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

Woman crosses dual carriageway on foot, gets hit by car, gets €3.2M

Atlantic Dawn

Another case of idiots getting their pockets lined by crazy compensation, is there anything to be said for a swift kick up the hole instead...

A part-time model who suffered a traumatic brain injury after she was struck by a car when she attempted to cross a dual carriageway has settled her High Court action for €3.2m.

Jodie Regazzoli was in a coma for weeks and given a three percent chance of survival after she was hit by the car in 2018 — and later became homeless for a time and lived in a hotel.

The claims were denied and it was alleged that Mr Regazzoli failed to use the pedestrian flyover to cross the carriageway

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/part-time-model-settles-court-action-for-32m-after-being-struck-by-car-on-dual-carriageway-40052486.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

monkeybutter

Rodin wrote: »

The point is they were clearly sufficiently used to only throw her 6ft in the air.
That is not an 80kmh+ collision.

At the end of the day, if you set foot on a dual carraigeway, you should be responsible for each and every impact that happens. What if a car swerved to avoid her, hit another car etc...

Why is modern society so devoid of people being responsible for their actions whether is nonsense like this, or criminal behaviour...

I wouldn't have given her a penny.

so you go at 100k and then manage to slow to 50k and hit

you see the point

there is not doubt the settlement was too high and she was stupid

but we don't know all the details

the insurance company settled, they could have chosen not to

they did it for a reason, its not like the judge was really going to award more than that, no matter how bad they are

1874

Rodin wrote: »

The prosecution contended that the brakes were not properly used if at all.
''It was further claimed there was a failure to apply the brakes in time effectively or at all.''

That sounds like there simply wasnt time to react, which if someone steps out in front of you is going to happen.

monkeybutter wrote: »

no one is saying it wasn't stupid

you can still contribute to the accident by being stupid yourself

I mean anything can happen on the road ahead and it is your responsibility as a drive to react to that

i mean someone could have broken down in the bus lane, would it be ok to crash into them, would you expect them to be there?

you need to be driving at a safe speed and paying attention

if she had and the person say stepped out with no time to stop, then the outcome would no doubt be different

so there were probably cctv, witnesses etc, skid marks etc

Thats completely different though, and yes you might reasonably expect them to be there.
AND
You could be driving at a safe speed and paying attention, if someone steps out just in front of you or dashes through traffic, it can come down to pure chance. I have seen pedestrians take stupid risks, not knowing that vehicles simply cannot stop or maneuver on the button, so the outcome may not have been different.
The only way the outcome may have been different is if the traffic was a jam and not or barely moving, and even then there is risk and it's foolhardy to cross a dual carriageway.

Skid marks!?, thats inconsistent with what another poster has quoted

The way I see it, I see pedestrians and drivers doing stupid things, that puts them and others at risk, careless stuff that can be avoided, there is always going to be some risk to certain things, many things, walking/dashing/running/whatever through traffic on a dual carriageway is madness. I dont want to sink to insulting the person but its downright careless and stupid to do what she did, what if the car while trying to avoid her drove over someone else, do you think she would give one damn, she already showed she wasnt concerned or clued in enough to think of her own safety. others? I dont think so.

monkeybutter

1874 wrote: »

That sounds like there simply wasnt time to react, which if someone steps out in front of you is going to happen.

Thats completely different though, and yes you might reasonably expect them to be there.
AND
You could be driving at a safe speed and paying attention, if someone steps out just in front of you or dashes through traffic, it can come down to pure chance. I have seen pedestrians take stupid risks, not knowing that vehicles simply cannot stop or maneuver on the button, so the outcome may not have been different.
The only way the outcome may have been different is if the traffic was a jam and not or barely moving, and even then there is risk and it's foolhardy to cross a dual carriageway.

Skid marks!?, thats inconsistent with what another poster has quoted

The way I see it, I see pedestrians and drivers doing stupid things, that puts them and others at risk, careless stuff that can be avoided, there is always going to be some risk to certain things, many things, walking/dashing/running/whatever through traffic on a dual carriageway is madness. I dont want to sink to insulting the person but its downright careless and stupid to do what she did, what if the car while trying to avoid her drove over someone else, do you think she would give one damn, she already showed she wasnt concerned or clued in enough to think of her own safety. others? I dont think so.

you don't have a clue if they stepped out with the driver having no chance to stop

not much else to say on that

again why settle if that was the case

if it was and she was hit at 80+ k, she would most likely be dead, but who can say that for sure

