Injured child gets 11.5 million euros

BrokenArrows

Let me get this right.

Mother drives her child UNINSURED, crashes the car which was her fault. Child gets injured.

Grandfather of child sues the mother and the "Motor Insurers bureau of Ireland" has to pay the bill.

Now it would be one thing if it was a 3rd party but the kid and grandfather are part of the same family and its quite clear that the settlement money is not going to only go to the kid.

You can guarantee that the mother (the one who caused the accident) will see a decent amount of this cash. So basically she is a millionaire because she crashed the car and crippled her son.

Eric Cartman

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Let me get this right.

Mother drives her child UNINSURED, crashes the car which was her fault. Child gets injured.

Grandfather of child sues the mother and the "Motor Insurers bureau of Ireland" has to pay the bill.

Now it would be one thing if it was a 3rd party but the kid and grandfather are part of the same family and its quite clear that the settlement money is not going to only go to the kid.

You can guarantee that the mother (the one who caused the accident) will see a decent amount of this cash. So basically she is a millionaire because she crashed the car and crippled her son.

at every other motorists expense. The child deserves help and I feel really sorry for everyone (except the mother) but not one single cent should come out of my pocket or yours to pay for that childs care.

ResearchWill

Ok I give up! Yes the mother set this all up, drive uninsured, crippled her son all to get her hands on a few million.

And I wonder why this country is wrecked, if the posters are a reflection of the intelligence of this country we are only at the start of the downward spiral.

ResearchWill

Eric Cartman wrote: »

at every other motorists expense. The child deserves help and I feel really sorry for everyone (except the mother) but not one single cent should come out of my pocket or yours to pay for that childs care.

Ok then as you don't want any of your money to help this child, how long will he live without medical care. You really must not have read that post before you posted it. I really give up. How long will this child survive with no state money or insurance money to provide medical care.

Eric Cartman

ResearchWill wrote: »

Ok then as you don't want any of your money to help this child, how long will he live without medical care. You really must not have read that post before you posted it. I really give up. How long will this child survive with no state money or insurance money to provide medical care.

the child should get help from our public healthcare system and every cent his mother has.

I said not a cent based on insurance, my debate about paying for public healthcare is not for this thread

ResearchWill

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the child should get help from our public healthcare system and every cent his mother has.

I said not a cent based on insurance, my debate about paying for public healthcare is not for this thread

And most of this award will go into the public health care system, or provide care for the child outside the public system thereby reducing the strain on that system.

gerryo777

ResearchWill wrote: »

And most of this award will go into the public health care system, or provide care for the child outside the public system thereby reducing the strain on that system.

Your wasting you time here, the ignorance shown by some posters is truly breathtaking.....

A sad reflection on Irish society.

ResearchWill

gerryo777 wrote: »

Your wasting you time here, the ignorance shown by some posters is truly breathtaking.....

A sad reflection on Irish society.

I sadly have to agree, facts and the truth just get in the way of righteous indignation. I don't know why it surprises me.

gerryo777

ResearchWill wrote: »

I sadly have to agree, facts and the truth just get in the way of righteous indignation. I don't know why it surprises me.

We've always been fairly good at 'the auld begrudgery' here.

No money would compensate for what happened to that young lad.

Sure leave them at it, it must make them feel a bit better about their own sad existence. I hope they never fall off that high horse they're sitting on.

Eric Cartman

ResearchWill wrote: »

And most of this award will go into the public health care system, or provide care for the child outside the public system thereby reducing the strain on that system.

a) most , not all, id be willing to bet a brand new car 'for transporting the son' will be bought and the house will be done up to make it more 'accessible' (accessibility options include a new kitchen, new sofa and a fancy extension picked by the mother)

b) why should my insurance premium suffer for the mistake of an idiot mother

ResearchWill

Eric Cartman wrote: »

a) most , not all, id be willing to bet a brand new car 'for transporting the son' will be bought and the house will be done up to make it more 'accessible' (accessibility options include a new kitchen, new sofa and a fancy extension picked by the mother)

b) why should my insurance premium suffer for the mistake of an idiot mother

Yup sorry I did not understand that, this mother crippled her child for a new car and sofa.

The money is held by the court and will only provide for what was put in the care report, but no the mother will get a new Porsche four wheel drive of course.

gerryo777

Eric Cartman wrote: »

a) most , not all, id be willing to bet a brand new car 'for transporting the son' will be bought and the house will be done up to make it more 'accessible' (accessibility options include a new kitchen, new sofa and a fancy extension picked by the mother)

Stop showing your ignorance, it's getting embarrassing!

