€11.5 million settlement as a result of uninsured driver

bohsfan

ShadowHearth wrote: »

So now mother is sued and still is a guardian to that child." and get ls authority over the funds.

How many times in this thread has it been mentioned that the money will be put in trust by the courts and administered by them until the child turns 18?

Still, would hate for something like that to get in the way of your opinion...

And what was all that before about cups of coffee?

Vertakill

bohsfan wrote: »

How many times in this thread has it been mentioned that the money will be put in trust by the courts and administered by them until the child turns 18?

Still, would hate for something like that to get in the way of your opinion...

And what was all that before about cups of coffee?

In fairness, 18 is only 8 years away for the kid... 11.5m won't be gone in 8 years.
So there's every possibility that the mother could get her hands on some of that money in the future if the kid allows it.

Mr. Presentable

wonski wrote: »

and what lack of concentration was it?

Likely it was her mobile.

ShadowHearth

seamus wrote: »

Would that have been better for the child?

Regardless of the circumstances, she didn't set out to intentionally injure her son. So it's a wild leap to assume that taking a child from his family into state care is doing right by that child.

Should we make this law? Every child injured by their parent should be taken by the state?

If you think that the child would be better off in state care, then feel free to make a complaint to the dept of social welfare, who can move in and assess whether she's fit to look after her child. But I'm sure you already know what the answer to that is.

Nobody here has any basis on which to believe that this woman is unfit to look after her child to the extent that the state should step in. She didn't intentionally endanger her child.

Why state? Grandmother sued doughter for accsident, so grand mother would have demanded to be a guardian too. Of they got 12mil I am prety sure she would get child custody too.

So far situation is: child, mother and grandmother went to court. All came back from court back home with 12mil and no one punished for it. If that does not sound quite off the standards of being normal, then I don't know wrf is going In the world now and what is normal.

Mr. Presentable

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

Likely it was her mobile.

The RTE reporter said the child brought animals to her attention or something like that, so she was looking at animals presumably.

bohsfan

Vertakill wrote: »

In fairness, 18 is only 8 years away for the kid... 11.5m won't be gone in 8 years.
So there's every possibility that the mother could get her hands on some of that money in the future if the kid allows it.

Of course there is. And just as much of a chance that she won't see a penny. That's a choice for the child to make down the line.

There's a big difference between that situation and insinuating that they Mother can sit back from tomorrow with the money in her bank account.

seamus

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Why state? Grandmother sued doughter for accsident, so grand mother would have demanded to be a guardian too. Of they got 12mil I am prety sure she would get child custody too.

Why would she get custody? The amount awarded is down to the lifetime costs of caring for the child. They don't represent the level of negligence of the mother or anything like that.

You still haven't answered the question anyway of whether the child would be better off away from his mother. Of course you can't answer that question because you haven't a clue. If we were take away every child who was injured as a result of their parents' mistakes, more than half of the country would end up in state care.

The only question is whether the mother is unfit on an ongoing basis to look after her child. A single incident isn't enough to draw conclusions. Everyone makes mistakes, sometimes they're huge.

the_syco

Devils advocate:

She tried to commit suicide by going head on with another car, fails, and gets the state to pay for her mistake.

What happened to the person this mad lunatic crashed into?

Also, what is his mental state now? Will he be forever in her care until she dies, or will be be able to decide on things himself?

bohsfan

bohsfan wrote: »

......... insinuating that they Mother can sit back from tomorrow with the money in her bank account.

Where are those insinuations?

ShadowHearth

seamus wrote: »

Why would she get custody? The amount awarded is down to the lifetime costs of caring for the child. They don't represent the level of negligence of the mother or anything like that.

You still haven't answered the question anyway of whether the child would be better off away from his mother. Of course you can't answer that question because you haven't a clue. If we were take away every child who was injured as a result of their parents' mistakes, more than half of the country would end up in state care.

The only question is whether the mother is unfit on an ongoing basis to look after her child. I doubt it.

I answered that question, you just did not read it.

keithclancy

keithclancy wrote: »

Forget the bregrudgery, what kind of example does this set for people.

Would you have the same opinion if it was man driving his adopted child to school ?

Yes I would because I don't differentiate between father and mothers and I certainly don't stoop to the pathetic level of differentiating adopted children. Weird fuking question.

RoverJames wrote: »

You don't think she'll be off on the odd holiday or two?

