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

Student hit by bus settles for 9million euro

Hondo75

When I first seen this ,I thought not another overpaid compo, but Carlos Tesch deserves it ..What happened to the lads chasing him with hurley stick ? Prob nothing..

Best Wishes Carlos and hope the money helps in some way

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0506/615613-carlos-tesch/

http://vimeo.com/48160467

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Custardpi

I wonder how the poor bus driver feels. I doubt he's been the same since. Probably true that the real culprits will get off scott free, as usual.

131spanner

Life changing accident, having been to China for cell stem treatment twice sounds pretty fúcking rough. Poor kid.

punisher5112

I am a bit confused as to how DB is found 70% liable.

Did the bus mount the path or run a red?

Why aren't people responsible for their own actions?

Why are the ones that were chasing at some fault?

Very sad for someones life to be changed so bad and feel very bad for him and his family.

MagicMarker

Great article, full of no details whatsoever.

Glebee

Hurleys in Wicklow. Something funny going on there.

darkpagandeath

when Carlos suddenly ran across the road and was hit by a bus.

70% liable ???? is this the same judge that gave compo to someone climbing over a fence and impaled themselves

[Deleted User]

Can't see how they were liable from the details provided.

Custardpi

Yeah I'd be in two minds about this, really don't see how the driver could have done much more than he did in the circumstances to avoid the accident. If someone runs out right in front of a bus he'll be hit as it's pretty hard to immediately stop a several ton vehicle going at any sort of speed. On the other hand he's a kid whose life is destroyed rather than an adult so there's probably a lot worse things to spend public money (Dublin Bus being a semi-state) on than this.

Tail Docker

Sorry for the kid and his parents, but how in the name of anything was it Dublin Busses fault that he ran suddenly out in front of one? If I run out on front of one and only get a bit banjaxed, do I get 1 million? How many people run out in front of them every year? Do they all get compo?

punisher5112

Ireland has gone compo mad.

Sue anyone and for anything.

Gatling

Tail Docker wrote: »

Sorry for the kid and his parents, but how in the name of anything was it Dublin Busses fault that he ran suddenly out in front of one? If I run out on front of one and only get a bit banjaxed, do I get 1 million? How many people run out in front of them every year? Do they all get compo?

27 million paid out last year by Dublin bus in accident claims apparently,

Though this lad suffered horrific injuries I find it hard to believe Dublin bus were mostly responsible,

Anyone remember the lad who rode a horse into a bus and got a massive claim

El Guapo!

punisher5112 wrote: »

Ireland has gone compo mad.

Sue anyone and for anything.

Did you even read the story?

darkpagandeath

El Guapo! wrote: »

Did you even read the story?

Emotive story is emotive does not give details of the 70% contributing factor Dublin bus has. All it said is the boy himself ran out in front of the bus.

El Guapo!

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Emotive story is emotive does not give details of the 70% contributing factor Dublin bus has. All it said is the boy himself ran out in front of the bus.

And it also says that the boy had catastrophic head injuries which has resulted in him not being able to walk or talk properly and he's had to travel halfway across the globe for stem cell treatment.

I'd hardly think that's a frivolous claim which is what the previous poster was alluding to.

punisher5112

El Guapo! wrote: »

Did you even read the story?

I sure did...

Why you ask?

I asked how was db at 70% fault?

If I ran out into traffic I wouldn't get a cent as this would be my own fault for running out.

the_syco

when Carlos suddenly ran across the road and was hit by a bus.

The Supreme Court ruled two months ago that Dublin Bus was 70% liable for Carlos's injuries.

If you run in front of the bus, how exactly is it the buses fault?

darkpagandeath

El Guapo! wrote: »

And it also says that the boy had catastrophic head injuries which has resulted in him not being able to walk or talk properly and he's had to travel halfway across the globe for stem cell treatment.

I'd hardly think that's a frivolous claim which is what the previous poster was alluding to.

As I said the article says he ran in front of the bus. So an accident, I fail to see how causing catastrophic injuries to ones self through ones actions warrants compensation. If the article listed the 70% contributing factor Dublin bus had then we can discuss that. But the only contributing factor listed is the boys own actions. it does not even say that the boys were still being pursued right up to the point of the accident.

El Guapo!

darkpagandeath wrote: »

As I said the article says he ran in front of the bus. So an accident, I fail to see how causing catastrophic injuries to ones self through ones actions warrants compensation. If the article listed the 70% contributing factor Dublin bus had then we can discuss that. But the only contributing factor listed is the boys own actions. it does not even say that the boys were still being pursued right up to the point of the accident.

I fully agree in that I'm not sure how Dublin Bus is responsible. The article is a bit light on details.
I just don't like the way it was inferred that it was a frivolous claim. If the boy is in a bad way, which it seems he is, then he should be entitled to compensation. But I agree the compensation should come from whoever is at fault, which doesn't seem like Dublin Bus imo.

Vito Corleone

He deserves compensation but I don't see why Dublin Bus should be paying it.

Pro Hoc Vice

El Guapo! wrote: »

I fully agree in that I'm not sure how Dublin Bus is responsible. The article is a bit light on details.
I just don't like the way it was inferred that it was a frivolous claim. If the boy is in a bad way, which it seems he is, then he should be entitled to compensation. But I agree the compensation should come from whoever is at fault, which doesn't seem like Dublin Bus imo.