Eric Cartman

ResearchWill wrote: »

Yup sorry I did not understand that, this mother crippled her child for a new car and sofa.

The money is held by the court and will only provide for what was put in the care report, but no the mother will get a new Porsche four wheel drive of course.

at no point did I ever say she did it intentionally , that sarcastic argument has been trotted out multiple times in this thread, nobody ever said she meant to do it.

I didnt know that, I hope its adhered to strictly, and I hope the mother never has 2 cents to rub together ever again. Every bit of her money and time should be dedicated to offering that child the best care possible as some paltry way of an apology for what shes done.

ResearchWill

Eric Cartman wrote: »

at no point did I ever say she did it intentionally , that sarcastic argument has been trotted out multiple times in this thread, nobody ever said she meant to do it.

I didnt know that, I hope its adhered to strictly, and I hope the mother never has 2 cents to rub together ever again. Every bit of her money and time should be dedicated to offering that child the best care possible as some paltry way of an apology for what shes done.

While you may not have intended to say she intentionally did it, that is the way your post came across.

It is also been stated over and over that MIBI have a judgement against the mother for the full amount. If she ever comes into money they will get it.

Bruthal

Eric Cartman wrote: »

b) why should my insurance premium suffer for the mistake of an idiot mother

Which mistake are you referring to?

If you or others start having crashes, then others premiums suffer also.

extremphonixx

robbie7730 wrote: »

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?

oh you think, really???? more likely falling asleep, on the mobile, lighting a smioke, been drunk!! come on, if you are a driver, you know that a car will not go to the far side of the road because you breifly look into a field at some cow, horse or goat, as the mother has claimed

For Paws

It seems that the only thing that all posters agree on are

(1) The child concerned has all our sympathy and best wishes.

(2) The MIBI system of payouts needs reform.

Scenario A. = Two cars owned & driven by Comphrehensively insured persons collide with each. Both cars are damaged, and both drivers injured.
Result ; Each Insurer pays out for the damages & injuries sustained.

Scenario B. = Two cars owned & driven by non-insured persons collide with each other. Both cars are damaged, and both drivers injured.
Result ; MIBI pays out for the damages & injuries sustained.

ResearchWill

For Paws wrote: »

It seems that the only thing that all posters agree on are

(1) The child concerned has all our sympathy and best wishes.

(2) The MIBI system of payouts needs reform.

Scenario A. = Two cars owned & driven by Comphrehensively insured persons collide with each. Both cars are damaged, and both drivers injured.
Result ; Each Insurer pays out for the damages & injuries sustained.

Scenario B. = Two cars owned & driven by non-insured persons collide with each other. Both cars are damaged, and both drivers injured.
Result ; MIBI pays out for the damages & injuries sustained.

Just to explain how MIBI works, if a person claims from MIBI they nominate an insurance company to deal with the matter.

The reason for MIBI is to protect third party persons who are injured by a uninsured driver.

In you above examples you are assuming that both parties are negligent. In most RTA's only one party is at fault. It would be rare that both parties are at fault but lets just say that both are 50% liable then each would most likely have 50% contrib do would only get half of the compensation.

Bruthal

extremphonixx wrote: »

oh you think, really???? more likely falling asleep, on the mobile, lighting a smioke, been drunk!! come on, if you are a driver, you know that a car will not go to the far side of the road because you breifly look into a field at some cow, horse or goat, as the mother has claimed

Well many of the drivers in this country dont seem to know much about driving. But the ones on here are all experts though, thankfully.

noddyone2

Just imagine this scenario: The poor child only lives for a few more years. What happens to the leftover money? Just asking.

tbh

noddyone2 wrote: »

Just imagine this scenario: The poor child only lives for a few more years. What happens to the leftover money? Just asking.

it goes into his estate. the MIBI can (I am reliably informed) make a claim against the estate to recover the money - they already have a judgement against the mother, so if she ever wins the lotto, they get it.

Hamilcar

tbh wrote: »

it goes into his estate. the MIBI can (I am reliably informed) make a claim against the estate to recover the money - they already have a judgement against the mother, so if she ever wins the lotto, they get it.

What are the odds of her winning the Lotto Twice?

