Injured child gets 11.5 million euros

latenia

I find it really disturbing the way the media report these cases in Ireland; all the mother and son needed was a giant novelty cheque and it could have been a lotto win being covered. Given the circumstances of the incident a smiling photocall outside the courts was completely inappropriate.

I also think the award should be based on whatever the child's needs are for the rest of his life, say €100k per annum or something like that. What if he dies in a couple of years? Then the mother hits payola big time. Conversely, what if we experience hyperinflation? €10M could be worth peanuts.

branbee

The opinions in this thread remind me of the thread about the dog who bit the thiefs hand. Some people wouldn't "praise" the dog because "what if it was a child he did it to", but now when it comes to this case the people talking about how the mother shouldn't be punished won't look at it objectively as if it was their child that woman injured.
Btw it purely coincidental that Im comparing the mother to a dog here!

As for the money, people keep saying she'll have to live with it forever and that's punishment enough, if my child suffered any injury due to my own mistakes going to court for money would be the last thing on my mind- but if i did end up in court etc and was glad of the settlement for his care and all the rest you would not see me posing outside like that. The embarrassment of what id done to my own child and the circumstances in which it occurred would make me do everything in my power to hide away from that. I know they probably asked for the photo but she really didn't have to pose for one. Not saying she's wrong for doing it, just can't fathom how she can.

DonQuay1

phasers wrote: »

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

Actually, my thoughts turn to her driving ability and her honesty.

- Did she just have one lesson (and was not capable to drive at all - as a result)? and any learner driver shouldn't be on the road without another person with a full licence beside them anyway?

- Has she ever done a test and if not - how many years has she been driving without doing one? If she has never done one - is this because she would not be capable of passing? and any learner driver shouldn't be on the road without another person with a full licence beside them anyway?

- Did she fail her test so is not capable of driving and any learner driver shouldn't be on the road without another person with a full licence beside them anyway?

Why are we to believe someone that who got behind the wheel of a 'lethal weapon' - after breaking a number of laws to do so - is telling the truth about her 6 year old 'distracting' her? The child can hardly say 'that's what happened'!!!

Was she reaching for a smoke? Fiddling with the radio? Or from my personal obs. on the Mickey Marbh Dual Carraigeway most days of the week -with infants strapped in and not ...... doing make-up whilst driving at speed!??!! Blaming a six year old and casually posing for photos whilst extolling the qualities of the poor child whom you've very badly crippled for life is also a tad sick!!

Motorist

DonQuay1 wrote: »

Actually, my thoughts turn to her driving ability and her honesty.

- Did she just have one lesson (and was not capable to drive at all - as a result)? and any learner driver shouldn't be on the road without another person with a full licence beside them anyway?

- Has she ever done a test and if not - how many years has she been driving without doing one? If she has never done one - is this because she would not be capable of passing? and any learner driver shouldn't be on the road without another person with a full licence beside them anyway?

- Did she fail her test so is not capable of driving and any learner driver shouldn't be on the road without another person with a full licence beside them anyway?

Why are we to believe someone that who got behind the wheel of a 'lethal weapon' - after breaking a number of laws to do so - is telling the truth about her 6 year old 'distracting' her? The child can hardly say 'that's what happened'!!!

Was she reaching for a smoke? Fiddling with the radio? Or from my personal obs. on the Mickey Marbh Dual Carraigeway most days of the week -with infants strapped in and not ...... doing make-up whilst driving at speed!??!! Blaming a six year old and casually posing for photos whilst extolling the qualities of the poor child whom you've very badly crippled for life is also a tad sick!!

"Momentary lapse in concentration" is the worst bs euphemism I've ever come across. She has proven herself to be an incompetent care giver thus far. The pictures of her were a disgrace.

ResearchWill

Motorist wrote: »

"Momentary lapse in concentration" is the worst bs euphemism I've ever come across. She has proven herself to be an incompetent care giver thus far. The pictures of her were a disgrace.

While I agree about the pictures, the blame for them lies squarely at the feet of the photographers. I think all lawyers should advise their clients not to pose for photographs outside the court, but human nature takes over.

In relation to lapse of attention, she says she was distracted by her child, I for one will admit I have been distracted while in a car driving by less important things than a child, does that make me an unfit person to mind children, it seems in the mind of a lot of people on here, I would be incompetent. All I can say for myself is there but for the grace of God go I.

Motorist

ResearchWill wrote: »

While I agree about the pictures, the blame for them lies squarely at the feet of the photographers. I think all lawyers should advise their clients not to pose for photographs outside the court, but human nature takes over.

