256k for PTSD

knucklehead6 · 18-07-2018 8:23am #1

Judge Anthony Barr yesterday awarded €256000 to a woman yesterday who developed PTSD after being knocked down by a car in Dublin in 2011.

Seems like a lot, doesn't it? She was studying accounting and after the accident she lost her only source of income and became homeless.

Oh yeah.... The dumb bitch was crossing the road at a red pedestrian light.

So, we may all thank our learned friend when our insurance takes another hike next year.

Outlaw Pete · 18-07-2018 8:32am

Hahaha, yeah, the dumb bitch getting knocked down.

Wait, what?

seamus · 18-07-2018 8:37am

Traffic lights mean "proceed if it is safe to do so", not "you can go no matter what". A pedestrian actively crossing the road still has right of way over a turning vehicle regardless of the light sequence.

Her awarded was reduced by 45% because she crossed at the red light.

You can thank the stupid inattentive driver who crashed into a slow-moving visible hazard on a city centre street for any rise in insurance premiums.

Mint Sauce · 18-07-2018 8:47am

I'm on the fence of this one. Yes. once she stepped into the road, she had right of way, but some personal responsibility has to be taken. Did the driver get anything for the unexpected hazard in the road, and the shock he might have received?

Does this mean that any of us can just decide to walk into traffic, even if the payout is reduced?

seamus · 18-07-2018 8:52am

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Does this mean that any of us can just decide to walk into traffic, even if the payout is reduced?

Technically, yes. Off you go. Let us know if it was worth it.

Gatling · 18-07-2018 8:53am

Crazy payout ,

Seems to be the new whiplash PTSD payouts are getting mad with a diagnosis

suicide_circus · 18-07-2018 8:53am

If you care to check the medical literature you'll see that the recognised cure for PTSD is a big wedge of cash.

King of Kings · 18-07-2018 8:56am

seamus wrote: »

Traffic lights mean "proceed if it is safe to do so", not "you can go no matter what". A pedestrian actively crossing the road still has right of way over a turning vehicle regardless of the light sequence.

Her awarded was reduced by 45% because she crossed at the red light.

You can thank the stupid inattentive driver who crashed into a slow-moving visible hazard on a city centre street for any rise in insurance premiums.

you make a fair point regarding hazards but i dont think its fair to blame the driver in the absence of evidence the driver was driving without due care.
She did cross when it was Red for her and its not unreasonable to assume that the driver was taken by surprise and/or didnt see her. Not all hazards can be accomodated.

She is a grown woman and although the driver should be mindful of dangers on the road etc...the bulk of the blame ( i mean 90% ish) should lie with her.

From the report I read (indo online) I got an impression that the judge was swayed by his positive impressions of the lady rather than the facts of the case.

Its a whopper payout even with 45% deduction its whopper...

Its a dangerous ruling i think

Mint Sauce · 18-07-2018 8:58am

seamus wrote: »

Technically, yes. Off you go. Let us know if it was worth it.

As I dont particualy fancy getting thrown a few foot in the air, I will pass. But am sure there are plenty who would. Although now with dash cams...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r5kfCJHR6Y

I would have considered waiting on the police to show, and then point out the camera, and claim damages my self.

SEPT 23 1989 · 18-07-2018 8:59am

A fairly traumatic thing to go through I would have thought

OldMrBrennan83 · 18-07-2018 8:59am

This post has been deleted.

knucklehead6 · 18-07-2018 8:59am

seamus wrote: »

You can thank the stupid inattentive driver who crashed into a slow-moving visible hazard on a city centre street for any rise in insurance premiums.

Couldn’t disagree more. While we all have a reaponsibility to be careful on the roads the greater responsibility lies with the person who has a great big red fkn light saying DON’T MOVE, and yet chooses to ignore it

KaiserGunner · 18-07-2018 9:03am

Mint Sauce wrote: »

As I dont particualy fancy getting thrown a few foot in the year, I will pass. But am sure there are plenty who would. Although now with dash cams...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r5kfCJHR6Y

I would have considered waiting on the police to show, and then point out the camera, and claim damages my self.

If that is real, well then that is one of the most pathetic things I’ve ever seen in my life. I actually fear for humanity when I watch things like that.

tabby aspreme · 18-07-2018 9:04am

What physical injuries did she receive as a result of being knocked down.

Liam McPoyle · 18-07-2018 9:05am

PTSD is even more difficult to prove than whiplash.

It is also a common enough symptom tacked onto whiplash claims.

I'm a nervous passenger now your honour.

I wake up with night terrors now your honour.

As its virtually impossible to disprove the law will invariably side with the injured party and payment will be made.

Based on the limited details available here it does seem like the claimant suffered psychological damage following the accident but rather than paying her a big fat cheque, I'd be much more in favour of having insurers fully covering the cost of all medical needs, getting the best psychologists money can buy and getting her intensive therapy.

Instead, due to her own recklessness she walks away with a quarter of a million and a precedent has now been set.

Joke shop judiciary strikes again.

Hector Savage · 18-07-2018 9:05am

What a ****, absolute parasites
And the f*cking judge ...

knucklehead6 · 18-07-2018 9:06am

tabby aspreme wrote: »

What physical injuries did she receive as a result of being knocked down.

A severe case of “show-me-the-money-itis”

pickarooney · 18-07-2018 9:08am

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Couldn’t disagree more. While we all have a reaponsibility to be careful on the roads the greater responsibility lies with the person who has a great big red fkn light saying DON’T MOVE, and yet chooses to ignore it

Have you passed a driving test? Because it should have been beaten into you that the responsibility lies with the person liable to kill another person with their vehicle. That applies to not hitting cyclists acting the absolute ballbag on the road too, for better or worse.