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/F25F389292473C9A80257CA50058F6FD

From the judgement of the SC,

"Conclusions
The trial Judge herein carefully set out the law governing the liability of drivers when there are children present at or near the roadway. He pointed out that there was no controversy between the parties as to the applicable law. He referred to the decision of this Court in McDonald v. Córas Iompair Éireann [1971] 105 ILTR 13 in which Budd J. stated:

“The jury should be told that the presence or expected presence of children on or near the travelling surface of the highway casts a heavy responsibility on the driver of a vehicle approaching such children. He must alert himself to their presence and be mindful that they may act in the heedless fashion that children do. He must place himself in such a position to be in readiness to take all such precautions as he reasonably can to avoid causing injury to anyone of them who acts in a heedless fashion. This will involve, inter alia, such matters as keeping a careful watch on the children possibly giving warning of his presence, keeping a reasonable distance from them, and having his vehicle under such control and travelling at such speed and otherwise acting in such a fashion as will enable him to take all such steps as are reasonably possible to avoid their heedless movements and actions. The details of what is said must of course vary with the circumstances of the case. The time, place, presence of other traffic and other relevant matters must influence what is said. It is also necessary to avoid conveying the impression to the jury that it is the duty of the driver in the presence of young children to ensure their safety in all circumstances. What is required is that he should take all such steps as can reasonably be expected of him as a prudent man, bearing in mind the heavy responsibility resting on him in the presence of young children . . .”
The fact that personal injury actions at that time were determined by a Judge sitting with a jury does not alter the legal principles to be applied by a trial Judge sitting alone. Cross J. applied the principles set out in that decision to the facts of this case."

Further

"The evidence accepted by Cross J. is that Mr. O’S was a very careful and safe driver. Unfortunately, on this occasion, he was distracted by a conversation with a passenger in the seconds leading up to this tragic accident. At the moment of the emergency, he reacted with commendable alertness but, sadly, he was not alert to the potential hazard unfolding as he approached the boys on the pavement and thus, was not able to anticipate or take any appropriate steps to minimise the consequences of the potential hazard."

Earlier in the judgement

"Cross J. was of the view that had Mr. O’S seen the boys on the pavement acting boisterously and changing position he would have slowed down. He went further and added that Mr. O’S “could have and should have” applied his brakes from about fifty yards back. He also concluded that the bus could and should have been moved out towards the right. He added that had the driver seen the boys acting boisterously, the driver would have and should have blown his horn. Critically, he concluded that the bus driver, because of the distraction of the conversation with the passenger, or otherwise, did not see the boys for a number of seconds after they were available to be seen and in those circumstances, Cross J. concluded that the bus driver did not have the time to make the judgment he ought to have made as to the potential hazard presented by the boys earlier. He added that the driver did not have the time to be conscious of the fact that the boys were acting boisterously."

Its funny how indignation did not lead to a bit of a search for the actual facts, seems a very reasonable judgment in light of the facts.

asteroids over berlin

I am sure Carlos and co would give up the money without a 2nd thought if they could rewind back the past!! A lot of cash but if anybody gets hit by a vehicle these days, the driver will be deemed somewhat responsible and the insurance company will pay out. Carlos died for 2 mins, bit of a hardcore compo claim, 9 million is indeed a lot but it will take a lot to look after him, particularly when he gets older etc

Very sad though

Custardpi

Because going after the gougers who would appear to have actually caused the accident by terrifying the kid enough to make him run into the road would be too much like hard work.

Patser

Just read the Irish Times article on this - which I can't link on this phone, just Google Tesch Bus - and I'm still baffled.

It gives more details saying the bus was traveling at 40 kph in a 50 zone and the driver reacted immediately to Carlos running onto the road. However Dublin Bus gets the liability as the driver had a passenger talking to him, which distracted him from noticing the kids running towards the road and didn't prepare for anything to happen.

I'm sorry but a driver going below the limit that reacts immediately is not 70% liable IMO. Dublin bus had appealed this but lost that appeal.

NSAman

Custardpi wrote: »

Because going after the gougers who would appear to have actually caused the accident by terrifying the kid enough to make him run into the road would be too much like hard work.

Are the Gardai asking for the publics assistance to trace the culprits? (as usual)

Custardpi

They'll have to put drivers in a sound-proof booth & ban them from driving over 10mph to completely avoid cases like this.

Pro Hoc Vice

Custardpi wrote: »

Because going after the gougers who would appear to have actually caused the accident by terrifying the kid enough to make him run into the road would be too much like hard work.

I have read the judgement there is in my opinion no evidence that "gougers" caused the accident.

Pro Hoc Vice

Patser wrote: »

Just read the Irish Times article on this - which I can't link on this phone, just Google Tesch Bus - and I'm still baffled.

It gives more details saying the bus was traveling at 40 kph in a 50 zone and the driver reacted immediately to Carlos running onto the road. However Dublin Bus gets the liability as the driver had a passenger talking to him, which distracted him from noticing the kids running towards the road and didn't prepare for anything to happen.

I'm sorry but a driver going below the limit that reacts immediately is not 70% liable IMO. Dublin bus had appealed this but lost that appeal.

Read the SC judgement it's linked above.

Custardpi

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I have read the judgement there is in my opinion no evidence that "gougers" caused the accident.

They were trying to get away from a group of older Irish boys, who had allegedly previously confronted the students while brandishing hurleys, when Carlos suddenly ran across the road and was hit by a bus.

From the article linked in the OP. The kid was obviously scared into doing something stupid.

Irish Guitarist

That article looks like something I would have written in 'My News' in primary school.

yawhat!

Nearly as bad as that one that slipped on the icey steps and was awarded one million. I guarantee next winter we are going to have a load of people slipping on icey steps. Hey slip on some steps which is your own stupidity and have a free million yoyo's!

I feel for the kid but if he ran out in front of the bus why should they have to pay 7 million?
God Forbid If I was driving along and some kid jumped out in front of me would I be liable for 7 million?