers having a right to be on the roads and drive at a decent speed has been going on for too long. People need to understand that neither of those rights exist and public safety is their only priority when driving.

You are not driving anywhere that's more important than someone else's life.

Pro Hoc Vice · 27-07-2016 12:39PM

lazybones32 wrote: »

I've no issue with the amount of money awarded. 5 million is a lot but it's no substitute for health. Besides, there is no guarantee there will be no future complications or degenerative issues.

My issue is with the finding against the driver: she was obeying the rules of the road and the child ran out onto the road and she is still 'guilty'? No matter how careful a driver one is, you still are responsible if someone else fcuks up by running in to you on the road.

It seems the matter was a settlement "Approving the settlement, Mr Justice Kevin Cross said he determined the case as 60% liability against the driver."

It is either bad reporting as I am not aware of a settlement where liability is decided by the judge. Unless the settlement had also agreed liability as between the plaintiff and defendant.

ohnonotgmail · 27-07-2016 12:41PM

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

there should be 30kph limits at those points then, and not have drivers expected to second guess clear national road speed limits.

Every driver should assume that parents are going allow their children to run around unattended all over the place and just drive at 20kph everywhere they go is the logical path you are going down.

A friend of mine killed a man who walked out from between parked vans on a busy Dublin CC street ten years ago. He was driving within the prescribed limit, and was (and still is) a professional driver. He was (and still is) a safe driver, but circumstances beyond his control meant a person ended up dead.

He was found to be not liable, because he wasn't liable. That man is dead because he couldn't look after himself.

that young boy is incapacitated because his parents were not looking after him correctly.

Who the hell leaves a five year old to walk out onto any road?

A driver should be driving at a speed that is appropriate to the conditions. if the road is wet you would not drive at the speed limit. if their pedestrians near the road you would not drive at the speed limit. you should have enough awareness to spot a possible danger in advance and drive appropriately.

9de5q7tsr8u2im · 27-07-2016 12:43PM

scdublin wrote: »

Am I the only person who finds it surprising that there was such a large settlement in this case?

Also, people went crazy at the parents of the kid who got into that gorilla enclosure a while back or at the parents of the kid who was taken by the alligator in Florida - should more of the responsibility and "blame" lie on the adults who were meant to be watching him?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0726/805008-mitchelstown-settlement/

Theres a reason why a large settlement was agreed, a severe brain injury has affected the young fellas dont be criticizing to those who are in need, money really does take over peoples lives sometimes like yourself boyeeen

27-07-2016 12:47PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Conor we know you're a legal eagle but this is a discussion forum not a law lecture. People just want to discuss it without being patronized all the time.

It is a fact that in this case blame was allocated. Not in the monkey example from some other country. It is a useless comparison.

Was pointing that out really patronising?

duffman3833 · 27-07-2016 12:48PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

A driver should be driving at a speed that is appropriate to the conditions. if the road is wet you would not drive at the speed limit. if their pedestrians near the road you would not drive at the speed limit. you should have enough awareness to spot a possible danger in advance and drive appropriately.

even if the driver was driving as you describe, there is still no chance the driver could do much, even driving at half the speed the driver was doing. The driver didn't even see the child because he was running out from the side and struck the mirror, which wasn't the front of car where driver was actually looking

PowerToWait · 27-07-2016 12:49PM

frozenfrozen wrote: »

it's worked out grand for him.

I don't see what there is to get upset about

He's a child. He has sustained irreversible damage to his brain. He will not have a 'normal' life and is dependent on the care of others, which will need to be paid for.

It has in me hoop 'worked out grand for him'.

I'm always bemused by how much others are aggrieved by a stranger's money. Even more in this context.

I'm sure he'd swap it with you for his uninjured brain. Well, maybe not you.

scdublin · 27-07-2016 12:50PM

Belen Crashing Mermaid wrote: »

scdublin wrote: »

Am I the only person who finds it surprising that there was such a large settlement in this case?

Also, people went crazy at the parents of the kid who got into that gorilla enclosure a while back or at the parents of the kid who was taken by the alligator in Florida - should more of the responsibility and "blame" lie on the adults who were meant to be watching him?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0726/805008-mitchelstown-settlement/

Theres a reason why a large settlement was agreed, a severe brain injury has affected the young fellas dont be criticizing to those who are in need, money really does take over peoples lives sometimes like yourself boyeeen

How have I been critical to those in need? I merely stated I was shocked at the amount given and shocked that they placed 60% liability on the driver.

FalconGirl · 27-07-2016 12:50PM

Are cases like this why my insurance premium is gone from €800 to €1300 with no claims?

Genuinely curious.

namloc1980 · 27-07-2016 12:52PM

Counsel said his side would have contended the driver should have seen the others at the other side of the road as they stood at a gate looking at cows in a field and this should have alerted her.

So pedestrians on one side of the road is an automatic indication that a 5 year old is going to run from the other side. Counsel is talking bollox and seeking to absolve the parents of all blame for not watching their child.

Boy awarded €5m after being struck by car

Comments