In relation to lapse of attention, she says she was distracted by her child, I for one will admit I have been distracted while in a car driving by less important things than a child, does that make me an unfit person to mind children, it seems in the mind of a lot of people on here, I would be incompetent. All I can say for myself is there but for the grace of God go I.

It was also in addition to the fact she was driving around uninsured. If there had been no accident but she was stopped the guards and lost her licence, how would she have taken the child to school, got around, etc. Driving without insurance is what I would expect 18 year old gob$hites with no cop on to be doing or scumbags. Also as mentioned previously, it was most unusual that her child managed to be thrown from the booster seat into the windscreen while everyone elses seatbelts managed to restrain them from more serious injury.

billybudd

ResearchWill wrote: »

While I agree about the pictures, the blame for them lies squarely at the feet of the photographers. I think all lawyers should advise their clients not to pose for photographs outside the court, but human nature takes over.

In relation to lapse of attention, she says she was distracted by her child, I for one will admit I have been distracted while in a car driving by less important things than a child, does that make me an unfit person to mind children, it seems in the mind of a lot of people on here, I would be incompetent. All I can say for myself is there but for the grace of God go I.

I 100% agree with your post apart from the bolded bit, it shows a complete lack of awareness and in my opinion a lack of respect to her child, any decent person would have avoided this picture out of due remorse even though it was a accident and although something like this should not destroy your life as it was just a terrible accident it shouldnt be something to be grinning about in a newspaper.

Bruthal

ResearchWill wrote: »

In relation to lapse of attention, she says she was distracted by her child, I for one will admit I have been distracted while in a car driving by less important things than a child, does that make me an unfit person to mind children, it seems in the mind of a lot of people on here, I would be incompetent. All I can say for myself is there but for the grace of God go I.

Everyone has, except the perfect drivers in the thread here of course. They are guaranteed never to crash, and/or never to have an accident that is their fault.

Milk & Honey

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...

there is a European Directive requiring the state to have a system for the compensation of persons other than the driver of the offending vehicle injured in road accidents.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:263:0011:0031:EN:PDF

Motorist

robbie7730 wrote: »

Everyone has, except the perfect drivers in the thread here of course. They are guaranteed never to crash, and/or never to have an accident that is their fault.

Or at the very least complicate things further by driving illegally and having no insurance along with other failings.

Bruthal

Motorist wrote: »

Or at the very least complicate things further by driving illegally and having no insurance.

Many drivers drive illegally regularly. They just dont see it as a problem. And yet it causes many deaths.

BostonB

Bullseye1 wrote: »

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.

How does that help the child?

How is jail worse punishment than what happened?

What will putting her in jail achieve?

thebuzz

Not sure if this has been asked but what happens the money in the event of the child dying, even in a number of years to come?

Motorist

BostonB wrote: »

How does that help the child?

How is jail worse punishment than what happened?

What will putting her in jail achieve?

She should at the very least be hauled into court to face criminal charges for driving without insurance and for the accident she caused.

Otherwise what deterrent is their to driving without insurance? If you have an accident and ruin your childs life, sure you can just get your uncle or mother to sue you.

If you don't have an accident, you've saved on buying an insurance premium. Just let all the other mugs driving around pay for you.

ResearchWill

Motorist wrote: »

Or at the very least complicate things further by driving illegally and having no insurance along with other failings.

Wedo not know it that's was a deliberate act or not, the fact that as I have said the father was the named defendant with MIBI leads me to believe he was the insured, it could have been a situation that she believed she was insured.

Motorist

thebuzz wrote: »

Not sure if this has been asked but what happens the money in the event of the child dying, even in a number of years to come?

The money has been calculated based on a rough estimation of the child living a full life (This is ludicrous and of course it should be paid out on an annual basis and stopped if the child dies). The money will be inherited by next of kin if the child dies more than 12 years from now (probably by the mother) or whoever the child (who will then be an adult) has directed the money to go to. Within twelve years, the case is not Statute barred and the MIBI could sue to get the money back.

thebuzz

Motorist wrote: »

The money has been calculated based on a rough estimation of the child living a full life (This is ludicrous and of course it should be paid out on an annual basis and stopped if the child dies). The money will be inherited by next of kin if the child dies more than 12 years from now (probably by the mother) or whoever the child (who will then be an adult) has directed the money to go to. Within twelve years, the case is not Statute barred and the MIBI could sue to get the money back.