No more than the normal person. The fund wont pay for holidays and she's not earning. If someone treats her to a week in spain, does it make her a bad person?

the_syco

the_syco wrote: »

..........

Also, what is his mental state now? Will he be forever in her care until she dies, or will be be able to decide on things himself?

According to the reporter the judge spoke to him in court and learned he was well into computers etc.

Francie Barrett

No one has a problem with the money being awarded to the kid. What people have an issue with is the negligence of the mother. If I took the roads uninsured with my child in the back, the least I would expect is a custodial sentence for causing such an accident. Secondly, I would have questions about how restrained this child was. Was the car seat too big/small for the child? Was the child restrained properly, etc?

This country is a joke - we have crazy people driving around uninsured, with no tax, no MOT's, no licences, etc. and instead of putting them in prison, we're handing out pathetically small fines.

Max Power1

seamus wrote: »

Would that have been better for the child?

Regardless of the circumstances, she didn't set out to intentionally injure her son. So it's a wild leap to assume that taking a child from his family into state care is doing right by that child.

Should we make this law? Every child injured by their parent should be taken by the state?

If you think that the child would be better off in state care, then feel free to make a complaint to the dept of social welfare, who can move in and assess whether she's fit to look after her child. But I'm sure you already know what the answer to that is.

Nobody here has any basis on which to believe that this woman is unfit to look after her child to the extent that the state should step in. She didn't intentionally endanger her child.

Negligence perhaps?
No insurance, reckless driving. Wilful neglect etc all come to mind

sitja

Has the driver had any sort of conviction for this.. surely its dangerous driving.. I am aware she has to deal with her mistake for the rest of her life.. yet i disagree with the payment.. Im sure if it was a young male driver who had a "lapse of concentration" today we would be hearing about a lad getting sentenced to about 5 years..

seamus

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I answered that question, you just did not read it.

No you didn't. I asked you if being taken away from its mother would be better for the child.

You didn't answer that, you just twaddled some nonsense about there being a grandmother in the loop.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

...........


No more than the normal person. The fund wont pay for holidays and she's not earning. If someone treats her to a week in spain, does it make her a bad person?

A bad person? Who said anything about her being a bad person?

bohsfan

RoverJames wrote: »

Where are those insinuations?

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Grandmother Sued mother while having a cup of coffee. It was planed to get that in court and get that money. After that court mother and grandmother will take money ( untill lad is 18, I know I know, but in 12 years you can do a lot with 12 mils ) and go home. Both will take care after child, while having a cup of coffee, again.

Clear enough for you?

ShadowHearth

bohsfan wrote: »

Clear enough for you?

Read all my post, instead of taking stuff out of context.

ShadowHearth

seamus wrote: »

No you didn't. I asked you if being taken away from its mother would be better for the child.

You didn't answer that, you just twaddled some nonsense about there being a grandmother in the loop.

Same read all my posts, last page up top.

bohsfan

bohsfan wrote: »

............

There's a big difference between that situation and insinuating that they Mother can sit back from tomorrow with the money in her bank account.

bohsfan wrote: »

Clear enough for you?

But sure ShadowEarth did state that the mother would be looking after the lad. Sitting back tomorrow with the money in the account suggests that she'd be doing feck all.

seamus

Max Power1 wrote: »

Negligence perhaps?
No insurance, reckless driving.

Perhaps. But these relate to her driving, not her ability to look after her son. Otherwise you may as well start taking away people's kids any time they crash with the kids in the car. Driving uninsured with the child in the car isn't any more dangerous than driving while insured. The crash risk is identical.

Wilful neglect etc all come to mind

Wilful neglect requires a conscious knowledge that you are actively causing or are likely to cause harm through neglect. Which doesn't apply in this case.

If you are driving your car with your child in the car, and you make a mistake and crash, causing injury to your child, should the child be taken away from you? Y/N

Or to properly express exactly what people here are saying:

Does crashing your car make you an unfit parent? Y/N

Damien360

Leaving aside the cause of the injuries, where did the figure of €11.5m arrive from.

His ongoing care appears on the face of it, to be similar to that of a child with cerebral palsey. You can be sure parents of those kids do not have millions for the care. I know of one family in this predicament and it costs them a fortune running up and down from mayo to crumlin for the childs ongoing medical issues. They are not getting any handouts.

He will rightfully be getting carers allowance also (although very small).

