Buncrana pier victims family being sued

26-03-2018 05:25PM

the_pen_turner wrote: »

never underestemate how stupid someone can be

iamwhoiam · 26-03-2018 05:27PM

Aegir wrote: »

it was essentially the result of a car accident, so the car insurance would be the ones getting sued, not the actual family.

Wow . I didn't know a bystander could sue for being upset after a crash.
My first thought would be that I was very lucky to be able to help .

Thepoet85 · 26-03-2018 05:29PM

Gut wrenching read. I don't know what to think.

Conor Bourke · 26-03-2018 05:31PM

garbo speaks wrote: »

...and this **** is a nurse?

I didn’t see anywhere in the article that says she is a nurse. She’s described as a cardiac physiologist (whatever the fook that is) No record of a Stephanie Knox registered with the UK NMC or the NMBI.

Graces7 wrote: »

She is a NURSE. Surely able to cope?

Not condoning her actions for one moment, but nurses are human too, the trauma she and Davitt Walsh witnessed was horrific, anyone would struggle and I am sure all of the EMS involved were offered support/debriefing in the aftermath. Regardless of her profession however, the decision to sue the family is disgraceful.

biko · 26-03-2018 05:31PM

What an odd thing to do. What loss of earnings?
I feel there is more to this than meets the eye.

Nermal · 26-03-2018 05:33PM

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Someone has been very badly advised by an ambulance chaser and will regret this.

Why? I'm sure the woman who got €20,000 when she hit her knee sitting down at a table restaurant doesn't. Not the one who got €40,000 for slipping on a chip in a food court. Very few people regret visiting the four goldmines these days. Our judiciary are out of control, so you may as well roll the dice.

cantdecide · 26-03-2018 05:33PM

maxsmum wrote: »

Is this her?
https://stephsscoliosisjourney.wordpress.com/page/2/

I don't know for sure if it is or isn't but I'm sure anyone who feels like creating a blog to document their brave journey through.... scoliosis.... and expects other people to read is definitely NOT a complete narcissist.

iamwhoiam · 26-03-2018 05:37PM

Cornelius Crow wrote: »

I didn’t see anywhere in the article that says she is a nurse. She’s described as a cardiac physiologist (whatever the fook that is) No record of a Stephanie Knox registered with the UK NMC or the NMBI.

Not condoning her actions for one moment, but nurses are human too, the trauma she and Davitt Walsh witnessed was horrific, anyone would struggle and I am sure all of the EMS involved were offered support/debriefing in the aftermath. Regardless of her profession however, the decision to sue the family is disgraceful.

Nurses and medics and ambulance people are human of course . But they are better able to cope because of their profession . I once came across a horrible accident and till this day am so proud I could help . I came home and cried and shook and was terribly upset . At no stage would it enter my head to make it about me or burden a family even more
My god I am stunned that anyone would do that

Lucas Hood · 26-03-2018 05:41PM

I once saw someone get run over by oil tanker when I was a kid.

Can I now sue the the driver?

What a <snip>

the purple tin · 26-03-2018 05:44PM

Lucas Hood wrote: »

I once saw someone get run over by oil tanker when I was a kid.

Can I now sue the the driver?

What <snip>.

You suing the victims next of kin would be a more accurate comparison.

Spanish Eyes · 26-03-2018 05:45PM

Personally I think there is a rush to judgment here on the thread. We have little information as to the woman's reasons for taking action.

Anyway it is NOT against the family at all, it is against the car insurer. The family does not need to be involved in any way. This action will probably be the first of many in this case. Who knows?

It also reminds me of the case of Mark Pollock. He sued his very best friends for a fall out of their window. Well he sued their public liability insurers. Some thought it was quite cruel of him to sue his best friends like that. But it was their insurers, not them personally. He suffered devastating injuries but made sure that the payout was at the cap of his friends liability under the insurance policy and they had no legal costs to pay either.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0730/718165-mark-pollock-case/

That is what insurance is for.

cantdecide · 26-03-2018 05:46PM

Lucas Hood wrote: »

I once saw someone get run over by oil tanker when I was a kid.

Can I now sue the the driver?

What <snip>

Don't be daft. Sue the family of the victim.

iamwhoiam · 26-03-2018 05:47PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Personally I think there is a rush to judgment here on the thread. We have little information as to the woman's reasons for taking action.

Anyway it is NOT against the family at all, it is against the car insurer. The family does not need to be involved in any way. This action will probably be the first of many in this case. Who knows?

It also reminds me of the case of Mark Pollock. He sued his very best friends for a fall out of their window. Well he sued their public liability insurers. Some thought it was quite cruel of him to sue his best friends like that. But it was their insurers, not them personally. He suffered devastating injuries but made sure that the payout was at the cap of his friends liability under the insurance policy and they had no legal costs to pay either.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0730/718165-mark-pollock-case/

That is what insurance is for.

Bit of a difference with having catastrophic injuries and being upset or traumatised in my opinion

myshirt · 26-03-2018 05:49PM

The tort of outrage?

Is that what she is at?

This is sabre rattling at its worst.

yabadabado · 26-03-2018 05:52PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Personally I think there is a rush to judgment here on the thread. We have little information as to the woman's reasons for taking action.

