Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Injured child gets 11.5 million euros

  • 20-04-2012 12:06pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    this is a strange one...

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0420/largest-settlement-ever-in-high-court-11-5m.html
    The largest settlement in a personal injury case in the history of the State was agreed at the High Court when €11.5m was given to a 10-year old boy from Loughrea, Co Galway today.


    The payment was the largest paid out in a personal injury case in the High Court
    He suffered injuries in a car crash in 2008 that left him permanently confined to a wheelchair.
    Cullen Kennedy was being driven to school by his mother Margaret Kennedy on 5 May 2008.
    He was a rear seat passenger and was restrained in a booster seat.
    Margaret Kennedy suffered a momentary lapse of concentration, the car crossed the centre of the road and struck another car head-on. She was uninsured at the time.

    The Motor Insurance Bureau of Ireland will pay the settlement.

    I'm not arguing whether the child wins or loses - he loses, straight up. I'm just not sure why the payment was made given it was his mother driving the car - did he in effect sue his mother?

    edit: being covered on the news now. He did sue his mother


«13456727

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,907 ✭✭✭✭Kristopherus


    Did he in effect sue his mother???? He could only do that through his mother:confused:


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,317 ✭✭✭HigginsJ


    Yea itsvery odd, i cant fathom why the are entitled to this pay-out. As you say the only possible conclusion is that the boy in effect sued his own mother


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    That is as horrific as it is confusing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,295 ✭✭✭✭Duggy747


    Why are they footing the bill?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    Duggy747 wrote: »
    I'm...................confused. Why are they footing the bill?

    Apparently they cover uninsured drivers. The mother was uninsured. So the child sue'd the mother (?!?), and the The Motor Insurance Bureau of Ireland is covering the payment.

    It makes no sense.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,542 ✭✭✭Captain Darling


    Duggy747 wrote: »
    Why are they footing the bill?

    The MIBI cover uninsured drivers. That is, if someone is making a claim against an uninsured person, the MIBI have to foot the bill.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,424 ✭✭✭telekon


    I don't get it. Who exactly is paying the money? She wasn't insured and Im sure is not a multi millionaire?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,568 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Irrespective of whom the driver is, an insurance company normally by their accepting cash, allowing then a policy to be valid and active, were covering those who travelled in the said vehicle.

    Where there is NO insurance, all the present insurance bodies pay into a national fund for such cases like this one, as far as I know.
    I got paid out of one of these once.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    the case was taken by the grandfather against the mother. the mother is the childs full time carer, and the family say a significant portion of the award will be used to pay for past care. The money will also be managed by the court.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,017 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    Anyone who has car insurance is contributing to that payout and i would not deny the youngfella a cent of it


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 604 ✭✭✭tempura


    Apparatntly the case was taken against the childs mother by the childs grandfather.


  • Registered Users Posts: 988 ✭✭✭manutd


    The MIBI cover uninsured drivers. That is, if someone is making a claim against an uninsured person, the MIBI have to foot the bill.

    With people who do insure their car, will pay the bill. What happened to the mother then, ie. driving without insurance?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Biggins wrote: »
    Irrespective of whom the driver is, the insurance company by their accepting cash, allowing then a policy to be valid and active, were covering those who travelled in the said vehicle.

    Where there is NO insurance, all the present insurance bodies pay into a fund for such cases like this one.

    the mother (who was driving) wasn't insured. that's why the MIBI are paying.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,424 ✭✭✭telekon


    This seems a bit crazy. What's the point of buying insurance so? Don't think I'll bother if this sort of situation is the norm now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,159 ✭✭✭✭phasers


    so some idiot drives without insurance, crashes her car, disables her son and is given 11 million quid? Wtf?

    can the son access the money before he's 18?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,677 ✭✭✭staker


    Anyone who has car insurance is contributing to that payout and i would not deny the youngfella a cent of it

    That's alright and I'd be sympatethic too but my tune would change if next years premium went up on my own policy:mad:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    manutd wrote: »
    With people who do insure their car, will pay the bill. What happened to the mother then, ie. driving without insurance?

    her punishment is that for the rest of her life, she has to live with the fact that she caused a crash which crippled her son.

    I wouldn't swap for five times the amount.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    who says crime doesn't pay


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    tbh wrote: »
    the case was taken by the grandfather against the mother. the mother is the childs full time carer, and the family say a significant portion of the award will be used to pay for past care. The money will also be managed by the court.

    Ah, that makes sense.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    phasers wrote: »
    so some idiot drives without insurance, crashes her car, disables her son and is given 11 million quid? Wtf?

    can the son access the money before he's 18?

    he can never access the money - it'll be managed by the courts.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,568 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    telekon wrote: »
    This seems a bit crazy. What's the point of buying insurance so?

    Well for a start, because if you don't its a criminal offence.
    You should be buying independent insurance if only to help stop draining the state and other companies of such funds?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,542 ✭✭✭Captain Darling


    manutd wrote: »
    With people who do insure their car, will pay the bill. What happened to the mother then, ie. driving without insurance?

    I'm sure there was a punishment specific to her driving without insurance, separate to this claim.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,017 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    staker wrote: »
    That's alright and I'd be sympatethic too but my tune would change if next years premium went up on my own policy:mad:

    Wont go up over this its always been included in premiums


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,532 ✭✭✭A2LUE42


    I had to do a double check when I heard this on the radio. What has happened her son is terrible, but she caused it, and was uninsured at the time.

    Incidents like this will only allow people with no insurance to justify it to themselves. I would expect others to follow in the footsteps of this case.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    I dont begrudge the kid a settlement towards care, as long as it goes directly to external carers, but that is an absolute disgrace IMO. There are kids and adults who have been similarly and in cases sufferedworse disabilities etc through no fault of their own/or their parents who didn't get a settlement that size.

    The mother was solely at fault. There is no way she should benefit to the tune of a single cent from this, if the mother is full time carer, and the settlement is going towards rewarding her for that care, I think that's wrong tbh.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 987 ✭✭✭Kosseegan


    telekon wrote: »
    This seems a bit crazy. What's the point of buying insurance so? Don't think I'll bother if this sort of situation is the norm now.


    The MIBI can now sue the mother to get the money back. If you look at the lust of published judgements you will see numerous cases where the MIBI obtain judgement against uninsured individuals. Aside from that it is an offence to drive withouit insurance and being convicted of doing so can result in jail.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,317 ✭✭✭HigginsJ


    Anyone who has car insurance is contributing to that payout and i would not deny the youngfella a cent of it


    I dont want to sound harsh but why should people who pay their insurance cover for negligence on the mothers behalf driving the car and for then not having insurance.

    I find it very hard to see why this is allowed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,159 ✭✭✭✭phasers


    tbh wrote: »
    he can never access the money - it'll be managed by the courts.
    Ah that makes sense.


    Poor thing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    The MIBI cover uninsured drivers. That is, if someone is making a claim against an uninsured person, the MIBI have to foot the bill.

    When you pay for car insurance, a percentage of your premium is handed over to the MIBI & this money is used to fund the MIBI and to pay the cost of claims against uninsured drivers.

    So, in essence, anyone who pays for insurance is covering claims against those who aren't insured.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,025 ✭✭✭smallerthanyou


    tbh wrote: »
    he can never access the money - it'll be managed by the courts.

    When he's 18 he can.

    Edit: Oh wait if he's mentally incapacitated then he won't. It's a horrific case. The parents apply to the courts for the money as needed.


Advertisement