Motorist

I wonder when the mother is picking up the 2012 BMW X5, with wheelchair access for the child of course.

dvpower

Motorist wrote: »

I wonder when the mother is picking up the 2012 BMW X5, with wheelchair access for the child of course.

Its an unfortunate soul that feels jealous of the mother of a severely disabled child.

Motorist

dvpower wrote: »

Its an unfortunate soul that feels jealous of the mother of a severely disabled child.

It's an unfortunate soul that fails to see the moral dubiousness of a situation where a person who has utter contempt for the law and causes a severe accident with devastating consequences for a child manages to enjoy the fringe benefits of a back of an envelope 11.5 million award calculation, and seems to have faced no criminal charges. And all of this at immense cost to every law-abiding motorist.

Sponge Bob

A person who will cost me the price of two pints and I never even met the bitch.

In her media appearances last week (and in a hospital some years ago) she appeared rather permatanned....... that insurance money musta gone on sunbeds instead.

Jarren

I still would :pac::pac::pac:

dvpower

Motorist wrote: »

And all of this at immense cost to every law-abiding motorist.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

A person who will cost me the price of two pints and I never even met the bitch.

MIBI wrote:

"We have had sufficient funds earmarked for this claim and it won't have any effect on people's (insurance) premiums," John Casey, chief executive of the MIBI told the Irish Independent last night.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

In her media appearances last week (and in a hospital some years ago) she appeared rather permatanned....... that insurance money musta gone on sunbeds instead.

The jealousy is strong in this one.

Motorist

MIBI wrote: »

"We have had sufficient funds earmarked for this claim and it won't have any effect on people's (insurance) premiums," John Casey, chief executive of the MIBI told the Irish Independent last night.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/surviving-the-recession/uninsured-motorists-load-40-on-to-cost-of-premiums-2093471.html

The very same Mr. Casey of the MIBI
"

He estimated that claims involving uninsured drivers are loading €40 per premium on honest drivers every year.

The MIBI is responsible for compensating victims of accidents caused by uninsured and unidentified vehicles.

All insurers pay into it -- a cost borne by honest motorists "

So is it admitted that uninsured drivers load €40 to premiums (the average uninsured driver claim is just €24k) , yet a record claim for 11.5 million for an uninsured driver has no effect whatsoever on premiums...

micropig

Not one post on this thread refers to how the child feels. It's all about the mother..



So how would you feel waking up every morning looking in to the eyes of the person who had so little respect for you, they brought you in a car without insurance and ended up crippling you?


Or will having any amount of money in the bank make it easier...?

firedancer

micropig wrote: »

Not one post on this thread refers to how the child feels. It's all about the mother..



So how would you feel waking up every morning looking in to the eyes of the person who had so little respect for you, they brought you in a car without insurance and ended up crippling you?


Or will having any amount of money in the bank make it easier...?

oh for the love of god....Judge Micropig...that accident would've happened WITH or WITHOUT insurance....and ACCIDENT is the operative word here.

That kid has more compassion , forgiveness, and gratitude for life in his little finger than the likes of you will ever comprehend. He is happy his mam is there for him, that means more than any amount of money.
But you just don't get that.
Doubt you ever will.

Motorist

firedancer wrote: »

oh for the love of god....Judge Micropig...that accident would've happened WITH or WITHOUT insurance....and ACCIDENT is the operative word here.

That kid has more compassion , forgiveness, and gratitude for life in his little finger than the likes of you will ever comprehend. He is happy his mam is there for him, that means more than any amount of money.
But you just don't get that.
Doubt you ever will.

I hope the child can forgive the mother for what she did for his own sanity. Im sure it's something he will struggle hugely with when he comes to an age where he comprehends properly what happened and what he has lost. About your point on accidents - a tree falling in front of you, a truck losing a wheel and smashing through your window, an unknown underlying medical condition occuring while driving such as a seizure would be accidents. Turning around, not looking at the road and swerving into the opposite lane is massive driver error. Even still, the horrific injuries to the childs spinal cord could have been avoided if he had been restrained and not been throwing with force into the windscreen. We can only speculate on what caused that particular massive failure.

The stickler is the that the incident shouldn't have happened as the woman should never have been driving in the first place.

micropig

firedancer wrote: »

That kid has more compassion , forgiveness, and gratitude for life in his little finger than the likes of you will ever comprehend. He is happy his mam is there for him, that means more than any amount of money.
But you just don't get that.
Doubt you ever will.