Anyway it is NOT against the family at all, it is against the car insurer. The family does not need to be involved in any way. This action will probably be the first of many in this case. Who knows?

It also reminds me of the case of Mark Pollock. He sued his very best friends for a fall out of their window. Well he sued their public liability insurers. Some thought it was quite cruel of him to sue his best friends like that. But it was their insurers, not them personally. He suffered devastating injuries but made sure that the payout was at the cap of his friends liability under the insurance policy and they had no legal costs to pay either.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0730/718165-mark-pollock-case/

That is what insurance is for.

A huge difference between the two cases.

Spanish Eyes · 26-03-2018 05:52PM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Bit of a difference with having catastrophic injuries and being upset or traumatised in my opinion

No, we do not know what trauma the person suffered AT ALL. Although I take your point that Mark Pollocks injuries were visible and life limiting.

Anyone can sue anyone. We have all seen some fairly trivial shyte cases that are awarded thousands, happens every day. It is up to the insurers to fight the cases that they deem to be ridiculous or fraudulent. But most settle on the steps and on it goes.

The woman in question is suing the insurers not the family. Whether she succeeds or not is another matter.

I suspect there will be many more claims associated with this case, in time.

backspin. · 26-03-2018 05:53PM

Even if she backs out of sueing the damage is done to even think of it. The money grabbing mare.

eviltwin · 26-03-2018 05:54PM

I ended up in counselling for a while after arriving at the scene of a car crash. The victim was quite young and it was a very graphic scene and really horrible. It would never enter my head to sue anyone, it was an accident and all involved have suffered enough. I can't believe anyone would even consider this let alone actually do it.

Del2005 · 26-03-2018 05:57PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Personally I think there is a rush to judgment here on the thread. We have little information as to the woman's reasons for taking action.

Anyway it is NOT against the family at all, it is against the car insurer. The family does not need to be involved in any way. This action will probably be the first of many in this case. Who knows?

It also reminds me of the case of Mark Pollock. He sued his very best friends for a fall out of their window. Well he sued their public liability insurers. Some thought it was quite cruel of him to sue his best friends like that. But it was their insurers, not them personally. He suffered devastating injuries but made sure that the payout was at the cap of his friends liability under the insurance policy and they had no legal costs to pay either.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0730/718165-mark-pollock-case/

That is what insurance is for.

That's not what insurance is for. It's just become what it's become with our out of touch judiciary.

And worse it's anyone who pays insurance who is going to pay for yet another BS claim.

Spanish Eyes · 26-03-2018 05:58PM

Del2005 wrote: »

That's not what insurance is for. It's just become what it's become with our out of touch judiciary.

And worse it's anyone who pays insurance who is going to pay for yet another BS claim.

Well what is insurance for then?

Kristopherus · 26-03-2018 06:00PM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Wow . I didn't know a bystander could sue for being upset after a crash.
My first thought would be that I was very lucky to be able to help .

OK, But would you be affected watching 5 people drown mere feet away from you?

Dregro · 26-03-2018 06:01PM

MOD - you can take that attitude elsewhere - consider this a warning

AndyBoBandy

the_pen_turner · 26-03-2018 06:02PM

Kristopherus wrote: »

OK, But would you be affected watching 5 people drown mere feet away from you?

she probably also saw them scrambling to escape

Corruptedmorals · 26-03-2018 06:07PM

I'm fairly sure her job is carrying out ECGs and other cardiac tests in a hospital's cardiology department. If she does this for A&E patients she would see considerable trauma regularly. Not a nurse, but a lot of hands-on care of patients.

I can't understand the mindset of the person who would do this and the solicitor who would accept it. No decency.

SEPT 23 1989 · 26-03-2018 06:08PM

I suppose having to change her name and emigration will be worth it?

<snip> behaviour altogether

cantdecide · 26-03-2018 06:09PM

the_pen_turner wrote: »

she probably also saw them scrambling to escape

Her [very real] misery and hardship is not a drop in the ocean compared to the suffering of the family. What could she possibly gain or regain from this that wouldn't come at greater cost to a family that have suffered so much as it is.

Things happen in life that change us. We don't get to sue for it, especially when the subject of proceedings have lost so much more than us. It wouldn't even occur to most people.

Trigger Happy · 26-03-2018 06:11PM

Kristopherus wrote: »

OK, But would you be affected watching 5 people drown mere feet away from you?

But is that cause to sue? Surely then anyone in new york on 9/11 would be suing left right and centre because of what they saw...

26-03-2018 06:11PM

Can't imagine she'll have m/any friends now.

Just outed herself as an extremely selfish, low, person. Who would want to associate with her.

Yakult · 26-03-2018 06:16PM

Hold on, it was the then boyfriend who went into the water and retrieved the baby.

She just stood there and held the baby until emergency services arrived!!

WTF is wrong with this world?
Throw this **** and her into a bin please and let the family move on.

Yakult · 26-03-2018 06:17PM

the_pen_turner wrote: »

she probably also saw them scrambling to escape

She didn't see ****. It wasn't her who went into the water to rescue the child. :rolleyes:

Buncrana pier victims family being sued

Comments