Lets assume 2 carers for life at €40,000 a year. That is €800,000 in 10 years. Assuming full life expectancy to the age of 60. That is €4.8m.

He may have had high medical bills after the crash. Are these not covered by the HSE already or did they send a bill ?

There will be house renovations to allow easy access to rooms and lifting equipment for his care. That will be expensive but not millions.

can anyone shed light on the judgement of €11.5m ?

seamus

seamus wrote: »

........

You didn't answer that, you just twaddled some nonsense about there being a grandmother in the loop.

Hardly nonsense, I believe the chap was alluding to the child sueing the mother through the grandmother, for her actions. Than after the case (and from the incident to the case of course) the mother and grandmother both look after the little dude.

'twas hardly twaddling some nonsense, I believe English isn't Shadow Earth's first langauge.

Damien360

Damien360 wrote: »

.......

can anyone shed light on the judgement of €11.5m ?

The compensation element, the little chap is in this predicament due to the negligence of a motorist.

Francie Barrett

seamus wrote: »

Perhaps. But these relate to her driving, not her ability to look after her son. Otherwise you may as well start taking away people's kids any time they crash with the kids in the car. Driving uninsured with the child in the car isn't any more dangerous than driving while insured. The crash risk is identical.

Any parent who takes to the road with a child while uninsured is showing gross negligence in my eyes.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

.......

Does crashing your car make you an unfit parent? Y/N

Looking out the window at animals that your son brought to your attention while you are driving for a period to enable you to cross to the wrong side of the road would make you an unfit parent imo. Having the lad secured in a booster seat and he hitting the windscreen would question the application of the restraints too, more grounds for deeming the parent unfit imo.

Damien360

RoverJames wrote: »

The compensation element, the little chap is in this predicament due to the negligence of a motorist.

So it is his bills plus a bonus ???

seamus

Francie Barrett wrote: »

Any parent who takes to the road with a child while uninsured is showing gross negligence in my eyes.

How so? Will insurance catch the child and wrap him in bubble wrap before he hits the windscreen?

RoverJames wrote: »

Looking out the window at animals that your son brought to your attention while you are driving for a period to enable you to cross to the wrong side of the road would make you an unfit parent imo.

So see my post above. If a parent crashes the car and injures their child, is that sufficent to take the child away from them? Should we make this a law?

Damien360

Damien360 wrote: »

So it is his bills plus a bonus ???

In fairness it's compensation, not a bonus. I imagine he will face extreme challenged in earning a living for example, it common enough for folks to be compensated for this. It's not a bonus in any way, shape or form.

Vertakill

seamus wrote: »

Wilful neglect requires a conscious knowledge that you are actively causing or are likely to cause harm through neglect. Which doesn't apply in this case.

If you are driving your car with your child in the car, and you make a mistake and crash, causing injury to your child, should the child be taken away from you? Y/N

Or to properly express exactly what people here are saying:

Does crashing your car make you an unfit parent? Y/N

No, but failing to wear your seatbelt is a driving offence if you're an adult and if a minor fails to wear their seatbelt, then it's an offence of the driver who is responsible for said minor.
So, as the mother and the driver, she was negligent when it came to her son's safety.

When you're driving a 1300 kilo piece of metal at speed with your son bouncing around the back seat and you're not insured, then yes, you are most definitely an unfit parent.
Only an unfit parent would think driving a child around unrestrained (speculation!) in a car without insurance is ok.

The child can't pay for their own insurance so they're relying on their mother to pay for it and insure that they will be looked after in the event of an accident ... she wilfully refused to pay it and instead of paying the consequences she is getting away scot free.
The child, on the other hand, has had their life ruined by this complete disregard for the law and the child's safety.

Nobody here is disputing the need for the 11.5m for the child - it's the fact that the mother has done irreversible harm to a young person's life while showing complete disregard for their safety and nothing has been done about it.

What would have happened if they had lost this court case or it hadn't gone as well as it did?
What would the child do then with regards financing all the care he'll need?

If she'd paid for her insurance, all of this would've been taken care of.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

...........
So see my post above. If a parent crashes the car and injures their child, is that sufficent to take the child away from them? Should we make this a law?

.......... twaddling nonsense

seamus

We don't know that the mother had any wilful disregard for the child's safety.

I've already stated (mayeb in the other thread) that I'm curious as to how a restrained child managed to hit the windscreen, but without further information, we have no basis on which to assume that she hadn't properly restrained the child. Perhaps the mechanism failed.