Rodin

monkeybutter wrote: »

you don't have a clue if they stepped out with the driver having no chance to stop

not much else to say on that

again why settle if that was the case

if it was and she was hit at 80+ k, she would most likely be dead, but who can say that for sure

I would suggest it is against the laws of physics to be hit at 80kmh+ and only be thrown 6ft into the air

monkeybutter

Rodin wrote: »

I would suggest it is against the laws of physics to be hit at 80kmh+ and only be thrown 6ft into the air

no one said she was hit at 80kph+

what does 6feet into the air mean, upwards through the air

so I'm not sure what you are saying

you no idea if she was hit head on etc

as you have no details perhaps you should leave the physics to the physicists

Potential-Monke

.anon. wrote: »

It's the upper legal limit if, and only if, conditions allow. It is still the driver's responsibility to watch out for potential hazards and be able to react to them in time. In this case, for whatever reason, the driver wasn't able to react in time. Having a licence confers a level of responsibility on drivers, especially where pedestrians and more vulnerable road users are concerned.

No, it's saying you can't run human beings over with your giant lump of metal, even if you have right of way. It's saying that hazard perception is a very basic part of being a competent driver. And it is genuinely terrifying that so many people on here (at least some of whom presumably have driving licences) fail to understand that.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. If 80kph is too fast for an area, it shouldn't be 80kph. The argument that you shouldn't be doing 80 in an 80 is ridiculous. Yes, the driver has to be aware, but you can't say that driving at 80 in an 80 was a contributing factor because it was legal. The speed wouldn't have matter if she didn't cross a feckin dual carriageway.

What's more terrifying than believing drivers don't have hazard perception is your assumption that we should be expecting people to walk out in front of us on any road at any time. Which makes speed limits absolutely pointless to begin with. Would you be saying the same if it was a motorway she was crossing? Keeping in mind that pedestrians are not supposed to cross either? Or common fupping sense says running across a 4 lane road is stupid?

Both sides need to pay attention. With the lack of details in this case, it's impossible to say who was to blame, but the bottom line is if she used the footbridge just down the road, the one thing constructed to safely make it across 4 lanes of fast moving traffic, then this would never have happened. Settlements and judgements such as this are not just stupid, they're dangerous, because people will see money and start causing such accidents, and nothing will be done about it until it's too late and people start getting killed to make a few quid.

monkeybutter wrote: »

If they had been properly used she would not have hit her

You can't say that for certain. Just because prosecution makes an assumption, doesn't mean it's proven. There was no proof in the papers so we can't say for certain.

Re: skid marks; modern cars don't usually leave skid marks due to the anti-lock braking system most cars have these days. The skid marks were caused by older brakes just stopping the wheel from spinning, ABS "feathers" the brakes so they keep spinning but slow down very quickly, thus no skid marks.

A lot of assumptions going on here, with both sides assuming. This should be resolved easily, make it illegal to cross anything with more than 2 lanes without traffic lights.

ShatterAlan

I doubt she wanted to be left in a coma and brain damaged.

knucklehead6

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I doubt she wanted to be left in a coma and brain damaged.

I doubt the driver set out to knock someone down that day.

the_pen_turner

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I doubt she wanted to be left in a coma and brain damaged.

She have been more carefull then. Anyone who walks out into on coming traffic is taking that risk

Gaoth Laidir

We bought a KitchenAid blender recently. It's a great piece of kit, but if I stick my hand into it and mangle up my fingers could I take them to court for personal injury? Yeah? That seems the way things are heading alright.

I will put in my left hand so that I'll still be able to sign the settlement papers with my right hand. I always wanted my own plane, but how to fly it with only one hand... I'll put that down in my claim too so.

theblackstuff

think we need to start showing this again...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEssgMQ1O_k

Gaoth Laidir

theblackstuff wrote: »

think we need to start showing this again...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEssgMQ1O_k

Takes me back...

tallaghtfornia

Driving home there last night and witnessed a guy walk out just before the foot bridge near Woddies with a black coat hat scarf and headphones he just strolled straight out onto the bypass a car sounded there horn at him and he didn't care.

I really don't understand what's wrong with people it would take an extra 5mins to walk across the foot bridge.

.anon.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

We're going to have to agree to disagree. If 80kph is too fast for an area, it shouldn't be 80kph. The argument that you shouldn't be doing 80 in an 80 is ridiculous. Yes, the driver has to be aware, but you can't say that driving at 80 in an 80 was a contributing factor because it was legal. The speed wouldn't have matter if she didn't cross a feckin dual carriageway.

We don't even know that they were doing 80. Whatever speed they were doing in the bus lane, their reactions weren't sufficient to avoid the accident that they failed to anticipate. Hazard perception is a very, very basic part of being a competent driver.

