Injured child gets 11.5 million euros

darced

This post has been deleted.

Motorist

drkpower wrote: »

I think most people have a problem with it. The question is what is the proportionate response to her crime.

At the very least a driving ban for a few years. Of course she can just use the award from the court to ferry herse...I mean her son around in taxis etc.

Merch

telekon wrote: »

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

I got halfway down the first page, then stopped reading, just with pure disgust, I'll go back and read it now.

Who is paying? you and I will and everyone else that pays their insurance (our now increased insurance) what a stupid bitch.

true

Merch wrote: »

Who is paying? you and I will and everyone else that pays their insurance (our now increased insurance) what a stupid bitch.

yes. and she did not even pay her own insurance premium in the beginning. I wonder how much of the 11 million will improve her quality of life from what it otherwise would have been? No wonder she was gloating and grinning outside the court today. Its the son I feel sorry for.

drkpower

Motorist wrote: »

At the very least a driving ban for a few years.

And should that be the standard sentence for anyone who drives without insurance?

Royal Legend

Motorist wrote: »

Mr Shatter is not his wife. Did he force his wife to drink alcohol and then get behind the wheel of a car?

No, but he is the minister for justice, one of the most important jobs in the land. If for example, Michael Noonan's wife (RIP) had misappropriated funds from her local credit union, would you expect Michael Noonan to still be in his position or would it be untenable? If Joan Burton's partner was fiddling the dole, would her position be untenable? If the minister for telecommunications was getting back handers for allegedly mobile phone licences, would his position become untenable? IMO, Shatter was a hypocrite as soon as he took on the post, its one rule for Fianna Fail, bit when the boot is on the other foot, its a totally different scenario, well at least we now know that Enda picks up the tab for his own make-up

For Paws

If, say, that particular morning I had got into my car, despite not being insured, and having become ' distracted', collided with Ms Kennedy's vehicle and caused very severe injuries to her 6 yr old child, what consequences would I have faced ?

Motorist

drkpower wrote: »

And should that be the standard sentence for anyone who drives without insurance?

Well a one year driving ban is commonly given for no insurance. I would add a few years for driving into the opposite carriageway of a road and losing concentration so significantly - dangerous driving charge if ever there was one. Just a shame that this boy has had to suffer the consequences of this recklessness.

Monty Burnz

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It was a tragic accident that SHE caused - while driving ILLEGALLY. It seems highly relevant to discuss how those who obey the rules are being rogered by those who don't.

But I guess you are one of those rare people who hasn't got a bad word to say about freeloaders like Bertie Ahern and Seanie Fitz? You guys are a rare breed - it's a privilege to talk to one of you. Let me guess - you were out yesterday supporting that guy with 21 houses who had one repossessed?

MickySticks

tbh wrote: »

But but but

Oopps

drkpower

Motorist wrote: »

Well a one year driving ban is commonly given for no insurance. I would add a few years for driving into the opposite carriageway of a road and losing concentration so significantly.

Well the latter is a seperate potential offence; I presume that a charge of dangerous driving was considered but seems not to have been pursued.

Monty Burnz

drkpower wrote: »

And should that be the standard sentence for anyone who drives without insurance?

Sounds reasonable TBH. That and/or taking their vehicle off them.

Maudi

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i pray someone with no insurance never drives head on into you.

Motorist

drkpower wrote: »

Well the latter is a seperate potential offence; I presume that a charge of dangerous driving was considered but seems not to have been pursued.

Well she was guilty of several offences. Shame that the boys life has been ruined by her actions.

micropig

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Sounds reasonable TBH. That and/or taking their vehicle off them.

She has 11.5 million to buy herself her son a new vehicle, so that wouldn't be much punishment

drkpower

Motorist wrote: »

Well she was guilty of several offences.

Was she?

For Paws

Maudi wrote: »

i pray someone with no insurance drives head on into you.

Ah now. No need to lose the head entirely.

A question for darced.

If Ms Kennedy, whilst driving uninsured, had collided with your vehicle, and your passenger severely injured, would you feel differently ?

Or would it just have been an unfortunate accident ?

Eoin

Seachmall wrote: »

I see these a separate issues. Her having no insurance isn't, from what we can tell, any reflection on her competence to drive. By driving uninsured she took no more of a risk as anyone else who is a competent driver.*
....
* That is; insurance doesn't prevent accidents, it merely covers them after the fact.

