Injured child gets 11.5 million euros

Motorist

secretambition wrote: »

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.

What about the victims of the car she crashed head on into? Where is their justice?

Where is the deterrent to people considering taking a car out on the road with no insurance?

I dont think there would be direct harm for the child if the mother received a lengthy driving ban and substantial fine. His direct medical care and needs will be met by the 11.5 million euro settlement.

Motorist

doubletrouble? wrote: »

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.

Any right-thinking person with half an ounce of decency and respect for the law would not have driven their child to school that day with no insurance.

secretambition

Motorist wrote: »

What about the victims of the car she crashed head on into? Where is their justice?

Where is the deterrent to people considering taking a car out on the road with no insurance?

I dont think there would be direct harm for the child if the mother received a lengthy driving ban and substantial fine. His direct medical care and needs will be met by the 11.5 million euro settlement.

I'd say there's a significant deterrent if people see that the only limited circumstance in which you'll avoid prosecution is when you have to devote your life to being a full-time carer indefinitely which may be a much longer sentence. I'm not saying anyone should get off scott free.

As for other victims, aren't they entitled to sue for compensation too? Ok, they don't get to see her behind bars, but I don't believe she is a real menace to society.

Motorist

secretambition wrote: »

I'd say there's a significant deterrent if people see that the only limited circumstance in which you'll avoid prosecution is when you have to devote your life to being a full-time carer indefinitely which may be a much longer sentence. I'm not saying anyone should get off scott free.

As for other victims, aren't they entitled to sue for compensation too? Ok, they don't get to see her behind bars, but I don't believe she is a real menace to society.

That would be a separate civil case. We were talking about the aspect of criminal justice for them.

Bruthal

doubletrouble? wrote: »

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.

And you think the consequences of driving uninsured where that she would have a crash, with the terrible result here? Any explanation as to how having insurance would have saved the child from the outcome that resulted here?

secretambition

Motorist wrote: »

That would be a separate civil case. We were talking about the aspect of criminal justice for them.

I know that, but you can get justice through a civil case too. The circumstances of the victim and the accused are often taken into account in criminal cases. I think the benefit to the other victims from seeing her locked up would be far outweighed by the detriment to her son (also a victim), so on balance, I hope it doesn't happen.

Motorist

robbie7730 wrote: »

And you think the consequences of driving uninsured where that she would have a crash, with the terrible result here? Any explanation as to how having insurance would have saved the child from the outcome that resulted here?

Obeying the law in her case would have meant she would not have been driving that day.

Generally uninsured drivers also drive defective vehicles and are the least careful drivers. Why stop at disregarding just one law?

MagicSean

Motorist wrote: »

Obeying the law in her case would have meant she would not have been driving that day.

Generally uninsured drivers also drive defective vehicles and are the least careful drivers. Why stop at disregarding just one law?

No. Obeying the law would have meant she was insured. She would still have been driving and would still have crashed.

For Paws

From a careful reading of the court documents in this case, it seems that the defendants sued were the father of the child and the MIBI.

The plaintiff was the child's grandmother.

Was it the case that the car in which the child was a rear (booster) seat passenger was being driven by his mother, but was owned by the father, who was a front seat passenger ?.

The father, being the insured person, allowed his wife, who was not insured, to drive. Why she was not insured is unclear, but the father erred in allowing her to drive, that is clear.

Perhaps some of the ire directed against the child's mother should also be aimed at the father. In saying this, I'm aware that at the root of a lot of this indignation was the appearance of the mother, sunglasses perched on her freshly coiffed head, clearly enjoying the media attention.

The father (perhaps more obviously remorseful) was noticeable by his absence.

Motorist

MagicSean wrote: »

No. Obeying the law would have meant she was insured. She would still have been driving and would still have crashed.

But she wasn't insured so obeying the law would have meant that she wasn't driving. Im about to take my car out now - I'm only doing so because I have an insurance policy. If I didnt, I would walk. Have a good day.

For Paws

Have a safe journey Motorist.

Thrill

Motorist wrote: »

What about the victims of the car she crashed head on into? Where is their justice?

What happened to them?

Freddie59

Seachmall wrote: »

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.

Was the mother prosecuted for driving without insurance, thus endangering the child's (and other drivers) lives?