Basically there are two issues here:

She was uninsured. That's kind of irrelevant as to whether she's a fit parent as the accident would have happened whether she had insurance or not.
She drifted to the other side of the road. Poor driving, but as the result of a relatively simple mistake which most people have done at one time or another. Doesn't really make her an unfit parent as I'm sure every parent has made plenty of mistakes while driving with their kids in the car.

CoDy1

RoverJames wrote: »

In fairness it's compensation, not a bonus. I imagine he will face extreme challenged in earning a living for example, it common enough for folks to be compensated for this. It's not a bonus in any way, shape or form.

General loss in the quailty of life would have been a massive factor in the payout too.

Damien360

RoverJames wrote: »

In fairness it's compensation, not a bonus. I imagine he will face extreme challenged in earning a living for example, it common enough for folks to be compensated for this. It's not a bonus in any way, shape or form.

You do not see the point of my earlier post above. His bills and care will not add up to €11.5m over his lifetime. So, given that will be covered easily, why pay out any extra on top.

If you crash, your car, medical bills, ongoing care bill is added up to give you an award. All that money will be eaten up in your care. You do not get a little extra to keep you going. I am not querying the compensation given to him but I am questioning the cost of €11.5m.

ShadowHearth

seamus wrote: »

We don't know that the mother had any wilful disregard for the child's safety.

I've already stated (mayeb in the other thread) that I'm curious as to how a restrained child managed to hit the windscreen, but without further information, we have no basis on which to assume that she hadn't properly restrained the child. Perhaps the mechanism failed.

dude... for real? 6 year old child weigh about 20kg and his belt failed and he went flying. mother assuming normal adult - 60-75kg was still in place and did not touched a widescreen and did not had any mojar ( or even minor ) injuries...


i am sure she is not just shiet driver and parent, but shiet at using simple belts and locks.
maybe now she will sue the baby seat manufacturers?

i am 100% sure if that would have been some fault of baby seat, it would be on news everywhere and company who made that seat would be in deeeeeeeeeeeeeep shiet.

Atomic Pineapple

seamus wrote: »

If you are driving your car with your child in the car, and you make a mistake and crash, causing injury to your child, should the child be taken away from you? Y/N

No.

All I have a problem with is that she choose to drive uninsured and should face the consequences of that on her own, she should be correctly punished as anyone else would be and she shouldn't have the right to get other people to pay to mind her son when she didn't have the decency to insure herself in the first place.

IE: She didn't feel the need to insure against this happening so why should everybody else have to pay because it did happen?

ShadowHearth

draffodx wrote: »

No.

All I have a problem with is that she choose to drive uninsured and should face the consequences of that on her own, she should be correctly punished as anyone else would be and she shouldn't have the right to get other people to pay to mind her son when she didn't have the decency to insure herself in the first place.

IE: She didn't feel the need to insure against this happening so why should everybody else have to pay because it did happen?

that makes me think now: why on earth do we all need insurance? just to get garda of our back?

Damien360

Damien360 wrote: »

You do not see the point of my earlier post above. His bills and care will not add up to €11.5m over his lifetime. So, given that will be covered easily, why pay out any extra on top.

If you crash, your car, medical bills, ongoing care bill is added up to give you an award. All that money will be eaten up in your care. You do not get a little extra to keep you going. I am not querying the compensation given to him but I am questioning the cost of €11.5m.

This will be a provision for 11.5 million. If it's not spent, then it's not spent. The family doesn't receive a cheque here and then live of the interest.

Vertakill

seamus wrote: »

She was uninsured. That's kind of irrelevant as to whether she's a fit parent as the accident would have happened whether she had insurance or not.
She drifted to the other side of the road. Poor driving, but as the result of a relatively simple mistake which most people have done at one time or another. Doesn't really make her an unfit parent as I'm sure every parent has made plenty of mistakes while driving with their kids in the car.

Ok seamus put it this way, if I was uninsured right now and I asked you if you wanted to go for a drive with me, would you come along?

No you wouldn't - you're an adult with common sense.

A 6yo won't know what insurance is, but they don't have to... they have loving parents that worry about these things for them so they don't have to.

A fit parent would safeguard their child from running the gauntlet regarding fighting a court case in order to get some money to actually make this child's life possibly worth living in the event of a crash...

I don't know if you're a parent, but would you run the risks of all of that?