Mint Sauce · 18-07-2018 9:08am

KaiserGunner wrote: »

If that is real, well then that is one of the most pathetic things I’ve ever seen in my life. I actually fear for humanity when I watch things like that.

Plenty of them out there, young and old throwing them selfs on to bonents. Also cash for crash videos, of drivers reversing into cars, and claiming they were driven into.

Weather real or fake, who knows, but would still tempt me into buying a dash cam.

knucklehead6 · 18-07-2018 9:11am

pickarooney wrote: »

Have you passed a driving test? Because it should have been beaten into you that the responsibility lies with the person liable to kill another person with their vehicle. That applies to not hitting cyclists acting the absolute ballbag on the road too, for better or worse.

Yes, I have passed the test. First time and have 20 years fault free driving under my belt. I had two claims, where I was crashed into but no ptsd or whiplash or anything.

It’s attitudes like yours, the “someone else is always to blame for my mistakes and balls ups” that have this country in the state it’s in

18-07-2018 9:18am

severe lack of links in the OP

pickarooney · 18-07-2018 9:25am

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Yes, I have passed the test. First time and have 20 years fault free driving under my belt. I had two claims, where I was crashed into but no ptsd or whiplash or anything.

It’s attitudes like yours, the “someone else is always to blame for my mistakes and balls ups” that have this country in the state it’s in

I don't know where you're getting that "quoted" text from but you can't very well assume your own opinion trumps the law of the land.

I've been hit and run twice by eejits ploughing into roundabouts without looking and never got so much as the cost of repairs. Whatever about the moral or legal implications, the best tactic if you do hit someone is to just drive away as fast as you can.

seamus · 18-07-2018 9:25am

King of Kings wrote: »

you make a fair point regarding hazards but i dont think its fair to blame the driver in the absence of evidence the driver was driving without due care.

If you hit a stationary or a slow-moving object, then you've ballsed up. There's not really any way to argue it. A mechanical failure, perhaps, but even then one can argue you've ballsed up by not taking proper care of your vehicle.

Berserker · 18-07-2018 9:26am

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Plenty of them out there, young and old throwing them selfs on to bonents. Also cash for crash videos, of drivers reversing into cars, and claiming they were driven into.

Only found out recently that this is a thing/scam going around. Friend of my mothers was driving around a roundabout, man in front of her jammed on the breaks, for no reason (no traffic or people around), hit reverse and backed into her. He got €25K compo due to the fact that he can't sleep properly, can't play golf anymore etc. People need to get a grip, this isn't "free" money. Guard told her that it is happening quite frequently these days.

knucklehead6 · 18-07-2018 9:35am

pickarooney wrote: »

I don't know where you're getting that "quoted" text from but you can't very well assume your own opinion trumps the law of the land.

I've been hit and run twice by eejits ploughing into roundabouts without looking and never got so much as the cost of repairs. Whatever about the moral or legal implications, the best tactic if you do hit someone is to just drive away as fast as you can.

So you talk about me not being able to assume my opinion trumps the law of the land and the same post advise people to break the law of the land by leaving the scene of an accident.

Riiiight.

Come back to me when you have a coherent non contradictory argument.

pickarooney · 18-07-2018 9:41am

knucklehead6 wrote: »

So you talk about me not being able to assume my opinion trumps the law of the land and the same post advise people to break the law of the land by leaving the scene of an accident.

Riiiight.

Come back to me when you have a coherent non contradictory argument.

You're welcome to break or ignore the law, just not really entitled to complain when you're caught and the law is applied against you.

I don't know if you follow sports but it's like insisting to the ref or other fans that something isn't a foul because you don't agree with the rule as opposed to knowingly breaking a rule to gain advantage. You're personally better off doing the latter, up until you get caught and punished, and even then if you've got away with it enough times you might still be in the black.

judeboy101 · 18-07-2018 9:52am

How about 25k for seeing ur sister ravaged by a tapir

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0710/977716-ruari-owens-court/

He will forever be afraid to go near tapirs if he goes to the Amazon rain forest.

knucklehead6 · 18-07-2018 10:00am

judeboy101 wrote: »

How about 25k for seeing ur sister ravaged by a tapir

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0710/977716-ruari-owens-court/

He will forever be afraid to go near tapirs if he goes to the Amazon rain forest.

In fairness that kid has absolutely no personal responsibility. While it’s a fair whack, it isn’t 1/4 of a million.

In yesterday’s case the woman either ignored or didn’t see a red light and walked out in front of a moving motor vehicle

pickarooney · 18-07-2018 10:02am

judeboy101 wrote: »

How about 25k for seeing ur sister ravaged by a tapir

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0710/977716-ruari-owens-court/

He will forever be afraid to go near tapirs if he goes to the Amazon rain forest.

Why were children in a cage with a wild animal?
I mean...

Edit: I had started a long reply on this but I started to meander and just tapired off near the end.

Grayson · 18-07-2018 10:08am

knucklehead6 wrote: »

In fairness that kid has absolutely no personal responsibility. While it’s a fair whack, it isn’t 1/4 of a million.

In yesterday’s case the woman either ignored or didn’t see a red light and walked out in front of a moving motor vehicle

The point was that they both have PTSD.
the woman would have been treated and assessed by professionals. They diagnosed her. You have a problem with the diagnosis, bring it up with them.

To award damages the judge would have them worked out how much she would have lost because of the accident. So he assessed potential future earnings. He did that and came up with a figure.

He then knocked a chunk off because she crossed at a red light and was therefore partially responsible.

BTW, calling her a bitch was a really scummy thing to do.

Grayson · 18-07-2018 10:09am

pickarooney wrote: »

Why were children in a cage with a wild animal?
I mean...

Edit: I had started a long reply on this but I started to meander and just tapired off near the end.

256k for PTSD

Comments