It was an accident, but she shouldn't have been one the road

I hope he has enough compassion and grows up to be a well adjusted, balanced adult. It will be difficult for him, but I hope that all the money awarded goes to helping him achieve this.

For Paws

Effectively the child involved sued both his parents for the injuries he received whilst in their care.

The insured persons of Ireland, through the MIBI, compensate the child and provide for his future care.

The child is returned to the care of his parents.

A portion of the sum settled on is paid out immediately, in lump sums, to those who have cared for and treated the child since his injuries were incurred.

The treating hospital(s) get a lump sum for 4 years of treatment.
The child's legal team get a lump sum for 4 years of advice & legal work.
Those responsible for his care, his grandparents, get a lump sum for their efforts over 4 years.
Others responsible for his care, like his parents, get a lump sum for their efforts over 4 years.

Can anyone confirm whether this is not part of the settlement agreement ?

Eoin

firedancer wrote: »

oh for the love of god....Judge Micropig...that accident would've happened WITH or WITHOUT insurance....and ACCIDENT is the operative word here

Do you think that someone who drives uninsured with their child is unlikely to take other risks when it comes to driving?

Motorist

Eoin wrote: »

Do you think that someone who drives uninsured with their child is unlikely to take other risks when it comes to driving?

Why stop at breaking just one law?

Statistics from Northern Ireland show that uninsured cars are six times more likely to be unfit to be on the road and their drivers are 10 times more likely to drink-drive.

dvpower

Motorist wrote: »

Why stop at breaking just one law?

Statistics from Northern Ireland show that uninsured cars are six times more likely to be unfit to be on the road and their drivers are 10 times more likely to drink-drive.

There is no indication whatsoever those either of those are true in this case.

Eoin

dvpower wrote: »

Motorist wrote: »

Why stop at breaking just one law?

Statistics from Northern Ireland show that uninsured cars are six times more likely to be unfit to be on the road and their drivers are 10 times more likely to drink-drive.

There is no indication whatsoever those either of those are true of this case.

Other than the crash of course. And the suspicious failure of the child's restraint.

dvpower

Eoin wrote: »

Other than the crash of course. And the suspicious failure of the child's restraint.

Explain how the failure of the child restraint is an indicator of drink driving or an unroadworthy vehicle, and how these factors were seemingly not discovered by the Gardai?
Second thoughts - don't bother.

firedancer

Eoin wrote: »

Do you think that someone who drives uninsured with their child is unlikely to take other risks when it comes to driving?

I would safely bet they are twice as careful as other drivers, being aware they have no insurance and thus drive even more carefully to avoid an accident.

Have any of you (begrudgers) ever driven with young children ?
It is very very easy to take your eyes off the road for a couple of seconds , this is what happened here. I know of a mother who, many years ago, took her eyes off the road for a split second to respond to her two children in the back seat, and slammed head on into a bus travelling in the opposite direction. It happens.
This woman was (and is) a teacher. They all emerged with minor injuries. The car was a complete write-off.


And yes, before the more cynical among you jump to ask, she did have insurance....meh

Motorist

firedancer wrote: »

I would safely bet they are twice as careful as other drivers, being aware they have no insurance and thus drive even more carefully to avoid an accident.

Have any of you (begrudgers) ever driven with young children ?
It is very very easy to take your eyes off the road for a couple of seconds , this is what happened here. I know of a mother who, many years ago, took her eyes off the road for a split second to respond to her two children in the back seat, and slammed head on into a bus travelling in the opposite direction. It happens.
This woman was (and is) a teacher. They all emerged with minor injuries. The car was a complete write-off.


And yes, before the more cynical among you jump to ask, she did have insurance....meh

:pac::pac:

Bruthal

Motorist wrote: »

It's an unfortunate soul that fails to see the moral dubiousness of a situation where a person who has utter contempt for the law and causes a severe accident with devastating consequences for a child manages to enjoy the fringe benefits of a back of an envelope 11.5 million award calculation, and seems to have faced no criminal charges. And all of this at immense cost to every law-abiding motorist.

Have you ever exceeded the speed limit on any roads?

Eoin

firedancer wrote: »

I would safely bet they are twice as careful as other drivers, being aware they have no insurance and thus drive even more carefully to avoid an accident.

Evidently not.