I think that driving uninsured is right up there with drink driving.

If you're willing to do that (with your child in the car), what other laws are you happy to break? It might not be a direct reflection on how to manoeuvre a car (though you'd have to wonder in this case), but it shows a clear disregard for other road users to say the least.

Also this:

Cullen had been restrained by a booster seat in the rear of the car, but was thrown forward - striking the front windscreen.

That's either incredibly unlucky, or just maybe it was bollocks and he wasn't belted in properly.

For Paws

drkpower wrote: »

Was she?

In that (A) she, by her own admission, drove without insurance,

and,

(B) was involved in an accident whilst driving uninsured, and so subject to the charge of dangerous driving under the Road Traffic Act(s)

she is liable to prosecution, and in this case very likely conviction.

Motorist

Dangerous driving.

53.—(1) A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be therein) is dangerous to the public.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and—

(a) in case the contravention causes death or serious bodily harm to another person, he shall be liable on conviction on indictment to penal servitude for any term not exceeding five years or, at the discretion of the court, to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds or to both such penal servitude and such fine, and

In my opinion, driving a vehicle into an oncoming car (and at a speed which results in the projection of an unrestrained child into the windscreen and causes massive spinal cord damage) due to a "lapse" in concentration is driving in a manner which is dangerous to the public.

drkpower

For Paws wrote: »

In that (A) she, by her own admission, drove without insurance,

and,

(B) was involved in an accident whilst driving uninsured, and so subject to the charge of dangerous driving under the Road Traffic Act(s)

she is liable to prosecution, and in this case very likely conviction.

She was certainly guilty of driving without insurance and i presume she was convicted of same (at least i hope so). As for dangerous driving, i presume that was considered. You would expect that that process would have come to an end at this point so i can only assume that she wasnt charged or convicted.

As for whether she was morally guilty of dangerous driving, it is hard to say without knowing all the details. Should everyone who has an accident of this nature be charged/convicted of dangerous driving? I dont think so; driving by its very nature means that a very minor error can result in terrible consequences - it doesnt necessarily mean that the necessary moral culpability for that conviction is present in every case.

I have, on one or two occasions, escaped a bad accident over a very minor error. I dont think the nature of the minor error i made would (morally or in law) constitute dangerous driving.

drkpower

Motorist wrote: »

In my opinion, driving a vehicle into an oncoming car (and at a speed which results in the projection of an unrestrained child into the windscreen and causes massive spinal cord damage) due to a "lapse" in concentration is driving in a manner which is dangerous to the public.

What speed do you think is required to project a child seat into the windscreen?
What speed do you think is required to injure a young child's spinal cord?
What degree of error do you think might result in someone veering over the white line?

Motorist

drkpower wrote: »

What speed do you think is required to project a child seat into the windscreen?
What speed do you think is required to injure a young child's spinal cord?
What degree of error do you think might result in someone veering over the white line?

I would say 20-30mph plus. I would say also 20-30 mph plus.

A serious degree of error given she admits herself that concentration lapsed. Normally if veering starts to occur, immediate corrective action is taken. I doubt she was looking at the road ahead of her.

amovingstatue

I wonder what legal options the passenger would have had if the mother had had third party fire and theft cover, i'm guessing none?

so everyone that has TPFT cover should be burned alive for carrying passengers in their car....

should insurance companies be burned alive for selling TPFT policies?

drkpower

Motorist wrote: »

I would say 20mph plus. I would say also 20mph plus.

A serious degree of error given she admits herself that concentration lapsed.

Assuming your assumption of 20mph is correct, is driving over 20mph what you would consider to be dangerous driving?

Does a lapse of concentration equal dangerous driving?

CamperMan

telekon wrote: »

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

your insurance premiums will go up. to help with payouts like this

doubletrouble?

Eoin wrote: »

I think that driving uninsured is right up there with drink driving.

thank you, at last someone with a head on their shoulders
now for those of you that have replied in the last couple of hours thank god most of you are making sense. there have been earlier posters that see nothing wrong with driving with no insurance.
i dont care if her insurance had elapsed for a few hours the fact is she knowingly, willingly, deliberately and illegally drove her son to school. if she had insurance this thread would've died ages ago.
at this stage i'm getting sick of the stupid ridiculous replies on here. one even questioning on whether she was guilty of any offence, even though she admitted to driving with no insurance.
well at this stage all i have to say is i hope she ( the mother ) rots. her son deserves alot better than her or anything she could give him. she put him in that position. and i actually feel sorry for him having to put up with her for the rest of his life.
motorist i have read most of you comments, theres to many to click like on but fair play to ya. a big thumbs up from me.

