nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Another Chancer with an Insurance Claim

dmc17

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/schoolboy-15-injured-after-cycling-wrong-way-on-roundabout-loses-60k-damages-claim-35576221.html

Seems you can take an insurance claim for just about anything these days without standing to lose anything, while still having the chance to win a nice hefty sum, compliments of those paying insurance. Like gambling, minus the risk.

This gob****e cycles around a roundabout the wrong way, without a helmet, hits a stationary jeep, receives a few injuries from which he's fully recovered after 8 weeks, and yet he decides he's entitled to sue the driver of the jeep for 60 thousand Euros.

Surely we need some sort of deterrent against these claims. I know there have been numerous threads on such cases before but every time I read the paper there's another ridiculous claim or award.

He should have been made pay for the damage he caused to this mans jeep, not given the opportunity to sue him.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Atlantic Dawn

So who pays for the costs this of the case, the person who made the idiotic decision to sue, the insurer or the taxpayer, probably €10k plus worth...

Judge Linnane said she would make no order for costs against Mr McCarthy save in the event of an appeal, in which case costs would apply.

Gatling

Reminds me of the lad who rode a horse into the side of a Dublin bus and received a fairly large claim

yosser hughes

One thing about all these reports in the papers lately. It never mentions the solicitors name that is bringing the case, only the defending legal team.
Does anyone know why? Is this just another cosy, unwritten rule of official Ireland where the media are too cosy with certain professions?
Or is there a perfectly reasonable explanation?

amcalester

the cycle lane was bi-directional so he was going the right way. That has since been changed, wonder why.

60k is the limit for personal injury claims in that court as well.

The badly designed road layout is most at fault here.

Still an absurd claim but no need for the pitchforks just yet.

Harry Palmr

Jailing people who make obviously spurious claims for self inflicted RTAs cannot happen quickly enough.

yosser hughes

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

So who pays for the costs this of the case, the person who made the idiotic decision to sue, the insurer or the taxpayer, probably €10k plus worth...

Taxpayer? Can you get legal aid for this? Can his solicitor claim from some fund if he doesn't get paid?

alchemist33

amcalester wrote: »

the cycle lane was bi-directional so he was going the right way. That has since been changed, wonder why.

60k is the limit for personal injury claims in that court as well.

The badly designed road layout is most at fault here.

Still an absurd claim but no need for the pitchforks just yet.

He crashed into a stationary car and then had the cheek to sue the victim. Pitchforks aren't good enough

Samuel T. Cogley

The road was used in both directions, the case was lost by the plaintiff, he still pays his side. Perfectly reasonable outcome given the circumstances. The Judge even went as far as to head off an appeal.

Barry Badrinath

Little bollox.

He should have kept his stabilisers on.

amcalester

alchemist33 wrote: »

He crashed into a stationary car and then had the cheek to sue the victim. Pitchforks aren't good enough

The kid was 15 (maybe a little older) when the claim was initiated, its the dad who deserves the pitchforks.

Atlantic Dawn

Lol, he seems a little upset over it...

msemail_glenn_mccarthy3jpg-js312378086.jpg?strip=all&w=859&quality=100

https://www.thesun.ie/news/794297/meath-teen-injured-in-jeep-collision-cycling-wrong-way-around-roundabout-loses-e60k-damages-claim/

Gatling

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Lol, he seems a little upset over it...

https://www.thesun.ie/news/794297/meath-teen-injured-in-jeep-collision-cycling-wrong-way-around-roundabout-loses-e60k-damages-claim/

He shouldn't have picked his nose like that ,

Young people have no manners

alchemist33

amcalester wrote: »

The kid was 15 (maybe a little older) when the claim was initiated, its the dad who deserves the pitchforks.

Well, maybe something less pointy but still a little painful

JayRoc

To be fair, the case isn't quite as silly as it seems upon closer inspection but it still probably shouldn't have got to court. The cycle lane design around that roundabout seems to have been absolutely bonkers, as is often the case, and it also included a contraflow lane unless I'm mistaken which means he wasn't going "the wrong way".

Still daft though. Should have taken his licks and learned to be more careful.

I do take exception to the idea that crashing into a stopped car means it's automatically your fault. If a car pulled out in front of you, and you hit it, someone could say you crashed into a stopped car.

And the repeated mention of helmets is infuriating ... Cyclists are no more required to wear helmets than drivers. And drivers would benefit from them more, this is indisputable.
Yet no one would dream of asking why a driver who was injured in a crash wasn't wearing a helmet.

punisher5112

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Lol, he seems a little upset over it...

https://www.thesun.ie/news/794297/meath-teen-injured-in-jeep-collision-cycling-wrong-way-around-roundabout-loses-e60k-damages-claim/

Be a shame if he fell and broke that little finger ;-)

Gatling

JayRoc wrote: »

To be fair, the case isn't quite as silly as it seems upon closer inspection .