Potential-Monke wrote:

What's more terrifying than believing drivers don't have hazard perception is your assumption that we should be expecting people to walk out in front of us on any road at any time. Which makes speed limits absolutely pointless to begin with. Would you be saying the same if it was a motorway she was crossing? Keeping in mind that pedestrians are not supposed to cross either? Or common fupping sense says running across a 4 lane road is stupid?

You should be scanning the road ahead of you for potential hazards, especially coming up to a bus stop, shopping centre, etc. You don't have to expect someone to walk out in front of you, in order to put yourself into a position where you can avoid hitting them. You just have to be aware of the risk.

As for motorways, pedestrians aren't allowed anywhere near them. They don't have footpaths alongside them, so the risk is a lot lower. But I've seen people walking along the hard shoulder of the 120km/h stretch of the M50 before. And I didn't just blindly carry on doing 120 past them, because that's my God-given right - I backed off and moved into the next lane. Car drivers are expected to use common sense too - not that you'd think so, reading some of the stuff on this thread.

Potential-Monke wrote:

Both sides need to pay attention. With the lack of details in this case, it's impossible to say who was to blame, but the bottom line is if she used the footbridge just down the road, the one thing constructed to safely make it across 4 lanes of fast moving traffic, then this would never have happened. Settlements and judgements such as this are not just stupid, they're dangerous, because people will see money and start causing such accidents, and nothing will be done about it until it's too late and people start getting killed to make a few quid.

If she had used the footbridge, rather than taking the shortcut. And if the car driver in the bus lane had been taught how to drive properly. A greater burden of responsibility lies with drivers than with pedestrians because it's a three-tonne weapon that they need a licence to operate.

And I strongly doubt that anyone in possession of a brain will go out and deliberately damage it in the hope of 'making a few quid'.

Gaoth Laidir

.anon. wrote: »

We don't even know that they were doing 80. Whatever speed they were doing in the bus lane, their reactions weren't sufficient to avoid the accident that they failed to anticipate. Hazard perception is a very, very basic part of being a competent driver.

You should be scanning the road ahead of you for potential hazards, especially coming up to a bus stop, shopping centre, etc. You don't have to expect someone to walk out in front of you, in order to put yourself into a position where you can avoid hitting them. You just have to be aware of the risk.

As for motorways, pedestrians aren't allowed anywhere near them. They don't have footpaths alongside them, so the risk is a lot lower. But I've seen people walking along the hard shoulder of the 120km/h stretch of the M50 before. And I didn't just blindly carry on doing 120 past them, because that's my God-given right - I backed off and moved into the next lane. Car drivers are expected to use common sense too - not that you'd think so, reading some of the stuff on this thread.

If she had used the footbridge, rather than taking the shortcut. And if the car driver in the bus lane had been taught how to drive properly. A greater burden of responsibility lies with drivers than with pedestrians because it's a three-tonne weapon that they need a licence to operate.

And I strongly doubt that anyone in possession of a brain will go out and deliberately damage it in the hope of 'making a few quid'.

Cars are 3 tonnes now, are they? She could have been in a Yaris either.

The car had a right to be there, she didn't. We don't know exactly where the impact occurred so the driver may have been moving in to turn left at the roundabout ahead. Yes, you should always drive with due care and attention, but at what point do you become culpable if someone runs out where they shouldn't run out? It's not like driving through an estate, where kids or animals are likely to run out. If someone runs out onto the M50 when you're going at the correct speed and you hit them, is it your fault? Should we all be driving at 30 kph just in case some idiot decides to go try for a Darwin Award? I don't for a second believe that you'd be holding your hands up and saying "sorry, my bad, I'm at fault here, not you". It's easy for you to take the side of the chancer victim when you're sitting at a keyboard. "If the driver had been taught how to drive properly" FFS

the_pen_turner

why does the driver have to have common sence but the pedestrian doesnt. its a crazy system.

.anon.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Cars are 3 tonnes now, are they? She could have been in a Yaris either.

I'm not interested in pedantry. That was just a general example. I'm sure we can agree that an incident involving a car (even a Yaris or whatever) and a pedestrian will cause more damage to the pedestrian than to the occupants of the car. That's why a greater burden of responsibility lies with the person behind the wheel of the car.