Motorist

drkpower wrote: »

Assuming your assumption of 20mph is correct, is driving over 20mph what you would consider to be dangerous driving?

Does a lapse of concentration equal dangerous driving?

I would say not looking at the road is dangerous driving. I would say not looking at the road (to such an extent the vehicle travels across the road and a head on collision occurs) on a national primary road where the usual travelling speed of vehicles is approx. 80kmp/h is certainly dangerous driving.

Halloran springs

amovingstatue wrote: »

I wonder what legal options the passenger would have had if the mother had had third party fire and theft cover, i'm guessing none?

so everyone that has TPFT cover should be burned alive for carrying passengers in their car....

should insurance companies be burned alive for selling TPFT policies?

Passenger = Third party.

Motorist

Halloran springs wrote: »

Passenger = Third party.

Passengers are a huge liability especially if you're driving with no insurance and end up getting sued by the MIBI.

drkpower

Motorist wrote: »

I would say not looking at the road is dangerous driving. I would say not looking at the road (to such an extent the vehicle travels across the road and a head on collision occurs) on a national primary road where the usual travelling speed of vehicles is approx. 80kmp/h is certainly dangerous driving.

So the 20mph has nothing to do with it then?!

Would you consider it dangerous driving to not look at the road for any period of time regardless of the circumstances?

Motorist

drkpower wrote: »

So the 20mph has nothing to do with it then?!

Would you consider it dangerous driving to not look at the road for any period of time regardless of the circumstances?

I would say on a national primary road, the speed was likely to be far in excess of 20mph.
Only the garda forensics team and people involved in the collision know more accurately what speed she was travelling at.

Not looking at the road directly ahead occurs every day in driving such as checking blind spots, etc. Not looking at the road for a significant period of time is dangerous driving, in my opinion. A significant period of time would include losing situational awareness to such an extent that you cross onto the opposite side of the road.

How do you suppose a child restrained managed to be projected into the windscreen? In your opinion, will this woman take a case taken against the manufacturer of the booster seat ?

Capt'n Midnight

Statistics show that in the UK, uninsured drivers are responsible for around 160 fatalities and 23,000 injuries to road users every year.

IRISH DRIVERS PAID out almost €59 million in 2010 as a result of uninsured drivers and hit and runs. ... The MIBI did manage to recover almost €6 million last year by taking uninsured drivers to court. However, the difference in the money paid and the money recovered must by covered by other Irish drivers.Last year 15 people were killed by uninsured and hit and run drivers

http://www.axa.ie/general/axa-latest-news.aspx

According to AXA Claims figures, you have a 1 in 20 chance of coming into contact with an uninsured driver. The Motor Insurance Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) has stated that approximately 100,000 vehicles in the state are currently uninsured. In 2010 the MIBI were notified of *2232 claims in relation to uninsured drivers.

Uninsured driving has been a thorn in the side of honest policyholders for many years with claims involving uninsured drivers adding on average *€45 to the cost of the average motor insurance premium each year.

In the UK
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/motors/2011/0629/1224299725080.html

Last week Britain introduced a law making it an offence to own an uninsured vehicle – even if kept in a garage or permanently parked up. Until now it had only been an offence to drive an uninsured vehicle.

The high level of evasion speaks for it's self
Detection should be fairly easy with all the CCTV on the M50 and other roads and the cameras in Garda cars.

NB. if you ever borrow someone else's car read the policy first in case the conditions are different to last year / the last company you were with.



Have to agree that this case doesn't send the right signal about driving without insurance.

Has the license been endorsed.
If there is a fine to pay is it substantially greater than the insurance would have been, - in the past boy racers have been fined fractions of what the saved by getting insured !
Should people caught without insurance have to redo the driving test, including the lessons ?

one wonders what her new premium would be ?

BostonB

I seriously doubt, there's any worse punishment than their current situation. Or indeed any punishment that would do anything except punish the child further. As such I'm baffled why people are fixated on punishing them further.

