Injured child gets 11.5 million euros

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

Kristopherus

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

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

Seachmall

That is as horrific as it is confusing.

Duggy747

Why are they footing the bill?

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.

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.

telekon

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

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.

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.

SEPT 23 1989

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

tempura

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

manutd

Captain Darling wrote: »

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?

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.

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.

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?

staker

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

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:

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.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

who says crime doesn't pay

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

HigginsJ

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

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.

phasers

tbh wrote: »

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

Ah that makes sense.


Poor thing.

starbelgrade

Captain Darling wrote: »

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.

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.

manutd

tbh wrote: »

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.

I know where you coming from, but she was driving without insurance, i have no sympathy for her but do for the boy.

It's just me and for everyone else who pay out for insurance will feel the pain with increase insurance policy.

UrbanSea

I can't get over this. This is truly unbelievable.

The mother is uninsured. She's responsible for the crash, yet gets away scott free. If it was another car who crashed into her, uninsured and had a momentary lapse in concentration, they'd be in prison for 5+ years.


Such a joke the legal system is here. Just because she is his mother doesn't mean she should be treated differently

doubletrouble?

when we renew our car insurance something like 2% goes towards the MIBI to cover uninsured drivers. everyone pays this levy as far as i know. right we get the story about the kid being paid €11.5m which i think is a bit excessive but what about the payments made to the other occupants of the car she hit in total these would far exceed the €11.5m also i'd love to know what penalties she received for careless/dangerous driving and being uninsured.is she off the road?.

phasers

will the settlement pay for a carer or will the mother also claim carer's allowance do you think? not judging just wondering.


I just saw the ma on the news smiling for photographers standing next to her son. Looked a bit weird given the circumstances.

seamus

prinz wrote: »

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.

Tbh, for every minute of the rest of her life that she's going to spend caring for the son she has crippled, I imagine she would glady give up every penny she takes from the fund if it would give the child back his future.
It would take an exceptionally cold-hearted woman to see this settlement and think, "Woohoo, party time!".

In reality if you consider that the child will need 24/7 care for at least fifty years, along with the associated medical equipment and building modifications, I'm not sure if there would be any money left over for the parents to "benefit" from, aside from day-to-day expenses.

Being paid a subsistence to spend every waking moment of the rest of your life caring for the person you crippled, sounds like a punishment to me, not a reward

Seachmall

manutd wrote: »

i have no sympathy for her but do for the boy.

The boy isn't in a wheelchair because she didn't have insurance. He's in a wheelchair because the mother had an accident. Possibly an accident that could happen to any of us (without more details we can't know exactly what happened).

Now she has to live with the fact that a single split-second lapse of concentration has destroyed her sons life, which has absolutely nothing to do with her having insurance or not.

I don't see how anyone couldn't have sympathy for her.

manutd

Biggins wrote: »

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?

The sad thing is that some people couldn't give a f*ck about it been a criminal offence, but have no problem suing for money and people of Ireland who do pay for insurance pay for it.

tbh

UrbanSea wrote: »

I can't get over this. This is truly unbelievable.

The mother is uninsured. She's responsible for the crash, yet gets away scott free. If it was another car who crashed into her, uninsured and had a momentary lapse in concentration, they'd be in prison for 5+ years.


Such a joke the legal system is here. Just because she is his mother doesn't mean she should be treated differently

I've been thinking about this.

Say it was another uninsured driver that crashed into the car, I'd have no problem with the child being awarded the money. the fact that it was his mother that caused the crash doesn't change the fact that the child is an innocent victim. The money isn't going on large screen TVs and swimming pools, it's to provide care for him for the rest of his life - so I've no problem with the award.

the fact that it was his mother that caused the crash muddies the water slightly, but looking at it logically:

• She's his full time carer - sending her to prison just hurts the child
• She caused the crash - far greater punishment than any prison sentence
• It's not like she's going to be benefitting materially from the award - she can't spend it any way she wants, even if she wanted to, as the money is managed by the courts

so while it is a strange situation, I'd have to say that the courts did the right thing all round.

phasers

what does 'lapse in concentration' actually mean? Was she fiddling with the radio or something?

UrbanSea

Seachmall wrote: »

The boy isn't in a wheelchair because she didn't have insurance. He's in a wheelchair because the mother had an accident. Possibly an accident that could happen to any of us (without more details we can't know exactly what happened).