Gaoth Laidir wrote:

The car had a right to be there, she didn't. We don't know exactly where the impact occurred so the driver may have been moving in to turn left at the roundabout ahead. Yes, you should always drive with due care and attention, but at what point do you become culpable if someone runs out where they shouldn't run out? It's not like driving through an estate, where kids or animals are likely to run out. If someone runs out onto the M50 when you're going at the correct speed and you hit them, is it your fault? Should we all be driving at 30 kph just in case some idiot decides to go try for a Darwin Award? I don't for a second believe that you'd be holding your hands up and saying "sorry, my bad, I'm at fault here, not you". It's easy for you to take the side of the chancer victim when you're sitting at a keyboard. "If the driver had been taught how to drive properly" FFS

And I don't believe for a second that you'd be saying "Not my fault, I had a right to be there, the pedestrian didn't" if your lax attitude to road safety caused you to kill someone. Unless you're an absolute sociopath, you'd be going out of your mind thinking about what you could potentially have done to avoid it and wishing you could turn back the clock. You certainly wouldn't be spouting trite cliches about 'Darwin Awards'.

It's not even about speed. We could safely increase many speed limits if car drivers could be trusted to anticipate, rather than belatedly react to, hazards. This thread is a fantastic example of why so many speed limits need to be set at such an artificially low level.

I strongly recommend this book to anyone who thinks anticipating hazards is unnecessary when you've got right of way anyway. It's aimed towards UK police drivers, but it's relevant to anyone who drives. Here's a screenshot from a page from the chapter on Information, Observation and Anticipation.

ShatterAlan

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Cars are 3 tonnes now, are they? She could have been in a Yaris either.

The car had a right to be there, she didn't. We don't know exactly where the impact occurred so the driver may have been moving in to turn left at the roundabout ahead. Yes, you should always drive with due care and attention, but at what point do you become culpable if someone runs out where they shouldn't run out? It's not like driving through an estate, where kids or animals are likely to run out. If someone runs out onto the M50 when you're going at the correct speed and you hit them, is it your fault? Should we all be driving at 30 kph just in case some idiot decides to go try for a Darwin Award? I don't for a second believe that you'd be holding your hands up and saying "sorry, my bad, I'm at fault here, not you". It's easy for you to take the side of the chancer victim when you're sitting at a keyboard. "If the driver had been taught how to drive properly" FFS

Are you trying to say she deliberately got run over and nearly killed in order to make some money? So she was hit and put in a coma, brain damaged and ended up homeless. She said "screw this working for a living. Fcuk this modelling malarkey. I'll walk in front of a car and wreck my life but I might get some money in a few years time."

ShatterAlan

the_pen_turner wrote: »

why does the driver have to have common sence but the pedestrian doesnt. its a crazy system.

The driver is the one with the greater responsibility. There are some people on here who just think that it's ok to deliberately hurt someone who made a mistake rather than rise above such scumbaggery and avoid such an outcome.

It's almost like the American way of looking at things. If someone comes on your property you just go and shoot them even though you know they pose no risk. Anything to hurt someone as long as they can be blamed.

ShatterAlan

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I doubt the driver set out to knock someone down that day.

I never said the driver did. What kind of a stupid statement is that?
Yet there are people on here trying to maintain that she deliberately got struck and horribly injured in order to make money.

[Deleted User]

tallaghtfornia wrote: »

Driving home there last night and witnessed a guy walk out just before the foot bridge near Woddies with a black coat hat scarf and headphones he just strolled straight out onto the bypass a car sounded there horn at him and he didn't care.

I really don't understand what's wrong with people it would take an extra 5mins to walk across the foot bridge.

Why would he care? Tap him and he's a millionaire. He'd be a literal lotto winner.

Gaoth Laidir

.anon. wrote: »

I'm not interested in pedantry. That was just a general example. I'm sure we can agree that an incident involving a car (even a Yaris or whatever) and a pedestrian will cause more damage to the pedestrian than to the occupants of the car. That's why a greater burden of responsibility lies with the person behind the wheel of the car.

And I don't believe for a second that you'd be saying "Not my fault, I had a right to be there, the pedestrian didn't" if your lax attitude to road safety caused you to kill someone. Unless you're an absolute sociopath, you'd be going out of your mind thinking about what you could potentially have done to avoid it and wishing you could turn back the clock. You certainly wouldn't be spouting trite cliches about 'Darwin Awards'.

It's not even about speed. We could safely increase many speed limits if car drivers could be trusted to anticipate, rather than belatedly react to, hazards. This thread is a fantastic example of why so many speed limits need to be set at such an artificially low level.

I strongly recommend this book to anyone who thinks anticipating hazards is unnecessary when you've got right of way anyway. It's aimed towards UK police drivers, but it's relevant to anyone who drives. Here's a screenshot from a page from the chapter on Information, Observation and Anticipation.