That's where I have a major problem with this. An absolute disgrace if that woman is allowed inherit even a cent of it.

BostonB

Motorist wrote: »

...Otherwise what deterrent is their to driving without insurance? If you have an accident and ruin your childs life, sure you can just get your uncle or mother to sue you....

Your logic is that jail is a worse deterrent than doing that to your child and having to care for them the rest of your life.

I would suggest if that the person to whom the latter isn't a deterrent jail would be a non event to them.

firedancer

what this woman did is no different to someone drinking 10 pints getting into their car and drinking driving and causing a similar accident.

DoubleTrouble this statement is utterly wrong.

There is absolutely no comparison whatsoever.

What makes you judge and jury, don't you think this mother has paid the price and will continue to do so for the rest of her days?

The lack of compassion in some the posts is astounding.:(

BostonB

This doesn't seem to right mechanism to provide for that child.

MagicSean

Motorist wrote: »

The money has been calculated based on a rough estimation of the child living a full life (This is ludicrous and of course it should be paid out on an annual basis and stopped if the child dies). The money will be inherited by next of kin if the child dies more than 12 years from now (probably by the mother) or whoever the child (who will then be an adult) has directed the money to go to. Within twelve years, the case is not Statute barred and the MIBI could sue to get the money back.

The MIBI were awarded the full amount against the mother already.

Motorist

BostonB wrote: »

Your logic is that jail is a worse deterrent than doing that to your child and having to care for them the rest of your life.

I would suggest if that the person to whom the latter isn't a deterrent jail would be a non event to them.

I wouldn't advocate jail for no insurance or dangerous driving and not in this instance. A lengthy driving ban and substantial fine would be a deterrent.

Motorist

MagicSean wrote: »

The MIBI were awarded the full amount against the mother already.

What full amount. This has been awarded to the child who is a ward of the court. No action has been taken against the mother. The MIBI will not take action unless the mother has substantial assets. If the loss of assets from the mother such as taking of family home were to effect the child, I am unsure if the child could take further action against the MIBI and claim more compensation, as such a loss is still the result of the accident he was a third party to. Essentially the MIBI is back where they started.

Maudi

firedancer wrote: »

what this woman did is no different to someone drinking 10 pints getting into their car and drinking driving and causing a similar accident.

DoubleTrouble this statement is utterly wrong.

There is absolutely no comparison whatsoever.

What makes you judge and jury, don't you think this mother has paid the price and will continue to do so for the rest of her days?

The lack of compassion in some the posts is astounding.:(

the mother didnt show half your compassion when she more or less went joy riding with her son...she didnt care bout your son mine or her own.

gsxr1

Without reading every page.

Am I to believe that:

the mother who destroyed their child life, just sued herself and became a multi millionairess .

Feckin hell. This has to be some sort of pisstake surly :eek:

firedancer

Maudi wrote: »

the mother didnt show half your compassion when she more or less went joy riding with her son...she didnt care bout your son mine or her own.

she was driving him to school, she looked at something he was drawing her attention towards, distracting her for a moment, she has been there for him at every moment since this accident, and that is exactly what it was, an accident, she will be paying for it in a way that no amount of money will ever alleviate for the rest of her life.
And that money is being managed by nominated trustees on behalf of her son for his lifetime, she will not benefit.

It's only money, what she will suffer and has suffered cannot be estimated in monetary terms.

satisfied now?

don ramo

the boy deserves every penny he get but in no way should his mother be walking the streets,

and now instead shes getting paid to care for her son, whatever about a lapse in concentration, she acted very irresponsible by even getting into the car with no insurance even though she has such a young son, i know people (family members also) living on the breadline but they still renew their insurance every year without fail, absolutely no excuse for this, and what happened to the people in the car she hit,

also how did she manage to become such a qualified health care provider, people train for years to provide a certain level of care, i honestly cant see how shes even qualified to take care of her son given his injuries,

MagicSean

Motorist wrote: »

What full amount. This has been awarded to the child who is a ward of the court. No action has been taken against the mother. The MIBI will not take action unless the mother has substantial assets. If the loss of assets from the mother such as taking of family home were to effect the child, I am unsure if the child could take further action against the MIBI and claim more compensation, as such a loss is still the result of the accident he was a third party to. Essentially the MIBI is back where they started.

From The Journal

"Separately, the MIBI secured a judgment against Margaret Kennedy for the full amount of the settlement."

