Another ridiculous injury claim

Cee-Jay-Cee · 30-10-2018 04:31PM #1

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/injured-toddler-settles-10k-action-after-ambulance-rolled-backwards-into-tree-37474629.html

€10k for child who suffered no injuries but was nervous of ambulance sirens following an incident where the ambulance in which she was being treated in (and no doubt was lying down on the gurney/bed) rolled back and bumped into a tree.

If the child had been injured then fair enough but to claim the child now becomes nervous if she hears an ambulance siren is downright ridiculous. Will the parents also now sue the gardai and fire service for frightening their child with their sirens???

The judge yet again displays their complete detachment from reality. First of all the ambulance was stopped while they awaited a doctor (to obviously attend to the sick child) Secondly, as it was stopped the siren would not have been going and lastly, if the child was so ill that they needed to stop in order for a doctor to attend to the child then I think it would be safe to say that the 2yr old child didn't even realise the ambulance had rolled back and bumped into a tree.

Hopefully the €10k will be put into trust for the child when they reach the age of 18yrs old so that the childs greedy and deceitful parents don't benefit from it any time soon.

suicide_circus · 30-10-2018 04:33PM

be grateful it wasn't €10 million

topper75 · 30-10-2018 04:43PM

I can hardly read stories like this anymore. Too depressing.
There is actually no end to this immorality. Too many vested interests.
Another day in the arena here for me. Must just keep my head down and pay my dues.

ELM327 · 30-10-2018 04:45PM

Can I have €50k for how much suffering and distress reading about these ridiculous payouts have caused me?

Faith+1 · 30-10-2018 04:46PM

ELM327 wrote: »

Can I have €50k for how much suffering and distress reading about these ridiculous payouts have caused me?

We'll make it 100k

D3V!L · 30-10-2018 04:46PM

Its going to be used for thermal insulation to stop the child from melting.

Fr_Dougal · 30-10-2018 04:51PM

ELM327 wrote: »

Can I have €50k for how much suffering and distress reading about these ridiculous payouts have caused me?

Now I’m nervous because I feel that it’s something I should be worried about.

I’ll settle for €25k

PLOPS · 30-10-2018 04:52PM

One time i got a lump of glass in my eye as a waitress had dropped a tray of drinks and a shard went into my eye. Had to go straight to the eye and ear, my eye has been sliced to the side of my pupil. My whole eye filled with blood. No lasting damage though. Went to a solicitor and they recommended that i don't bring a case. Since then, every time i hear a case with a big payout for a stupid reason i wonder why i was advised to not proceed with a case.

Keyzer · 30-10-2018 04:54PM

This BS boils my p!ss.

Why is the first thing that comes into the parents heads "lets claim". Absolute joke. And the judge, should have fúcked this out the window.

Sh!t happens, people make mistakes. How can a 16 month old be nervous from such an incident? My 6 year doesn't like to sleep with the light off.

DrumSteve · 30-10-2018 04:55PM

So it rolled back into a tree? That 10 grand is to cover whoever left the handbrake off.

gctest50 · 30-10-2018 05:14PM

It should come out of the drivers wages

Sabre0001 · 30-10-2018 05:22PM

Geez, if the bank incident had happened to the Rubberbandits today, they'd make a fortune!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8OrE_wVU_4

On a serious note, who could be complained to about these rulings and payouts? Saw a kid cycling full pelt behind a Luas the other day and my first thought was wondering how much they'd get if it braked and they went into the back of it...

There are clearly cases where payment is justified, but some of these are crazy.

Dalomanakora · 30-10-2018 05:26PM

PLOPS wrote: »

One time i got a lump of glass in my eye as a waitress had dropped a tray of drinks and a shard went into my eye. Had to go straight to the eye and ear, my eye has been sliced to the side of my pupil. My whole eye filled with blood. No lasting damage though. Went to a solicitor and they recommended that i don't bring a case. Since then, every time i hear a case with a big payout for a stupid reason i wonder why i was advised to not proceed with a case.

I had a legitimate claim against a job a number of years ago - I've been left with lasting damage due to their negligence (I literally asked them to change the dangerous situation one week before my accident and they said no because it was expensive to fix lol).

My solicitor begged me to take it to court and reject their offers. I accepted an offer of a few grand more than my medical bills.

I fecking wish I went to court now. If we're comparing my lasting injury to this child, I'd be a bloody millionaire!

ohnonotgmail · 30-10-2018 05:28PM

Why do judges always get it in the neck on these threads? It wasn't the judge who came up with the €10,000 figure. And why are people so quick to dismiss the injuries that a child received based on a newspaper article?

If the child had been injured

Apparently psychological injuries are imaginary now. What a shower of ***** AH attracts.

SAMTALK · 30-10-2018 05:33PM

She's nervous of ambulance sirens now. Wonder how she feels about trees ???

