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
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Settlement of €2.9m for boy (4) who sued mother

2»

Comments

  • #52
    Profiler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭Profiler


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    Isn't it obvious that if the child didn't win the court case, the costs of bringing up the injured child would fall on the parents ?

    Due to the case win, prob not a penny of the cost of bringing up the injured child will fall on this woman.

    The child did nothing wrong to leave it without a decent level of care would be to penalise the child twice.

    The child is entitled to sue the person responsible for it's losses what is clouding your judgement here is that the mother was at fault.

    The parents have to deal with the fact that their actions caused the clearly very serious injuries and have to care for the child for the rest of their lives.

    The money awarded is for the child's care and child's care only.


  • #53
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,564 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    Profiler wrote: »
    The child did nothing wrong to leave it without a decent level of care would be to penalise the child twice.

    The child is entitled to sue the person responsible for it's losses what is clouding your judgement here is that the mother was at fault.

    The parents have to deal with the fact that their actions caused the clearly very serious injuries and have to care for the child for the rest of their lives.

    The money awarded is for the child's care and child's care only.

    Everything you said doesn't mean the award in the case doesn't benefit the woman though. Without the award, she would be out of pocket in future for the care of this child. With this award, she is not.

    I have no problem with the child having an adequet amount of care going into the future. The child did nothing wrong and deserves proper care.

    Personally, I believe she deserves jailtime, although this too would prob be to the detrement of the poor child.


  • #54
    Profiler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭Profiler


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    Everything you said doesn't mean the award in the case doesn't benefit the woman though. Without the award, she would be out of pocket in future for the care of this child. With this award, she is not.

    What you fail to understand is that this is not about the mother or her out of pocket expenses. It is about the child.

    The court is concerned only with the child's welfare, which is the only concern the court should have... and the only one you or I should have too.


  • #55
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,564 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    Profiler wrote: »
    What you fail to understand is that this is not about the mother or her out of pocket expenses. It is about the child.

    The court is concerned only with the child's welfare, which is the only concern the court should have... and the only one you or I should have too.


    I know. I never questioned that.

    But you are missing the point that this clearly DOES benefit the mother, wether or not the court thought of this or not.

    You asked me how it benefitted the mother and I showed you how it does.

    Your question was:
    Profiler wrote: »
    It's not clear to me how she benefits?



    Can you explain that one to me?


    My simple answer is that she doesn't have to pay anything now for the upbringing of her injured son, where without the settlement, she would have. SImple.

    Having a look on the net, the cost of bringing up a child is somewhere around the €125,000 mark. Bringing up a handicapped son would prob cost far more than this estimate.


  • #56
    Profiler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭Profiler


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    My simple answer is that she doesn't have to pay anything now for the upbringing of her injured son, where without the settlement, she would have. SImple.

    Simple - yes

    Correct - No!

    It's clear that this family did not have the means to support this injured child themselves. As such the court held that to best protect the child a sum of money had to be awarded in the child's best interest.

    You appear to be suggesting that the court should punish the child, on top of the punishment it suffered when it was injured, just so it can punish the mother.


  • #57
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,564 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    Profiler wrote: »
    Simple - yes

    Correct - No!

    It's clear that this family did not have the means to support this injured child themselves. As such the court held that to best protect the child a sum of money had to be awarded in the child's best interest.

    You appear to be suggesting that the court should punish the child, on top of the punishment it suffered when it was injured, just so it can punish the mother.


    WHere am I saying this.

    I'm clearly saying that the woman benefits from this ruling and no more.

    You are doing nothing but putting words in my mouth.

    Please explain to me how the woman, DOES NOT benefit from this ruling. Its clear she would be out of pocket without it.


  • #58
    Profiler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭Profiler


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    Having a look on the net, the cost of bringing up a child is somewhere around the €125,000 mark. Bringing up a handicapped son would prob cost far more than this estimate.

    €125,000? Over 18 to 21 years that is cheap!

    I've seen care packages that cost £250,000 a year. Those are for children left severely physically and mentally disabled.

