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 ridiculous injury claim

Cee-Jay-Cee

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

PLOPS

Dalomanakora wrote: »

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!

I had a legitimate case, but the solicitor basically said unless I have lasting damage i had no case. She was obviously an honest solicitor as another could have told me to claim i had ongoing problems etc. I didn't want to go down the road of pretending I had an issue with my eye, but i did feel the waitress had carried an over loaded tray, and my eye did get glass in it, and it took a month before the blood left it that i deserved some compensation, not 1000's but something.

Raisins

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?

Negligence is not the only thing you need to prove to win a case. I don’t think that’s the criticism. The criticism is the level of damages and the discomfort people have with damages for psychological injury. The public just don’t believe the veracity of psychiatric evidence in these types of cases. Whether correct or not it suggests a culture where something happens to an infant that’s the fault of a well funded organization, child has no physical injury, you want a few quid, get your solicitor to organize a psychological assessment, tell them of a loss of sleep, upset etc = automatic 10k and as you said you can’t lose. Insurance companies won’t run infant cases and of they do run costs orders are never made its a fee shot.

Samuel T. Cogley

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.

I suspect it's more likely the costs would be the issue, even if they won I'm not sure (open to correction) that costs automatically follow. Even if they did follow the chances of actually getting them are probably not great.

Many stupid claims are dismissed out of hand, the Judge also commented in the recent case with Luas surfing that there was a good chance of the case being dismissed - the issue is it's easier for insurance companies to just settle as they know the Courts will just get blamed rather than them. They then have all the justification for increasing premiums to cover it plus a nice juicy chunk of profit all while we fight over it blaming anyone but them. They're almost as good at diverting attention from the real issue as the Goverment is over rental issues.

PLOPS

gctest50 wrote: »

And what qualification have you to be declaring that ?

I'm a parent.

The Bishop Basher

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?

Being afraid of sirens is farsical.

The child, and in particular the parents, need to get over it.

We shouldn’t be entertaining this nonsense at all.

It’s costing each and every one of us. Someone has to fund this nonsense and it’ll always be the customer..

As was mentioned above, if there wasn’t a significant risk of a major payout these settlements wouldn’t ever make it near the table.

Too many vested interests feeding from the trough as always..

Samuel T. Cogley

I'm sorry plus +1 on a 16 month old having feck all idea what was going on, all they got was a jolt probably no worse than mammy's driving during the school run. The injury is a total crock and the medical profession should be better regulated.

gctest50

PLOPS wrote: »

gctest50 wrote: »

And what qualification have you to be declaring that ?

I'm a parent.

Really OMG!!!!!11!!!

sorry i didn't know

Much cheaper knock someone up than go to university i suppose

I must tell the next doctor i see that they were silly spending all that money and those countless hours

all they had to do was go out n knock some slapper up - sorted

PLOPS

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I'm sorry plus +1 on a 16 month old having feck all idea what was going on, all they got was a jolt probably no worse than mammy's driving during the school run. The injury is a total crock and the medical profession should be better regulated.

A 16 month wouldn't have a clue what just happened. It rolled into a tree, it didnt roll down the side of a mountain. Its the same with people suing Creches, claiming their child has a 1mm scar on their finger (in the paper last week). My young lad fell in the yard, face first playing an organised game of bull dogs with the teacher. were we happy? No! but we didn't think we could sue the school, kids fall, they get up.

PLOPS

gctest50 wrote: »

Really OMG!!!!!11!!!

sorry i didn't know

Much cheaper knock someone up than go to university i suppose

I must tell the next doctor i see that they were silly spending all that money and those countless hours

all they had to do was go out n knock some slapper up - sorted

Kids don't remember things from when they are 16 months.

gctest50

PLOPS wrote: »

Kids don't remember things from when they are 16 months.

source ?

Samuel T. Cogley

gctest50 wrote: »

source ?

I don't remember.

PLOPS

gctest50 wrote: »

source ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood_amnesia

Heard a guy on with Sean Moncrieff a few months ago, said its impossible for children to remember before the age of 3-4.

gctest50

PLOPS wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood_amnesia

Heard o guy on with Sean Moncrieff a few months ago, said its impossible for children to remember before the age of 3-4.

PLOPS

gctest50 wrote: »

.

Thanks for your valued input

jmayo

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?

Yes this really was a case of an ambulance chasing member of the legal profession.

Do you seriously think the kid was owed 10k for what happened ?

Oh wait are you a legal professional ?

monkeysnapper

About 10 years ago I was in night club when bouncers were trying to chuck out a girl , she turned , grabbed a pint glass and threw it at bouncers , they duck and I get hit in face with pint glass.

I have a small scar just above right eye .

The amount of people who told me to sue the night club , I would get a hell of a lot of money !!!!

I suppose they were right , but hay ....i was ok , no harm done . Scars are sexy anyway .

I

Amalgam

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.

You did right by your own internal moral compass. I have worked with people that openly discussed defrauding a county council by claiming to have caught their foot on a bollard in the middle of the night. Intentionally done. Payment just short of 40,000.. Christmas sorted.

I swallowed one of these quick boil spuds recently, inside was a metal bristle from the machine used to scrub them, just about the width of the spud, fully embedded. Caught in the roof of my mouth, took it out, checked for damage, polished off the rest of the spuds and went about my business.

I've had a big chunk of rounded glass in a bag of branded muesli, more living creatures in salads than I could shake a stick at and this week a large hard brown lump in a, 'shredded wheat biscuit that you cover in milk'..

The Bishop Basher

monkeysnapper wrote: »

About 10 years ago I was in night club when bouncers were trying to chuck out a girl , she turned , grabbed a pint glass and threw it at bouncers , they duck and I get hit in face with pint glass.

I have a small scar just above right eye.