That I don't really understand the payment. If thats the intent of the fund, or if the state can't provide for them.

drkpower

Motorist wrote: »

I would say on a national primary road, the speed was likely to be far in excess of 20mph.
Only the garda forensics team and people involved in the collision know more accurately what speed she was travelling at.

Not looking at the road directly ahead occurs every day in driving such as checking blind spots, etc. Not looking at the road for a significant period of time is dangerous driving, in my opinion. A significant period of time would include losing situational awareness to such an extent that you cross onto the opposite side of the road.

How do you suppose a child restrained managed to be projected into the windscreen? In your opinion, will there this woman take a case taken against the manufacturer of the booster seat ?

But your assertion earlier was that driving over 20mph amounted to dangerous driving; have you reconsidered?

How long does it take to cross the opposite side of the road while driving at 100kph (presumably the limit)?

I have no idea how the seat was projected; i dont know what speed it takes for that to happen.

Motorist

drkpower wrote: »

But your assertion earlier was that driving over 20mph amounted to dangerous driving; have you reconsidered?

How long does it take to cross the opposite side of the road while driving at 100kph (presumably the limit)?

I have no idea how the seat was projected; i dont know what speed it takes for that to happen.

You asked at what speed can spinal cord damage occur. I asserted at around 20mph.

As for the "massive spinal cord damage" this particular child suffered which resulted in quadriplegia, I would say a speed in excess of that would be necessary.

I find it interesting that the other occupant's seatbelts restrained them successfully, yet this child was thrown into the windscreen from his booster seat. Something is amiss.

Capt'n Midnight

CamperMan wrote: »

your insurance premiums will go up. to help with payouts like this

2.5 million cars so about €4.60 each

But that would happen whether she was insured or not.


http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/50502/motor-insurance-up-three-per-cent

The Government levy on all non-life insurance policies has increased from three per cent to five per cent,” says director of policy Conor Faughnan. “This alone adds nearly €12 to the average policy and more to the higher value ones. It is one more straw on the camel’s back for motorists already suffering tax increases on fuel and road tax.”

....
AA Ireland also surmises that the €127 million claims bill from last October’s floods is bound to affect non-life assurance premiums across the board over coming months.

“In a period of just two years we experienced four of the most destructive weather events recorded in this country at a cost to insurers of almost €900 million. If we take a rough figure of 3.1 million non-life insurance policies for Ireland, this would equate to an increase of €290 per policy if absorbed in one single year,” calculates Faughnan.

You might say that this would be spread across other types of insurance but the reality of the situation is that car insurance will have to adsorb external costs. And of course all those fraudulent claims.


Anyone remember the PMPA levy too ?


So if you took out the brokers cut, the govt levy, the VAT, the uninsured drivers you could create a pay per mile basic insurance funded by an increase in fuel tax. Perhaps you could claim a tax rebate if you had no claims ?

drkpower

Motorist wrote: »

You asked at what speed can spinal cord damage occur. I asserted at around 20mph.

As for the "massive spinal cord damage" this particular child suffered which resulted in quadriplegia, I would say a speed in excess of that would be necessary.

I find it interesting that the other passengers seatbelts restrained them successfully, yet this child was thrown into the windscreen from his booster seat. Something is amiss.

You said that driving a vehicle into an oncoming car (and at a speed which results in the projection of an unrestrained child into the windscreen and causes massive spinal cord damage (which you later clarified to mean 20/30mph or so) was dangerous driving. But in fairness, you seem to be moving a bit from that position.

The booster seat issue does seem unusual; i would hope that a booster seat, properly restrained to the seat, should be capable of withstanding a collision at reasonable speeds (or at least i would hope so).

Motorist

drkpower wrote: »

You said that driving a vehicle into an oncoming car (and at a speed which results in the projection of an unrestrained child into the windscreen and causes massive spinal cord damage (which you later clarified to mean 20/30mph or so) was dangerous driving. But in fairness, you seem to be moving a bit from that position.

The booster seat issue does seem unusual; i would hope that a booster seat, properly restrained to the seat, should be capable of withstanding a collision at reasonable speeds (or at least i would hope so).

In my opinion, driving a vehicle into an oncoming car and at a speed which results in the projection of an unrestrained child into the windscreen and causes massive spinal cord damage due to a "lapse" in concentration is driving in a manner which is dangerous to the public.

You asked what speed causes spinal cord injury. I clarified in general that speed to be 20 to 30 mph to cause minor spinal cord injury of no great consequence.