Thrill

Freddie59 wrote: »

Was the mother prosecuted for driving without insurance, thus endangering the child's (and other drivers) lives?

http://www.traceysolicitors.ie/accident-claims/road-traffic-accidents/penalty-points-guidelines-in-ireland.html

Driving without insurance is generally punishable by a fine of up to €2,500, disqualification of one year or more for a first offence and two years or more for a second offence, and, at the discretion of the court, a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months

In the case of a first offence of driving without insurance, the court may decide in special cases not to impose a period of disqualification or to impose a period of disqualification of less than a year. Where the court decides not to impose a disqualification, drivers convicted of a first offence of driving without insurance will incur 5 penalty points on their licence record in addition to any other penalty imposed by the court

Given that the accident took place in 2008, she could well have served out her punishment by now.

doubletrouble?

robbie7730 wrote: »

And you think the consequences of driving uninsured where that she would have a crash, with the terrible result here? Any explanation as to how having insurance would have saved the child from the outcome that resulted here?

as i previously said if she had been insured this thread would've died along time ago. the accident was going to happen whether she had insurance or not. the problem that i and alot of posters have is this. she broke the law by making a clear cut decision to drive with no insurance. had she paused for min to think" i dont have insurance i cant drive, i wont drive" then yes this would've been avoided. she knowingly and willfully drove her car when she knew it was illegal.
my only problem has always been this. she took a gamble and drove without insurance. if she had insurance then i'd have a pinch of sympathy for her. but the fact is she made a deliberate decision to break the law which led to tragic consequences. unfortunately when people like her deliberately and knowingly break the law it's always the innocent who come out the worst. she has ruined someone else's life because of her selfish actions. shes no-one else to blame but herself. the fact that it was her sons life she ruined doesn't wash with me. she ruined A life sorry i'll rephrase that shes ruined alot of lives incl her parents, husbands ( hope he got some sense and left her) the people she crashed into theres a whole list. i couldn't care about hers. and yet most of you dont see a problem.:rolleyes:

Carazy

Get the point not the points!!
How she is permitted to be a carer is beyond me.

firedancer

doubletrouble? wrote: »

as i previously said if she had been insured this thread would've died along time ago. the accident was going to happen whether she had insurance or not. the problem that i and alot of posters have is this. she broke the law by making a clear cut decision to drive with no insurance. had she paused for min to think" i dont have insurance i cant drive, i wont drive" then yes this would've been avoided. she knowingly and willfully drove her car when she knew it was illegal.
my only problem has always been this. she took a gamble and drove without insurance. if she had insurance then i'd have a pinch of sympathy for her. but the fact is she made a deliberate decision to break the law which led to tragic consequences. unfortunately when people like her deliberately and knowingly break the law it's always the innocent who come out the worst. she has ruined someone else's life because of her selfish actions. shes no-one else to blame but herself. the fact that it was her sons life she ruined doesn't wash with me. she ruined A life sorry i'll rephrase that shes ruined alot of lives incl her parents, husbands ( hope he got some sense and left her) the people she crashed into theres a whole list. i couldn't care about hers. and yet most of you dont see a problem.:rolleyes:

the only problem is people like you who don't recognise she was a mother who was only taking her child to school, like any good parent, and that insured or not, that accident would still have happened.
You have the law on your side, but morally speaking your words are deplorable. Righteousness will turn and bite you some day, are you so perfect?

dvpower

Carazy wrote: »

Get the point not the points!!
How she is permitted to be a carer is beyond me.

Then your username is apt.

doubletrouble?

firedancer wrote: »

Righteousness will turn and bite you some day,

it already has by an uninsured driver. what you fail to realise is i'm coming from the point of view of someone that had an accident with someone that was uninsured. and thats why i'm so vocal on this subject.

firedancer wrote: »

the only problem is people like you who don't recognise she was a mother who was only taking her child to school, like any good parent, and that insured or not, that accident would still have happened.

so firedancer what your actually saying is it's alright for uninsured drivers to take their children to school or better still be let loose on our streets because they're doing a so called good deed. thats exactly the way i read it as high lighted in bold. ohhh for the love of god.
F.Y.I. the reason we pay insurance is in case we're in an accidents. ohhh man your really taking the mick. your defending this woman right down to the wire.
in todays star: the mibi crowd got judgement against the mother, so in future if she comes into money they can re-coup it back. also a lovely pic of the mangled corsa on page 4.