I don't understand why people think that the collision and being uninsured are totally exclusive. It shows a complete lack of regard for herself, her son and other road users. I don't believe it means that she's more likely to be careful.

robbie7730 wrote:

Have you ever exceeded the speed limit on any roads?

That's a stupid argument; it implies that all violations are equal when they're clearly not.

Bruthal

Eoin wrote: »

That's a stupid argument; it implies that all violations are equal when they're clearly not.

No, it is asking does Motorist disregard speed limit laws? So if he (or you) hit someone while breaking that law, you obviously think thats ok then.

After all, posters are saying the woman had contempt for a driving law.

So you violate one law, because its not as bad as violating another.

Eoin

robbie7730 wrote: »

No, it is asking do you disregard speed limit laws? So if you hit someone while breaking that law, you obviously think thats ok then.

After all, you just said the woman this thread is about, has contempt for driving laws.

So you violate one law, because its not as bad as violating another.

I don't believe that all offences are equally dangerous or irresponsible. For example going 10kmh over the limit on an empty motorway is not the same as drink driving, even if they're both illegal.

Trying to equate vaguely specified speeding offences with driving uninsured is silly.

BattleCorp

When the poor kid dies (and he will probably die young due to his injuries), will the remaining money go to his mother as his next of kin?

I don't begrudge the kid a penny but his mother will benefit from this and that is a travesty.

Yes, she will probably have a guilty conscience if she has any humanity in her but she will also be living in the lap of luxury.

With the money, she will be able to build/buy a new house suitable for the kid, pay for nurses, carers, home help, cleaners, gardeners, etc etc. so therefore she gets a new house (whatever type she wants), a crew of servants to do her bidding, and plenty of dosh for living expenses.

Who says crime doesn't pay.

Bruthal

Eoin wrote: »

I don't believe that all offences are equally dangerous or irresponsible. For example going 10kmh over the limit on an empty motorway is not the same as drink driving, even if they're both illegal.

Yea, but if you do that 10kph extra for a while, then hit a child in a town later, if you drove legally, you wouldnt be there to hit the child.

And if you tend go over the limit on motorways, this is likely on other roads also, where it is a danger to everyone.

Trying to equate vaguely specified speeding offences with driving uninsured is silly.

Im not equating them. The poster i asked the question said the driver in question disregarded driving laws.

Speeding is disregarding laws also. Everyone disregards it as vague, yet its a big killer on the roads.

ResearchWill

Eoin wrote: »

I don't believe that all offences are equally dangerous or irresponsible. For example going 10kmh over the limit on an empty motorway is not the same as drink driving, even if they're both illegal.

Trying to equate vaguely specified speeding offences with driving uninsured is silly.

You are of course right crashing at 2kph over limit and crashing at 50kph over limit where both result in serious injury may or may not involve the same level of culpability.

But it is the same in insurance, a person knowing they are driving uninsured nd a person driving uninsured but believing they are insured are two different events, btw we don't know in which category this case falls. Was taking to a solicitor today he told me about case where a guy was charged with no insurance, his own car was in garage which was insured, he believed he was covered on his wife's policy as he knew she was somehow covered on his, so drove wife's car, stopped, then discovered he had no insurance on wife's car. The amount of people who do not understand or know the restrictions on open driving.

Eoin

robbie7730 wrote: »

Yea, but if you do that 10kph extra for a while, then hit a child in a town later, if you drove legally, you wouldnt be there to hit the child.

Ah come on, seriously?

ResearchWill wrote: »

You are of course right crashing at 2kph over limit and crashing at 50kph over limit where both result in serious injury may or may not involve the same level of culpability.

But it is the same in insurance, a person knowing they are driving uninsured nd a person driving uninsured but believing they are insured are two different events, btw we don't know in which category this case falls. Was taking to a solicitor today he told me about case where a guy was charged with no insurance, his own car was in garage which was insured, he believed he was covered on his wife's policy as he knew she was somehow covered on his, so drove wife's car, stopped, then discovered he had no insurance on wife's car. The amount of people who do not understand or know the restrictions on open driving.

That's a fair point. I've fully comp cover on other cars - but my wife's car is specifically excluded from that; as is her open cover on my car. We both had to be specifically named on each other's policies for some reason. Maybe that's the case in this story.

Bruthal

Eoin wrote: »

Ah come on, seriously?

Well there you go, speeding is disregarded like its nothing. Thats the attitude of many. Everyone does it, so its ok.

But if the woman here had insurance, would that have made a difference to having this accident?