I'm sorry but the court that entertained this should be ashamed

Samuel T. Cogley · 30-10-2018 05:39PM

Yet again this was a settlement, the court didn't make the award.

ohnonotgmail · 30-10-2018 05:40PM

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Yet again this was a settlement, the court didn't make the award.

Too late, the outrage bus has already arrived.

Samuel T. Cogley · 30-10-2018 05:42PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Too late, the outrage bus has already arrived.

FFS make sure the handbrake is on.

Hector Savage · 30-10-2018 05:42PM

I just don't understand why judges entertain these cases ?
Don't they have the power just to throw it out of court ?

Samuel T. Cogley · 30-10-2018 05:45PM

Hector Savage wrote: »

I just don't understand why judges entertain these cases ?
Don't they have the power just to throw it out of court ?

No, it's a settlement. The only function they have is to affirm the settlement if they deem it sufficient. The defendant can be as generousd as they want.

Badly Drunk Boy · 30-10-2018 05:51PM

Whether it's a settlement or a payout decided by the court, we're the ones paying the increased fees as the insurance companies justify their increases.

KevinCavan · 30-10-2018 05:59PM

Do out of court settlements not occur anymore. What’s the point in going before a judge if it’s already settled? I thought insurance companies settled out of court to avoid the cost of going to court? Seriously confused?!:-)

TheChizler · 30-10-2018 06:03PM

KevinCavan wrote: »

Do out of court settlements not occur anymore. What’s the point in going before a judge if it’s already settled? I thought insurance companies settled out of court to avoid the cost of going to court? Seriously confused?!:-)

I'm probably wrong but I think once it involves a minor a judge has to approve the settlement.

KevinCavan · 30-10-2018 06:07PM

TheChizler wrote: »

I'm probably wrong but I think once it involves a minor a judge has to approve the settlement.

Oh okay that makes sense. Thanks.

Guy:Incognito · 30-10-2018 06:11PM

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Yet again this was a settlement, the court didn't make the award.

If they thought they'd win presumably they wouldn't be settling. Solicitors are obviously telling them they've a good chance of losing and be on the hook for multiples of that amount.

If these stupid claims were dismissed out of hand, the settlements wouldn't be happening.

ohnonotgmail · 30-10-2018 06:14PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If they thought they'd win presumably they wouldn't be settling. Solicitors are obviously telling them they've a good chance of losing and be on the hook for multiples of that amount.

If these stupid claims were dismissed out of hand, the settlements wouldn't be happening.

How could the defendants win? They were negligent. Not putting on the handbrake when an ambulance is stopped causing it to roll back into a tree is negligent. The only question was how much that negligence going to cost them.

Raisins · 30-10-2018 06:27PM

The irony that insurance companies make this offer and then brief newspapers to write about it so that they can drum up outrage is lost on 99% of people. The truth is the child’s barrister probably told the court this is a great offer we might well lose the case and the judge probably responded and said yeah I agree I have to approve it it’s a brilliant offer. That’s what happens in courts on infant rulings day in day out.

JohnCleary · 30-10-2018 06:29PM

FFS, I broke my spine when I was 17 in an RTA (RTC now, by definition). Never claimed a penny, I was just glad to be able to walk again*

* Took several months, and thankfully had an excellent health insurance (family) policy in place, hence no costs.

When I read this sh1t, I almost wish I made a substantial claim.

PS. From my investigations after (I had no intention of claiming, it was basic research. Proof I had no intention was the statue of limitations had been long reached. Knowledge re. statute of limitations was from an interest in legal studies during my teens), this would have been a guaranteed payout as it was classed as a hit-and-run hence would have gone through MIBI. Again, I was just glad to be able to walk.

ohnonotgmail · 30-10-2018 06:29PM

Raisins wrote: »

The irony that insurance companies make this offer and then brief newspapers to write about it so that they can drum up outrage is lost on 99% of people. The truth is the child’s barrister probably told the court this is a great offer we might well lose the case and the judge probably responded and said yeah I agree I have to approve it it’s a brilliant offer. That’s what happens in courts on infant rulings day in day out.

How could the child lose the case? the ambulance service were negligent. Or do you not think that not putting on the handbrake and rolling into a tree is negligent?

PLOPS · 30-10-2018 06:34PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

How could the child lose the case? the ambulance service were negligent. Or do you not think that not putting on the handbrake and rolling into a tree is negligent?

If she had fell out and broken her face or arm, she'd deserve a payout. The parents are claiming she has a fear now. Complete and utter bull****.

gctest50 · 30-10-2018 06:39PM

PLOPS wrote: »

If she had fell out and broken her face or arm, she'd deserve a payout. The parents are claiming she has a fear now. Complete and utter bull****.

And what qualification have you to be declaring that ?

Another ridiculous injury claim

Comments