And the repeated mention of helmets is infuriating though. Cyclists are no more required to wear helmets than drivers. And drivers would benefit from them more, this is indisputable.
Yet no one would dream of asking why a driver who was injured in a crash wasn't wearing a helmet.

Might have something to do with a seat , seatbelt ,airbag and safety cell .
Vs nothing

PrettyBoy

It's good to see some common fucking sense finally prevailing in the courts.

Samuel T. Cogley

Gatling wrote: »

Might have something to do with a seat , seatbelt ,airbag and safety cell .
Vs nothing

Compo Culture, Cycling if we could only Get Nolan involved in this we'd have the AH Trifecta!

punisher5112

Can I sue the lovely guy for nightmares as all I see is 1. his face and 2. His horrendous finger I can't see anything but them.......

yosser hughes

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Compo Culture, Cycling if we could only Get Nolan involved in this we'd have the AH Trifecta!

Do you happen to know why plaintiff's solicitors names are not mentioned in press reports? Only the defence solicitor's names are mentioned.

Allinall

JayRoc wrote: »

To be fair, the case isn't quite as silly as it seems upon closer inspection but it still probably shouldn't have got to court. The cycle lane design around that roundabout seems to have been absolutely bonkers, as is often the case, and it also included a contraflow lane unless I'm mistaken which means he wasn't going "the wrong way".

Still daft though. Should have taken his licks and learned to be more careful.

I do take exception to the idea that crashing into a stopped car means it's automatically your fault. If a car pulled out in front of you, and you hit it, someone could say you crashed into a stopped car.

And the repeated mention of helmets is infuriating ... Cyclists are no more required to wear helmets than drivers. And drivers would benefit from them more, this is indisputable.
Yet no one would dream of asking why a driver who was injured in a crash wasn't wearing a helmet.

If you cycle into a big f**king lump of metal weighing 1.5 tonnes that is stationary, then you are absolutely 100% at fault.

How could a car "pulling out" in front of you be stopped?

Samuel T. Cogley

yosser hughes wrote: »

Do you happen to know why plaintiff's solicitors names are not mentioned in press reports? Only the defence solicitor's names are mentioned.

No idea I'm afraid. I suspect it's not at the request of the solicitors I'm sure they'd be delighted with the publicity. If the case is lost perhaps they wouldn't want to be named perhaps but in winning cases? To be fair though it's barristers that contest these cases although the solicitor picks them.

Edit: if you ask in LD you'll get an aswer it's an intresting one, just did some googling and you seem to be right. Plaintiff's legal team not named.

biko

It's probably society's fault somehow.

JayRoc

Allinall wrote: »

If you cycle into a big f**king lump of metal weighing 1.5 tonnes that is stationary, then you are absolutely 100% at fault.

How could a car "pulling out" in front of you be stopped?

Maybe I wasn't clear. Anyone who cycles has probably encountered the phenomenon of cars doing all kinds of things in your path that may cause you to collide with them. Turning, stopping, turning then stopping...

If you were driving along and a car pulled out in front of you, saw you too late, jammed on the brakes and you hit him, why would you be at fault? This is hardly unheard of.

Happens to the Luas all the time.

Anyway, I'm in no way saying that this wasn't the cyclists fault. Seems fairly clear it shouldn't have got to court

punisher5112

Generation of snowflakes.

50 years ago people could walk through walls and 50 years from now they will have to be transported around in bubbles.

cruizer101

Ridiculous that he doesn't have to pay costs, who is going to pay them, the defendants insurance who will then load his policy with a claim when he is completely innocent. Its crap like this that increases everyone's insurance.

The_Valeyard

punisher5112 wrote: »

Generation of snowflakes.

50 years ago people could walk through walls and 50 years from now they will have to be transported around in bubbles.

Well.....if there's bubbles involved....

yosser hughes

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

No idea I'm afraid. I suspect it's not at the request of the solicitors I'm sure they'd be delighted with the publicity. If the case is lost perhaps they wouldn't want to be named perhaps but in winning cases? To be fair though it's barristers that contest these cases although the solicitor picks them.

Yes, I know it's the barristers that contest and they are in turn engaged by the solicitors, however the defence barrister and solicitor's names are always mentioned.
I don't think the solicitors can request not to be mentioned, it seems like a pattern of omission in court reporting, like it's some kind of unwritten rule?

SEPT 23 1989

punisher5112 wrote: »

Generation of snowflakes.

50 years ago people could walk through walls and 50 years from now they will have to be transported around in bubbles.

When I was a teenager you would have got a clatter off the driver for making a nuisance of yourself

Kivaro

Meanwhile, injury claims 'clustered' around certain towns and solicitors.
From Today's Independent:

A small number of legal firms are responsible for a huge number of personal injuries actions, the Law Society has been warned. There are fears that an unusually high number of spurious claims are clustered around a small number of towns, where certain legal firms are based.

So these chancers are aided by chancer solicitors.
But this is Ireland, and they are allowed to get away with it.