Milk & Honey

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.

The mother was joined as a third party and there was an order over against her.

Hayte

boobar wrote: »

Completely agree with this post, the young guy is quadraplegic now as a result of the accident. 11 million seems a lot of money, but no amount of money can give this youg guy back the life that he had ahead of him.

As regards the point about the mother being uninsured, regulations needed to be tightened up here to lessen the exposure. I think this is currently being looked at.

I've worked on cases where the plaintiffs have had horrific, life changing injuries like this one. In those cases we had actuary reports so the use for the money has already been planned long into the future until such reasonable time as the child is expected to die. Its mainly for long term professional medical care and medical technology that would enable them to lead as close to a normal life as is possible (prosthesis, movement aids etc.).

It sounds like a lot of money when you just say 11 million but its to cover the rest of this lad's expected life, with needs far greater than you or I. Its not alot of money.

I have sometimes been surprised at how the award can differ so greatly but its based around life expectancy and how much professional care is required and for how long. Infants involved in horrific accidents that are expected to die young probably won't get large awards, because the cost of professional care into the future won't be high.

Whichever way you look at it, its a tragedy. Has the child been made a ward of court? It would appear so if the award is paid into court and managed by it. (Edit: confirmed above. Thanks)

extremphonixx

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!!

indeed!!! As a motorist a "momentary lapse in concentration" does not bring the car to the other side of the road!!! also how did the booster seat fail?? theses questions remain unanswered!!

Maudi

firedancer wrote: »

doubletrouble? wrote: »

as i previously said if she had been insured this thread would've died along time ago. the accident was going to happen whether she had insurance or not. the problem that i and alot of posters have is this. she broke the law by making a clear cut decision to drive with no insurance. had she paused for min to think" i dont have insurance i cant drive, i wont drive" then yes this would've been avoided. she knowingly and willfully drove her car when she knew it was illegal.
my only problem has always been this. she took a gamble and drove without insurance. if she had insurance then i'd have a pinch of sympathy for her. but the fact is she made a deliberate decision to break the law which led to tragic consequences. unfortunately when people like her deliberately and knowingly break the law it's always the innocent who come out the worst. she has ruined someone else's life because of her selfish actions. shes no-one else to blame but herself. the fact that it was her sons life she ruined doesn't wash with me. she ruined A life sorry i'll rephrase that shes ruined alot of lives incl her parents, husbands ( hope he got some sense and left her) the people she crashed into theres a whole list. i couldn't care about hers. and yet most of you dont see a problem.:rolleyes:

the only problem is people like you who don't recognise she was a mother who was only taking her child to school, like any good parent, and that insured or not, that accident would still have happened.
You have the law on your side, but morally speaking your words are deplorable. Righteousness will turn and bite you some day, are you so perfect?

do you have insurance?

micropig

Maudi wrote: »

do you have insurance?

I cancelled mine first thing this morning;)

Bruthal

doubletrouble? wrote: »

as i previously said if she had been insured this thread would've died along time ago. the accident was going to happen whether she had insurance or not. the problem that i and alot of posters have is this. she broke the law by making a clear cut decision to drive with no insurance. had she paused for min to think" i dont have insurance i cant drive, i wont drive" then yes this would've been avoided. she knowingly and willfully drove her car when she knew it was illegal.
my only problem has always been this. she took a gamble and drove without insurance. if she had insurance then i'd have a pinch of sympathy for her. but the fact is she made a deliberate decision to break the law which led to tragic consequences. unfortunately when people like her deliberately and knowingly break the law it's always the innocent who come out the worst. she has ruined someone else's life because of her selfish actions. shes no-one else to blame but herself. the fact that it was her sons life she ruined doesn't wash with me. she ruined A life sorry i'll rephrase that shes ruined alot of lives incl her parents, husbands ( hope he got some sense and left her) the people she crashed into theres a whole list. i couldn't care about hers. and yet most of you dont see a problem.:rolleyes:

Have you ever driven over the speed limit, or are you yet another flawless boards poster?

Bruthal

extremphonixx wrote: »

indeed!!! As a motorist a "momentary lapse in concentration" does not bring the car to the other side of the road!!! !

Does it not? Then how come several times in the last 24 years i have seen drivers half way across the centre line on roads? Would it be lack of concentration? Or is it that they like driving on the wrong side?