Now she has to live with the fact that a single split-second lapse of concentration has destroyed her sons life, which has absolutely nothing to do with her having insurance or not.

I don't see how anyone couldn't have sympathy for her.

She was an uninsured driver. I have zero sympathy for her, it's the boy I have sympathy for. He has a pathetic existence for the rest of his life due to the negligence of his mother. If she had no insurance she should not have been driving.

tbh

phasers wrote: »

what does 'lapse in concentration' actually mean? Was she fiddling with the radio or something?

distracted by animals at the side of the road apparently. There but for the grace of god, etc.

Seachmall

UrbanSea wrote: »

She was an uninsured driver. I have zero sympathy for her, it's the boy I have sympathy for. He has a pathetic existence for the rest of his life due to the negligence of his mother. If she had no insurance she should not have been driving.

If she was insured would she have your sympathy?

mikemac1

Afaik, two percent of every motor insurance premium is set aside and goes to the MIBI

So everyone with a motor insurance policy will be partially paying for cases such as these

Two per cent isn't a lot but for with every motor policy in the State, the national fund soon builds up

I'm happy to be corrected but I'm pretty certain I read two percent for this

UrbanSea

tbh wrote: »

I've been thinking about this.

Say it was another uninsured driver that crashed into the car, I'd have no problem with the child being awarded the money. the fact that it was his mother that caused the crash doesn't change the fact that the child is an innocent victim. The money isn't going on large screen TVs and swimming pools, it's to provide care for him for the rest of his life - so I've no problem with the award.

the fact that it was his mother that caused the crash muddies the water slightly, but looking at it logically:

• She's his full time carer - sending her to prison just hurts the child
• She caused the crash - far greater punishment than any prison sentence
• It's not like she's going to be benefitting materially from the award - she can't spend it any way she wants, even if she wanted to, as the money is managed by the courts

so while it is a strange situation, I'd have to say that the courts did the right thing all round.

That's a good argument, but the law is the law. At the end of the day she has her freedom, while her son is confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life, able to do nothing for himself.

That money may be used for other full time carers, she may not be his main carer after that award. This is mere speculation however.

libra02

I did not hear any mention as to payout for the occupants of the other car she hit. Did they receive any compensation as she must have done some serious damage to them and their car also.

I was shocked when I heard this €11.5 million - shocking. I feel so sorry for the poor child but still she caused this to her son and she walks away from court scott free. Anyone else be doing jail time, face splashed across every national newspapers being called a monster and worse.

I hope that evry single penny of this has to be accounted for and shown it is going to her son's care and and not an excuse for her to be jetting off on holidays for a "break" from the care and stress.

tbh

UrbanSea wrote: »

She was an uninsured driver. I have zero sympathy for her, it's the boy I have sympathy for. He has a pathetic existence for the rest of his life due to the negligence of his mother. If she had no insurance she should not have been driving.

agreed on this point - driving yourself without insurance is bad enough, but driving your child without insurance is criminally selfish and irresponsible.

UrbanSea

Seachmall wrote: »

If she was insured would she have your sympathy?

Yes, because she would have been driving legally.

Ellis Dee

How sad for the child! If the court had not made the award, most or all of which will be spent on the 24-hour care that the boy will need for the rest of his life, the health/social welfare service would have had to bear the cost of looking after him, so the net result is essentially the same: society pays. But the only alternative - to just let him die - is pretty unacceptable, isn't it?:cool:

This underscores the need for Ireland to change the car insurance system and adopt the same practice as in Finland and Sweden, where a car can not be registered until it has insurance cover and the insurance, which is specific to the car irrespective of who drives it, remains in effect (whether or not the premiums are paid) until a policy is taken out with another company or the car is verifiably taken off the road and its licence plates surrendered. That way, there is virtually no such thing as an uninsured car and the police need devote zero time to checking car insurance.

stovelid

At the end of the day, the child was an innocent victim of the situation and needs lifelong care.

I feel for the mother in some way to be honest even thought she is wrong to have not had insurance. It's certainly her "fault" (the black-and-white ascertainment of which being the holy grail of any AH discussion of a tragedy involving children, of course) but many of us suffer lapses of concentration every day that thankfully don't have horrible consequences and she has to live with her mistake on her conscience for the rest of her life.

seamus

libra02 wrote: »

I did not hear any mention as to payout for the occupants of the other car she hit. Did they receive any compensation as she must have done some serious damage to them and their car also.

When you're hit by an uninsured driver, your own insurance company pays your compensation.