An easy 10k..

Kudos to you and anyone else on this thread who walked away from a chance to claim.

Greed has to be one of the ugliest of all human traits and we see it at it's worst in these cases..

Pure unadulterated greed.

There are 2 types of people when presented with a chance of "free" money..

Those that take it and those that don't.

I make sure, as much as possible, to only ever keep the latter in my life.

ohnonotgmail

jmayo wrote: »

Yes this really was a case of an ambulance chasing member of the legal profession.

Do you seriously think the kid was owed 10k for what happened ?

Oh wait are you a legal professional ?

The question i asked in the post you responded to was quite straightforward. Unfortunately you were unable to answer it.

ohnonotgmail

Raisins wrote: »

Negligence is not the only thing you need to prove to win a case. I don’t think that’s the criticism. The criticism is the level of damages and the discomfort people have with damages for psychological injury. The public just don’t believe the veracity of psychiatric evidence in these types of cases. Whether correct or not it suggests a culture where something happens to an infant that’s the fault of a well funded organization, child has no physical injury, you want a few quid, get your solicitor to organize a psychological assessment, tell them of a loss of sleep, upset etc = automatic 10k and as you said you can’t lose. Insurance companies won’t run infant cases and of they do run costs orders are never made its a fee shot.

how can you disbelieve the evidence you are not privy to? You haven't heard the evidence yet you disbelieve it.

ohnonotgmail

Rennaws wrote: »

Being afraid of sirens is farsical.

The child, and in particular the parents, need to get over it.

We shouldn’t be entertaining this nonsense at all.

It’s costing each and every one of us. Someone has to fund this nonsense and it’ll always be the customer..

As was mentioned above, if there wasn’t a significant risk of a major payout these settlements wouldn’t ever make it near the table.

Too many vested interests feeding from the trough as always..

the child was ****ing 2 when this happened. 2. what a shower of ***** AH can be.

jay0109

Stories like this show how well integration is happening in Ireland. The new migrants are becoming more Irish than the Irish themselves!

PLOPS

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the child was ****ing 2 when this happened. 2. what a shower of ***** AH can be.

Its not the child, its the parents. Claiming a child has a fear of sirens due to been involved in a minor accident is comical. I have 2 children, do you know how many times minor accidents have happened them over the years and a spurious claim could have been invented? If you think that the claim is genuine, you must have put in a few yourself and you are justifying it.

Cee-Jay-Cee

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the child was ****ing 2 when this happened. 2. what a shower of ***** AH can be.

Exactly, the child was 2 (in fact the child wasn't even 2yrs old at the time) and if you are a parent then you will know that children bump themselves countless times in their first few years and are very resilient and don't injure easily as they are not pre-disposed to tensing up if they think they are going to fall and so bounce back. The child did not suffer any psychological injury as the child wouldn't even have been aware anything happened, the mother caught the child to prevent it from falling off the stretcher.

Do you honestly believe that a child less than 2 years old is aware of what an ambulance is or was aware that they were in an ambulance which didn't have a siren activated (as it was parked) yet can now somehow associate sirens with an incident that happened 4 years ago??? Its a complete bullsht story made up by underhand deceitful and greedy parents, nothing more.

PlaneSpeeking

It is actually scary just how quick the "claim for that!" reflex kicks in.

Few months ago I had a beer too many and fell, massive shiner; stitches (scar still!) and pain. My own fault!!!

First comment "yeah but they'll have ****load of insurance, sue them!"

It was my fault ffs!!!! How do these people exist with no conscience ?

PlaneSpeeking

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

Exactly, the child was 2 (in fact the child wasn't even 2yrs old at the time) and if you are a parent then you will know that children bumps themselves countless times in their first few years and are very resilient and don't injure easily as they are not pre-disposed to tensing up if they think they are going to fall and so bounce back. The child did not suffer any psychological injury as the child wouldn't even have been aware anything happened, the mother caught the child to prevent it from falling off the stretcher.

Do you honestly believe that a child less than 2 years old is aware of what an ambulance is or was aware that they were in an ambulance which didn't have a siren activated (as it was parked) yet can now somehow associate sirens with an incident that happened 4 years ago??? Its a complete bullsht story made up by underhand deceitful and greedy parents, nothing more.

When my niece was just before 2 I got her a toy garage - for a year everytime you saw her it was "NEE NAW NEE NAW!".

But that was a toy one - when one passed her school she never made the connection!

The Bishop Basher

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the child was ****ing 2 when this happened. 2. what a shower of ***** AH can be.

If the child is afraid of sirens they will, at some point, need to get over it..

They may need extensive therapy and time but if they want to live any kind of normal life, they will ultimately need to get over it.

Sorry if you disagree with that but hey ho..

Also as Cee-Jay-Cee has already called out, this is obviously driven by the greedy parents looking for an easy payout due to our incredibly lenient and overly generous personal "injury" awards and oh look..

They've got an overly generous payout for an incident that most of us wouldn't blink an eye at..

It's pure unadulterated greed on behalf of the parents and like a sickness it's now endemic in our society..

But as always, if you want to find the root of a problem, follow the money..

Irish Guitarist

They make it sound like it was the childs idea to sue.

Injured toddler settles €10k action after ambulance rolled backwards into tree

Jessica had sued the Health Service Executive through Katarzyna Kita and Mr Gallagher told Circuit Court President, Mr Justice Raymond Groarke, that a settlement offer of €10,000 had been made by the defendant.

PlaneSpeeking

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

They make it sound like it was the childs idea to sue.

Makes it harder to criticise presumably.

They assume!

looksee

I had a child/toddler who hated sirens - and brass bands and come to think of it, anything unduly noisy. There was no particular reason for her fear and she got over it. It did mean we couldn't go to Patricks Day parades for a couple of years though.