Truman Burbank

micropig wrote: »

This women has proven she is not a responsible adult-by knowingly driving her child without insurance

Yet the state leaves a vulnerable & disabled child in her care.


I don't begrudge the child the money, it will be needed for their care and the accident was not their fault, but I would have reservations about leaving the child in the care of it's mother

Today - a shiny, new jeep pulled up beside me at the lights. Dashing dad with boy of around 7 in the front passenger seat, and girl of about 4 not in a car seat

Yesterday - a helicopter was flying above. Looked in the rear-view mirror to see a grandfather have a little girl in the back, about 4/5, unbuckle and come between the front 2 seat to have a look...........at 25 miles an hour

The day before yesterday - my neighbour, a responsible member of An Garda Siochana apparently, took his 1 year old child out on the back of his bicycle and came bombing back down the road an hour later. No helmets.

micropig

Truman Burbank wrote: »

Today - a shiny, new jeep pulled up beside me at the lights. Dashing dad with boy of around 7 in the front passenger seat, and girl of about 4 not in a car seat

Yesterday - a helicopter was flying above. Looked in the rear-view mirror to see a grandfather have a little girl in the back, about 4/5, unbuckle and come between the front 2 seat to have a look...........at 25 miles an hour

The day before yesterday - my neighbour, a responsible member of An Garda Siochana apparently, took his 1 year old child out on the back of his bicycle and came bombing back down the road an hour later. No helmets.

Sickening:mad:

Is it part of the driving test how to carry a child in the car, attach seats, different seats for different children etc?..it should be

Truman Burbank

micropig wrote: »

Sickening:mad:

Is it part of the driving test how to carry a child in the car, attach seats, different seats for different children etc?..it should be

http://www.herald.ie/news/four-out-of-five-parents-cant-fit-child-car-seats-3082489.html

weldoninhio

dvpower wrote: »

That irrelevant - the only crime she committed is driving without insurance (unless you have more information about the case that isn't in the public domain).

No it is not, i am pretty sure she has also committed wreckless driving, driving without due care and attention and any other offenses that would come up on behalf of the other injured parties.

weldoninhio

Truman Burbank wrote: »

Today - a shiny, new jeep pulled up beside me at the lights. Dashing dad with boy of around 7 in the front passenger seat, and girl of about 4 not in a car seat

Yesterday - a helicopter was flying above. Looked in the rear-view mirror to see a grandfather have a little girl in the back, about 4/5, unbuckle and come between the front 2 seat to have a look...........at 25 miles an hour

The day before yesterday - my neighbour, a responsible member of An Garda Siochana apparently, took his 1 year old child out on the back of his bicycle and came bombing back down the road an hour later. No helmets.

The old "everyone else does it" excuse!!! Are you serious???

dvpower

weldoninhio wrote: »

No it is not, i am pretty sure she has also committed wreckless driving, driving without due care and attention and any other offenses that would come up on behalf of the other injured parties.

And what evidence have you seen on this four year old case that supports this? Read a newspaper article, right?

ResearchWill

dvpower wrote: »

And what evidence have you seen on this four year old case that supports this? Read a newspaper article, right?

From some of what I have read on this and other thread some people require no evidence to condem a person to prison.

Bruthal

ResearchWill wrote: »

From some of what I have read on this and other thread some people require no evidence to condem a person to prison.

Yes thats the way it is. Posters believing they are immune from killing or injuring someone in an accident, because they believe they are perfect, dont ever make mistakes, and even if they do admit to the odd mistake, they are never made while driving. This forum is where the perfect people are.

dvpower

I tipped my wing mirror off my gatepost yesterday while backing out of my driveway, causing the pastic casing to come loose.

What's the food like in Mountjoy?

Truman Burbank

weldoninhio wrote: »

The old "everyone else does it" excuse!!! Are you serious???

You completely mis-interpreted my post, and the linked highlighted quote.

I make no excuses for anyone* thank you.

(*irresponsible adults)

scamalert

anyone wants to swap with that kid for 20 million ???even 100million wont change anything for him as he is basically a potato for the rest of his sad life,which will be reminded to his parents everyday till they die.As for insurance companies they make that money probably in half days time,so $hit happened and now they gonna have to live with the consequences no matter how much money they got.
Plus theres a really good movie now out called Intouchables must be seen to feel how kids life gonna go on.

doubletrouble?