So any money that doesn't go towards the child goes to the MIBI. And no the child cannot take further action for the same injuries.

gsxr1 wrote: »

Without reading every page.

Am I to believe that:

the mother who destroyed their child life, just sued herself and became a multi millionairess .

Feckin hell. This has to be some sort of pisstake surly :eek:

did you read any page?

Galwayguy35

I agree 100% that the boy deserves every cent of the money to give him a bit of comfort for the rest of his life. I have no doubt that the mother feels terrible about what happened but the fact remains that she was driving without insurance. I don't know the details but was she not proscuted for this? Didn't she hit another car?

Bruthal

don ramo wrote: »

also how did she manage to become such a qualified health care provider, people train for years to provide a certain level of care, i honestly cant see how shes even qualified to take care of her son given his injuries,

So if you had a child that something happend to, to leave them in that condition, you wouldnt try take care of them yourself?

If every parent of a disabled child was to give them to someone more qualified to care for them, every child would be given up.

gsxr1

MagicSean wrote: »

From The Journal

"Separately, the MIBI secured a judgment against Margaret Kennedy for the full amount of the settlement."

So any money that doesn't go towards the child goes to the MIBI. And no the child cannot take further action for the same injuries.



did you read any page?

No. Was I even close.

Hamilcar

thebuzz wrote: »

Not sure if this has been asked but what happens the money in the event of the child dying, even in a number of years to come?

I think you'll find mammy gets the dosh!

For Paws

There are a number of points at issue in this case, and it is difficult to untangle them.

It is reasonable for all insured persons to contribute to a fund which will recompense them if they are involved in an incident with a non-insured person.

All injured persons should be compensated for their losses and injuries.

All non-insured persons should be prosecuted for all detected offences.
(Why the Gardai or the DPP did not proceed with a prosecution is a mystery, and was certainly not in the 'public interest').

It is interesting that the MIBI when sued did not opt to proceed to trial, where all the claimants statements could have been subjected to examination. Perhaps the extra cost involved was considered excessive.
But as an insured person who contributes towards the MIBI fund, and therefore to the care of this unfortunate child I would have preferred to have proceedings in open court, and all questions asked and answered, rather than be told that the case was settled.
Crucial to this case was whether the booster seat in which the child was secured performed adequately.
Surely there exists a question as to whether it was defective, and as a direct result the child suffered extensive injuries, the nature and treatment / care of which resulted in the quantum to be paid out.
Why does the MIBI not pursue this, and if indicated sue the manufacturer / fitter of the seat ?

dvpower

Maudi wrote: »

the mother didnt show half your compassion when she more or less went joy riding with her son...she didnt care bout your son mine or her own.

I believe it was the school run.

dvpower

For Paws wrote: »

All non-insured persons should be prosecuted for all detected offences.
(Why the Gardai or the DPP did not proceed with a prosecution is a mystery, and was certainly not in the 'public interest').

We don't know if she was prosecuted for driving without insurance - that's just a massive assumption that has been made by most every contributor to this thread.

Capt'n Midnight

If the child had received the injury from something other than a car accident would there be a payment / where would the payment come from ?


For example if the child fell on rocks below the hight tide mark (ie. not on anyone's land)

MagicSean

Hamilcar wrote: »

I think you'll find mammy gets the dosh!

i think you'll find that you are wrong.

Motorist

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If the child had received the injury from something other than a car accident would there be a payment / where would the payment come from ?


For example if the child fell on rocks below the hight tide mark (ie. not on anyone's land)

The child would get nothing.

Likewise there are many children born with worse conditions than quadriplegia who get nothing. Of course the State looks after them adequately.

However, in this case the State can now recoup some of the money from the settlement for the cost of in-patient and out-patient services.

Motorist

dvpower wrote: »

We don't know if she was prosecuted for driving without insurance - that's just a massive assumption that has been made by most every contributor to this thread.

It's a very reasonable assumption that she was or will be prosecuted for driving without insurance. Otherwise we have a situation of selective application of the law which is disgraceful.

Maudi

firedancer wrote: »

Maudi wrote: »

the mother didnt show half your compassion when she more or less went joy riding with her son...she didnt care bout your son mine or her own.

she was driving him to school, she looked at something he was drawing her attention towards, distracting her for a moment, she has been there for him at every moment since this accident, and that is exactly what it was, an accident, she will be paying for it in a way that no amount of money will ever alleviate for the rest of her life.
And that money is being managed by nominated trustees on behalf of her son for his lifetime, she will not benefit.