So in your opinion the pedestrian has no or at least less culpability here? If someone walks out onto a runway the pilot landing is responsible if that person gets hit? Is your name Judge Crown?

I never once said that drivers should not anticipate hazards. You obviously are not interested in pedantry when you seem content to exaggerate some things while ignoring others. Also, emergency vehicle drivers will drive through red lights so it is absolutely imperative that they are taught about the risks, but for someone driving on a road on which pedestrians are not allowed then if an accident does occur the blame should not be burdened on the driver, unless it is proven that she was driving recklessly. It's a different story had there been a pedestrian crossing there. Absolutely, no question the driver would be at fault if the light had been red or the pedestrian already had a foot on the stripes.

ShatterAlan

the_pen_turner wrote: »

She have been more carefull then. Anyone who walks out into on coming traffic is taking that risk

Well I guess that's where you and I differ. I actually care about my fellow man (or woman), even the ones who make mistakes. I don't blithely shrug of someone's misery and say "fuck 'em, their fault for being stupid" and I certainly am not so callous as to try to suggest that the victim of a horrific road accident engineered the accident in order to get compensated.

[Deleted User]

I'm sure there'll be an appeal and it'll be severely reduced down, though. Multo-million euro payout for ignoring the rules of the road. Almost as bad as that one that was hopping on the back of the Luas and fell off. Did she not make a fortune, too, doing something that she should have been laughed at for, instead of compensated for.

Gaoth Laidir

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Are you trying to say she deliberately got run over and nearly killed in order to make some money? So she was hit and put in a coma, brain damaged and ended up homeless. She said "screw this working for a living. Fcuk this modelling malarkey. I'll walk in front of a car and wreck my life but I might get some money in a few years time."

No, I didn't say that. Don't be ridiculous. She did, however, do an extremely dangerous, stupid and illegal act that unfortunately led to her paying dearly for it. Still, somehow, she goes after the driver of the car for it. Personal responsibility does not exist anymore (unless you're the one who did nothing wrong, then you're responsible, it seems).

It's like that one who got €32K from McDonald's in Clondalkin because she spilled hot coffee on her lap as she held the cup between her legs whilst in the driving seat of the vehicle. McDonald's were to blame there too...

FFS.

ShatterAlan

Deleted User wrote: »

Why would he care? Tap him and he's a millionaire. He'd be a literal lotto winner.

Would you deliberately get knocked down? Would you take the risk of being killed or left paralyzed from the neck down or in a vegetative state in order to possibly get compensation?

Markcheese

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

We bought a KitchenAid blender recently. It's a great piece of kit, but if I stick my hand into it and mangle up my fingers could I take them to court for personal injury? Yeah? That seems the way things are heading alright.

I will put in my left hand so that I'll still be able to sign the settlement papers with my right hand. I always wanted my own plane, but how to fly it with only one hand... I'll put that down in my claim too so.

Done it ... takes a special breed of idiot (with long fingers) I am that idiot ..
I just got a couple of plasters and carried on ,no law suit involved ,my thumb is fine ...

Gaoth Laidir

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Well I guess that's where you and I differ. I actually care about my fellow man (or woman), even the ones who make mistakes. I don't blithely shrug of someone's misery and say "fuck 'em, their fault for being stupid" and I certainly am not so callous as to try to suggest that the victim of a horrific road accident engineered the accident in order to get compensated.

Nobody is insinuating this.

ShatterAlan

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

So in your opinion the pedestrian has no or at least less culpability here? If someone walks out onto a runway the pilot landing is responsible if that person gets hit? Is your name Judge Crown?

I never once said that drivers should not anticipate hazards. You obviously are not interested in pedantry when you seem content to exaggerate some things while ignoring others. Also, emergency vehicle drivers will drive through red lights so it is absolutely imperative that they are taught about the risks, but for someone driving on a road on which pedestrians are not allowed then if an accident does occur the blame should not be burdened on the driver, unless it is proven that she was driving recklessly. It's a different story had there been a pedestrian crossing there. Absolutely, no question the driver would be at fault if the light had been red or the pedestrian already had a foot on the stripes.

Oh boy.

Gaoth Laidir

Markcheese wrote: »

Done it ... takes a special breed of idiot (with long fingers) I am that idiot ..
I just got a couple of plasters and carried on ,no law suit involved ,my thumb is fine ...

Send ShatterAlan a PM there. He'll guide you through the legalities of how you're absolutely not to blame. You could afford a nice big 3-tonne car with the payout you're bound to get.