    €2.9m over the course of a projected life expectancy of 65 years is not quite the amount of money people might perceive it to be.


  • #59
    Profiler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭Profiler


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    WHere am I saying this.

    I'm clearly saying that the woman benefits from this ruling and no more.

    You are doing nothing but putting words in my mouth.

    She has a disabled child and you claim that she is benefiting from an award to the child?

    Is that not the crux of your problem here?


  • #60
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,564 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    Profiler wrote: »
    €125,000? Over 18 to 21 years that is cheap!

    I've seen care packages that cost £250,000 a year. Those are for children left severely physically and mentally disabled.

    €2.9m over the course of a projected life expectancy of 65 years is not quite the amount of money people might perceive it to be.

    My figures as stated was to rare a child. I then pointed out it would clearly cost more for a handicapped child.

    On this basis, the woman is saving a lot of cash from this ruling.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,564 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    Profiler wrote: »
    She has a disabled child and you claim that she is benefiting from an award to the child?

    Is that not the crux of your problem here?

    You seem to have some warped logic that the award of the cash caused the injuries to her son.

    You need to seperate out the two incidents completely.

    You know what, I'm not going to argue anymore as you clearly are ignoring my point.


  • #62
    Profiler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭Profiler


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    You seem to have some warped logic that the award of the cash caused the injuries to her son.

    You need to seperate out the two incidents completely.

    I'm under no such illusion and now who is putting words into someones mouth?

    I have been able to separate the plaintiff from the defendant from the very start.


  • #63
    Profiler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭Profiler


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    My figures as stated was to rare a child. I then pointed out it would clearly cost more for a handicapped child.

    On this basis, the woman is saving a lot of cash from this ruling.

    Saving cash? that is staggeringly ignorant.

    Neither you nor I have any idea what the structure of the settlement was. Yet there you are apportioning money like you are in possession of the full set of facts.


  • #64
    maidhcII
    Closed Accounts Posts: 72 ✭✭maidhcII


    Just to clear something up:

    The award in this case will never be paid over to the mother. In the normal course of events it would be paid over the court service to hold in trust until the child is 18 and would be able to manage the finance themselves. If an advance was required for education or what not an application would have to be made to the court.

    I think in the case the child will be made a ward of court when he reaches 18 as he will be mentally incapacitated. So the court will have an input in managing his finances for his lifetime.

    As regard the broader picture here, I think it is most likely the mother was prosecuted and lost her licence and got a hefty fine.

    Also, you can claim from the MIBI for anything where you are injurerd by an uninsured driver. The main thing is to notify the gardai within 24 hours of the accident at the latest. If you have comprehensive insurance you will normally claim for your car damage from the insurer directly, but it won't affect your NCB or claims history. If you have TPFT or similar you claim using the claim form at www.mibi.ie.


  • #65
    Eoin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,263 ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    maidhcII wrote:
    I think in the case the child will be made a ward of court when he reaches 18 as he will be mentally incapacitated. So the court will have an input in managing his finances for his lifetime.

    But the money is needed immediately, so they can't just invest it until he is 18. Doesn't that mean the court can set up a committee to spend the money? If so, couldn't his parents be on, or make up that committee?


  • #66
    Profiler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭Profiler


    eoin wrote: »
    But the money is needed immediately, so they can't just invest it until he is 18. Doesn't that mean the court can set up a committee to spend the money? If so, couldn't his parents be on, or make up that committee?

    More likely to be the child's solicitor. The parents will have an input but the deciding factor will be that the money needs spending will be for the child's benefit.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    maidhcII
    Closed Accounts Posts: 72 ✭✭maidhcII


    eoin wrote: »
    But the money is needed immediately, so they can't just invest it until he is 18. Doesn't that mean the court can set up a committee to spend the money? If so, couldn't his parents be on, or make up that committee?

    As I said, an application would be made to the court, i.e. a Judge will decide on what is in the best interests of the child after hearing the reasons as set out by the parents/their legal representatives.

    So an application would have to be made to have money released for the stem cell therapy, or indeed to get 35k to keep the child in the family home.


Advertisement