So, yeah, she's an unfit parent and what she did was inexcusable.
Even if she didn't crash and got away with no insurance for her whole life, she'd still be an unfit parent for putting her child in harm's way.

draffodx

draffodx wrote: »

No.

All I have a problem with is that she choose to drive uninsured and should face the consequences of that on her own, she should be correctly punished as anyone else would be and she shouldn't have the right to get other people to pay to mind her son when she didn't have the decency to insure herself in the first place.

IE: She didn't feel the need to insure against this happening so why should everybody else have to pay because it did happen?

Because we're not paying for her care. We're paying for a child's care.

seamus

draffodx wrote: »

All I have a problem with is that she choose to drive uninsured and should face the consequences of that on her own, she should be correctly punished as anyone else would be and she shouldn't have the right to get other people to pay to mind her son when she didn't have the decency to insure herself in the first place.

IE: She didn't feel the need to insure against this happening so why should everybody else have to pay because it did happen?

I understand that, but what about the rights of her son? The legal framework is there which allows him to rightfully claim this money as the innocent 3rd party injured by an uninsured driver. Would you argue that this needs to be changed so that someone can't claim if they are related to the uninsured driver? Even if they weren't in the uninsured vehicle?

Francie Barrett

seamus wrote: »

How so? Will insurance catch the child and wrap him in bubble wrap before he hits the windscreen?

The whole purpose of insurance is not just to protect the value of the vehicles involved, it's also there to protect the people are involved in the crash. If I am involved in a catastrophic crash with my child on-board, at least I know my child will be taken care of in the event it sustains serious injuries. You're argument might have merit if this woman realised that by not being insured that she was going to get paid out on her child sustaining these injuries regardless.

Vertakill

seamus wrote: »

I understand that, but what about the rights of her son? The legal framework is there which allows him to rightfully claim this money as the innocent 3rd party injured by an uninsured driver. Would you argue that this needs to be changed so that someone can't claim if they are related to the uninsured driver? Even if they weren't in the uninsured vehicle?

Nobody in this entire thread has once questioned the rights of the son?
I think everyone is in agreement that he should be compensated for this.

The problem is, we (as in, us motorists) shouldn't have to pay for this out of our pockets.
The mother should have paid her insurance and this 11.5m would be something her insurer would be paying out, rather than us collectively paying out.

So, she should be punished in some way for breaking the law - it's pretty simple.

lomb

So Im going to be paying for this silly woman through my insurance being loaded through my subsidising the uninsured motorists fund?The lawyers and judge as well as the politicians running this country who have created a legal framework allowing these payouts and payouts to the lawyers (350+euro an hour) should be shot.

That's nuts very unique case. Have to say though disgraceful behaviour from the mother driving her child in an insured vehicle.

Francie Barrett

seamus wrote: »

She was uninsured. That's kind of irrelevant as to whether she's a fit parent

It's very relevant. She is breaking the law by not having insurance. Ignoring this crash, what if she was brought up in front of a judge who threw the book at her and locked her up because she was caught at a Garda checkpoint? That doesn't sound like the kind of trait that a fit parent would display.

seamus

Clearly a lot of people here have a very high standard of what they consider to be a fit parent. Would you consider someone without health insurance to be an unfit parent? What if the child got a serious illness?

It's a unique and bizarre case, and while it's a little odd that she doesn't appear to be have been "officially" punished, it's seems a little pointless to do so considering the consequences which have already arisen.

But considering her an unfit parent is more than a little reactionary when you consider the hundreds of thousands of children in far worse conditions that the state considers to be in "fit" family homes.

As far as I can see, most people are more interested in making her suffer, rather than considering whether the child is better off in her care or someone else's. And without knowing more about their home life, you cannot declare someone an unfit parent on the basis of a single incident.

Unless that incident is, I dunno, rape or murder or something.

Vertakill

Vertakill wrote: »

Nobody in this entire thread has once questioned the rights of the son?
I think everyone is in agreement that he should be compensated for this.

The problem is, we (as in, us motorists) shouldn't have to pay for this out of our pockets.
The mother should have paid her insurance and this 11.5m would be something her insurer would be paying out, rather than us collectively paying out.

So, she should be punished in some way for breaking the law - it's pretty simple.

Right, suggest a logical punishment so.. I'm all ears.

spank_inferno

Any word on whether the mother faced or will face a dangerous driving charge?