Separately the speed which resulted in massive spinal cord damage resulting in quadriplegia in this particular case is different, and in my opinion far in excess of that. The factor of speed should not of course be taken alone, but rather in context of everything else happening. I do not think driving at 100mph on an empty motorway at night is dangerous driving.

Good night.

Madd Finn

Seachmall wrote: »

Insured or uninsured she took the same risk and showed the same level of regard for her son as any mother who drivers their children to school.

WHAT?????

Never mind her "Can't pay, won't pay" attitude to insurance. How come the child hit the windscreen with such force that he was rendered quadruplegic? Doesn't sound to me like he was properly secured into a car seat/seat belt.

Which is also against the law BTW, as well as being damn negligent.

Bullseye1

If this poor unfortunate child was crossing the road and was knocked down by a careless driver who had no insurance people would be saying throw away the keys. Why is this situation any different. We have a dangerous driver without insurance causing serious injuries to a child. She should be in jail.

BeerWolf

I'm not following... the grandmother is the one suing, who exactly is she suing ?

ResearchWill

BeerWolf wrote: »

I'm not following... the grandmother is the one suing, who exactly is she suing ?

The child as a minor can not sue in his own name, usually the mother sues as "mother and next friend" but as the mother is the defendant she can not also be the next friend so a close relative or guardian is named, I do not know why it was not the father, he may not be around or if the car was his and he was the insured while not driving he may also have had to be a named defendant, to be honest I'm only guessing why the father was not the next friend. The defendants listed would more than likely been mother and MIBI.

Just checked the courts listing it was the father and MIBI that are defendants, so it maybe that the car was insured by the father but driven by the mother.

Nulty

Have you seen pictures of the mother!?

On the right (obv)

BeerWolf

ResearchWill wrote: »

The child as a minor can not sue in his own name, usually the mother sues as "mother and next friend" but as the mother is the defendant she can not also be the next friend so a close relative or guardian is named, I do not know why it was not the father, he may not be around or if the car was his and he was the insured while not driving he may also have had to be a named defendant, to be honest I'm only guessing why the father was not the next friend. The defendants listed would more than likely been mother and MIBI.

Just checked the courts listing it was the father and MIBI that are defendants, so it maybe that the car was insured by the father but driven by the mother.

No, I mean the grandmother is suing her daughter - why is it the state that is giving the compensation, taking into account the mother was uninsured to begin with?

Sorry if I'm being a tad ignorant here...

ResearchWill

BeerWolf wrote: »

No, I mean the grandmother is suing her daughter - why is it the state that is giving the compensation, taking into account the mother was uninsured to begin with?

Sorry if I'm being a tad ignorant here...

Ok first of all the child is the plaintiff, the grand mother is named as next friend, in fact as I pointed out the courts services web site say that the defendants are the father and the MIBI. The state are not paying out the MIBI or in reality all the motor insurers are paying out. Usually what happens in an MIBI claim the MIBI nominate an insurance company to do the claim. But it seems to me that as the father was named as defendant he must have had insurance on the car, but as wife was not covered then it became an MIBI claim. More than likely the insurance company paying out are the ones the father was covered with that's the usual anyway.

Mint Sauce

Slightly puzzled by all this as well on how this payment has worked.

Putting that aside though, I feel for the kid, I feel for the mother in terms of her lapse has left her kid quadrapledgic. In terms of that, whether she was insured or not, her momentary lapse has caused this, will propbably stay with her and haunt her for the rest of her life.

CaliforniaDream

I have to say, seeing a photo of the child brought tears to my eyes.
I don't know why, he just has a sweet face. I feel for him that he'll never have a normal life.
I hope the compensation makes it easier for him at least. As to who should be his carer, that's not for me to judge. If something benefits the child then I agree with it.

It also makes me glad I don't have kids because I can't imagine what I'd do in this situation.

gerryo777

Motorist wrote: »

Mr Shatter is not his wife. Did he force his wife to drink alcohol and then get behind the wheel of a car?

The same as this kid is not his mother.

Did he force his mother to drive with no insurance?
Should he suffer more because she didn't?

gerryo777

BeerWolf wrote: »

No, I mean the grandmother is suing her daughter - why is it the state that is giving the compensation, taking into account the mother was uninsured to begin with?

Sorry if I'm being a tad ignorant here...

The state is not giving the compensation.