Maudi wrote: »

do you have insurance?

maudi who is directed at me or firedancer.?

firedancer

[HTML][/HTML]

doubletrouble? wrote: »

[HTML][/HTML]it already has by an uninsured driver.

in todays star: the mibi crowd got judgement against the mother, so in future if she comes into money they can re-coup it back. also a lovely pic of the mangled corsa on page 4.

[HTML][/HTML]

sick, sad, voyeuristic, devoid of humanity and smacks of envy that you didn't get some kind of massive payout yourself.

Hamilcar

Wonder what happens if 2 uninsured drivers hit each other? Both sue each other and jackpot!!
It's a mad world

Maudi

doubletrouble? wrote: »

Maudi wrote: »

do you have insurance?

maudi who is directed at me or firedancer.?

no not you.firedancer..

Chinasea

Why do we bother getting insured?

That sum of money is nonsense.

Why take seven plus years to become a judge and make a ridicules generous award Reward like this.

KamiKazeKitten

Chinasea wrote: »

Why do we bother getting insured?

That sum of money is nonsense.

As is your attitude.

Chinasea wrote: »

Why take seven plus years to become a judge and make a ridicules generous award Reward like this.

Would you like to swap places with that child for 11.5 million?

thebiglad

Chinasea wrote: »

Why do we bother getting insured?

That sum of money is nonsense.

Why take seven plus years to become a judge and make a ridicules generous award Reward like this.

Award was not made by the judge, they simply approved it.

Chinasea

Ask the child if the 11.5 helps?

But that's not my point tbh.

KamiKazeKitten

Chinasea wrote: »

Ask the child if the 11.5 helps?

But that's not my point tbh.

I'm sure the 11.5 million will help provide that child with a decent quality of life, but a choice between the money or being able to have a normal life?
He's paraplegic ffs, no 10 year old (or anyone really) would choose a life like that.

Alright, then what exactly is your point? You seem to think this money is a reward to the mother for disabling her kid, correct me if I'm wrong. Now, I don't have children myself, but if I was in her shoes all the money in the world wouldn't lessen the guilt for me.

ResearchWill

Chinasea wrote: »

Why do we bother getting insured?

That sum of money is nonsense.

Why take seven plus years to become a judge and make a ridicules generous award Reward like this.

We bother to get insured because no insurance can lead to a conviction and driving ban fine and possible prison. While the reports of this event don't say if the mother was prosecuted neither does it say she was not.

Why is the sum nonsense, I will not explain on this website again because people dont read it, how damages are calculated or the fact that most of this award will go to the health service but I suppose facts get in the way of indignation sorry for that.

7 plus years to become a judge, wow really, it is at least 16 years to become a high court judge. 12 years in practice as a solicitor or barrister, 3 years in university to get a degree and between 1 and 3 years to qualify as solicitor or barrister.

Also as has been pointed out the judge did not make the award it was a settlement agreed between the plaintiff and the defense, and ruled by the judge.

Chinasea

11.5 - way to much money regardless however this decision was arrived at be it a judge, a jury etc.


No one should be driving around without insurance.

ResearchWill

Chinasea wrote: »

11.5 - way to much money regardless however this decision was arrived at be it a judge, a jury etc.


No one should be driving around without insurance.

Ok I give in the award is made up of general and special damages. Generals are limited to €450,000 by a 2009 court case. That is to cover pain and suffering of the plaintiff.

The remainder €11,000,000 is what the experts calculate is required to give care for the remainder if live in this case on average the next 65 years. That is to provide all care 24/7 to allow this child to live a some what independent life as possible. The figure is not just pulled out of a solicitors ass, the plaintiff gets a care report which sets out all the care he needs, together with a actuary report which works out how much this will cost with inflation etc. over the next 65 years. Then the defendant gets the same reports. Damages are trying as best as possible to put the person in the same position as if the accident never happened. Or would you rather he only had care every second week only or only till he turns 40.

firedancer

Maudi wrote: »

no not you.firedancer..

Yes I have insurance, house, car, life, and I am delighted that the injured boy's family life has been made a little easier.

Money isn't everything , as I'm sure that young lad's mother would be the first to say.

Some of the begrudgers on here are just incredible.