Fair play to that judge

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 05-04-2017 10:29AM

Deleted User wrote: »

First of all, the claim wasn't for 38k. It was up to 38k, because that was the old Circuit Court jurisdiction and that's where the case was on.

Secondly, the case was not thrown out because of "greed" or anything. There is no suggestion that the claim was "inflated" at all. The 7 years is because the injured party is a child and the Statute of Limitations extends a lot longer. The claim was thrown out, as many of these are, because kids have accidents in schoolyards.

Report clearly states that the claim was for 38k. Admittedly, the Indo, so....

I can agree with the Statue of Limitations, you can't seriously apply it to a case of a broken arm and seven years late. Seven years after a broken arm, you're recovered and are fine, or there's a recurring problem you're aware of for the entire time.

While the case may not have been thrown out due to greed, it was most certainly the motivation for bringing it to court in the first place.

05-04-2017 10:30AM

ederkeh wrote: »

But it was greedy for the mother to take the case at all

You do know the mother doesn't get a cent?

I can think of few things less greedy than giving one's time and energy to see that another person gets a payout.

Mr McBoatface · 05-04-2017 10:32AM

School Pupil insurance can be bought for between 6 and 10 euro per child annually. Available to every child in the country. Covers accident/hospital costs for activities in school and for a couple euro more activities outside of school.

There was no need for this case. Cost should be awarded against her

05-04-2017 10:33AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I can agree with the Statue of Limitations, you can't seriously apply it to a case of a broken arm and seven years late. Seven years after a broken arm, you're recovered and are fine, or there's a recurring problem you're aware of for the entire time.

While the case may not have been thrown out due to greed, it was most certainly the motivation for bringing it to court in the first place.

You can and you do see such cases all the time. Do you think that the Statute should be amended to expire while the victim is still a minor?

If you think the child was greedy, fair enough. As explained above, the mother gets nothing.

ederkeh · 05-04-2017 10:38AM

Deleted User wrote: »

You do know the mother doesn't get a cent?

I can think of few things less greedy than giving one's time and energy to see that another person gets a payout.

That's not exactly a selfless act now!
She doesn't get the money, but I think it still applies she can be greedy on behalf of her child. Wants her to get money for falling, its ridiculous.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 05-04-2017 11:28AM

Deleted User wrote: »

You can and you do see such cases all the time. Do you think that the Statute should be amended to expire while the victim is still a minor?

Answered.

If you think the child was greedy, fair enough. As explained above, the mother gets nothing.

It was the mother who brought the case, and if you think the mother gets nothing, you're being niave. Even if she has to wait until the child is 18.

If it was out of genuine concern, then why the seven-year wait? Why doesn't every parent of an injured child bring such cases to court?

Dravokivich · 05-04-2017 11:32AM

K.Flyer wrote: »

It clearly says in the O.P.'s link to the news item that she broke her arm.

Easy tiger. So I missed 4 words in an article that just kept saying "injured" throughout.

topper75 · 05-04-2017 12:22PM

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

them Judges will be out foxhunting in weekend blowing their Trumpets .

I'm pretty sure the F in foxhunting and W in weekend should have initial caps in the sentence.

Then again - I learn All My English in Russia.

Children's right to run and play Chase games in schoolyard is Paramount, current Generation and countless Generations to come.

Parchment · 05-04-2017 12:27PM

That woman has no shame. Delighted the judge shut her down.

keano_afc · 05-04-2017 12:29PM

Decisions like this and the hill walker that fell are too rare unfortunately. They're counterbalanced by leeches like table leg woman and that skidmark who's afraid of lifts.

05-04-2017 12:30PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It was the mother who brought the case, and if you think the mother gets nothing, you're being niave. Even if she has to wait until the child is 18.

If it was out of genuine concern, then why the seven-year wait? Why doesn't every parent of an injured child bring such cases to court?

Because you're entitled to wait.

I'm not sure why you are making an issue out of something that was not commented on by the Judge and there is no reference to it being pleaded by the Defence? In fact what seems clear is that the proceedings issued before the Circuit Court jurisdiction went up. The Defence may have dragged their feet, you and I have no idea.

As for my naivety, the Court Rules are clear. The mother doesn't get the money. If you think the child and she have some understanding as to what will happen when she turns 18, fair enough. I think that is guesswork and speculation plucked out of thin air to support your guesswork and speculation about their motives, rather than naivety by me. We'll just have to agree to differ.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 05-04-2017 12:35PM

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

So are you tell me no Child has never been pushed by other child in school play yard?. Hit his/her head off the ground/wall received brain damage Injury?.

What if the a seagull shat in the childs eyes and he became blind. What if? "What if" is nonsense.

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

Mother and her child should appeal her case to the higher courts for Justice. for Injured/hurt child .

Can you give more details on why you think there should be a payment made to the mother/daughter?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 05-04-2017 12:37PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Because you're entitled to wait.

It's not about entitlement, it's about honesty. Genuine claims are made when the issue arises.

I'm not sure why you are making an issue out of something that was not commented on by the Judge and there is no reference to it being pleaded by the Defence? In fact what seems clear is that the proceedings issued before the Circuit Court jurisdiction went up. The Defence may have dragged their feet, you and I have no idea.

Oh come on! You don't drag your feet if you've genuinely been wronged and genuinely need the compensation money.

As for my naivety, the Court Rules are clear. The mother doesn't get the money. If you think the child and she have some understanding as to what will happen when she turns 18, fair enough. I think that is guesswork and speculation plucked out of thin air to support your guesswork and speculation about their motives, rather than naivety by me. We'll just have to agree to differ.

The alternative is to believe that the child turend around at some point and said, "Mum - we should sue and get some money for that arm I broke years ago!" and the mother didn't say, "no, we shouldn't. That's dishonest and greedy."

everlast75 · 05-04-2017 12:46PM

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

them Judges will be out foxhunting in weekend blowing their Trumpets .

I don't think they are the ones blowing their own trumpets, but do carry on...

hullaballoo · 05-04-2017 02:06PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Report clearly states that the claim was for 38k. Admittedly, the Indo, so....

To clarify this point; I've had a bit of a rant about how the papers report Circuit Court claims in the past.

For their own reasons, newspapers have elected to report every claim in the Circuit Court jurisdiction as being one for the upper limit of the jurisdiction. Previously, this was â‚¬38,000 and it has recently gone up to â‚¬60,000 for personal injuries claims.

These claims are never "claims for â‚¬x amount" - they are claims that are brought in the Circuit Court because the lawyers have estimated that the injury will attract compensation within the jurisdiction. So, if I estimate an injury is in the range â‚¬18,000-â‚¬20,000, I go to the Circuit Court because the Circuit Court deals with claims within that range.

Only in very exceptional cases does it become public what amount of money the plaintiff is actually claiming for. In most cases, the lawyer's valuation is kept between them and their client - the judge certainly doesn't know anything about it. The defendant probably has some idea what value the plaintiff has in mind for their case, but again, they never disclose that publicly.

I don't know why the newspapers report Circuit Court claims in this way. The High Court has unlimited jurisdiction but you don't see the newspapers report that plaintiffs in the High Court are seeking infinite compensation.

Fair play to that judge

Comments