It's only money, what she will suffer and has suffered cannot be estimated in monetary terms.

satisfied now?

theres nothing "happy"about any of this story...read the post above yours.

Motorist

The sooner phased periodic payments are brought in, the better. The current system is a mess which relies on guesswork of the cost of treatment and the length of the injured persons life. Major legal reform is needed in this area.

The mothers actions were despicable and disgraceful. She alone caused this accident while driving illegally. She failed in her duty as this childs guardian on several fronts. However, she is not responsible for the current system in place.

gerryo777

Motorist wrote: »

The money has been calculated based on a rough estimation of the child living a full life (This is ludicrous and of course it should be paid out on an annual basis and stopped if the child dies). The money will be inherited by next of kin if the child dies more than 12 years from now (probably by the mother) or whoever the child (who will then be an adult) has directed the money to go to. Within twelve years, the case is not Statute barred and the MIBI could sue to get the money back.

The tone of your posts suggests you would rather that the child had died and the mother jailed for life.
Is there something else going on with you? Such anger!

gerryo777

don ramo wrote: »

the boy deserves every penny he get but in no way should his mother be walking the streets,

and now instead shes getting paid to care for her son, whatever about a lapse in concentration, she acted very irresponsible by even getting into the car with no insurance even though she has such a young son, i know people (family members also) living on the breadline but they still renew their insurance every year without fail, absolutely no excuse for this, and what happened to the people in the car she hit,

also how did she manage to become such a qualified health care provider, people train for years to provide a certain level of care, i honestly cant see how shes even qualified to take care of her son given his injuries,

Good Jesus, what a pile of ****e coming from your keyboard.

Motorist

gerryo777 wrote: »

The tone of your posts suggests you would rather that the child had died and the mother jailed for life.
Is there something else going on with you? Such anger!

I am just pointing out facts, this case is not about me.

I never said anywhere I wanted the mother jailed. You are mixing me up with someone else. Your comments about wanting the child to die are beneath contempt.

secretambition

It's a horrible situation, but if she is prosecuted, and if she received a prison sentence, wouldn't that actually be a negative outcome here for the child here as he would lose one if his primary carers?

I think a momentary lapse in concentration causing this is very sad, but in truth it could happen to the most consientious of drivers. Driving uninsured however, is a very different matter.

Motorist

gerryo777 wrote: »

Good Jesus, what a pile of ****e coming from your keyboard.

He is just able to separate the emotional tragedy of this case, and analyse the cold facts of the mother's behaviour.

gerryo777

Motorist wrote: »

I am just pointing out facts, this case is not about me.

I never said anywhere I wanted the mother jailed. You are mixing me up with someone else. Your comments about wanting the child to die are beneath contempt.

That's how you're coming across, pal.

Motorist

secretambition wrote: »

It's a horrible situation, but if she is prosecuted, and if she received a prison sentence, wouldn't that actually be a negative outcome here for the child here as he would lose one if his primary carers?

I think a momentary lapse in concentration causing this is very sad, but in truth it could happen to the most consientious of drivers. Driving uninsured however, is a very different matter.

Does that mean we should never prosecute someone if they have a child?

secretambition

Motorist wrote: »

Does that mean we should never prosecute someone if they have a child?

No, but one of the main points of a prosecution would be to get justice for the victim, not to make things even worse for the victim. I accept that there is a wider societal need to ensure people follow the rules, but in this case, I think it might be unfair to prosecute because of the direct harm it would cause to the child. If she had knocked down a stranger and just happened to have a child who was unaffected, I would say prosecute. It might seem unprincipled but there has to be some element of leniency here.

doubletrouble?

firedancer wrote: »

what this woman did is no different to someone drinking 10 pints getting into their car and drinking driving and causing a similar accident.

DoubleTrouble this statement is utterly wrong.

There is absolutely no comparison whatsoever.

What makes you judge and jury, don't you think this mother has paid the price and will continue to do so for the rest of her days?

The lack of compassion in some the posts is astounding.:(

firedancer wrote: »

she was driving him to school,

Fact is she shouldn't have been driving the car in the first place. the same as someone that drinks a load of pints. firedance have you ever been hit by an uninsured driver. i have and thats why i'm voicing my opinions. she's nothing but pure scum for doing what she did and. someone asked me about jail time for the mother. by god i'd love to see her locked up for a very long time. did she think when she drove her son to school what the consequences would be for driving uninsured. and i'm sure if she was caught at a check point she wouldn't have got any further. maybe this is a wake up call for harsher penalties.