How does this work?

Johnnio13

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/court-approves-115m-compensation-for-boy-injured-in-car-accident-548353.html

How can we "the general public" be liable for the mother's negligence over her child.

ronaneire

Johnnio13 wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/court-approves-115m-compensation-for-boy-injured-in-car-accident-548353.html

How can we "the general public" be liable for the mother's negligence over her child.

You mean we "who pay motor insurance"?

Was the mother prosecuted for driving uninsured?

Justice Irvine said it was an excellent settlement and she had never seen a better one.

Bizarre :eek:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0420/largest-settlement-ever-in-high-court-11-5m.html

Johnnio13

I mean how does her son get 11.5ml for the mother's negligence and inability to conform to the law.

ronaneire

Johnnio13 wrote: »

I mean how does her son get 11.5ml for the mother's negligence and inability to conform to the law.

I cannot agree more. Why in the first place was she driving uninsured? What was the momentary lapse of concentration?

Johnnio13

and the fact he wasn't strapped in if he hit the wind screen.

ronaneire

Johnnio13 wrote: »

and the fact he wasn't strapped in if he hit the wind screen.

He was a rear-seat passenger and was restrained in a booster seat.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0420/largest-settlement-ever-in-high-court-11-5m.html

Jarren

In the back of a car.

MacGyver

so he was restrained in a booster seat, yet still hit the windscreen... should she not have sued either the belt manufacturer or boosted seat manufacturer

Predalien

Johnnio13 wrote: »

I mean how does her son get 11.5ml for the mother's negligence and inability to conform to the law.

Because the compensation is for the son, not the mother, he was a passenger in a car driven by an uninsured person, had she been insured the compensation would have come from her insurance company, it wasn't the kid's fault his mother wasn't insured.

McCrack

The mother was not insured so the Motor Insurer's Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) steps in to compensate.

If the mother had insurance the child would claim off that policy.

The mother was negligent in her driving and the child suffered massive injuries and will require care for the rest of his life, hence the large award.

McCrack

MacGyver wrote: »

so he was restrained in a booster seat, yet still hit the windscreen... should she not have sued either the belt manufacturer or boosted seat manufacturer

I have no doubt that was considered

IsaacWunder

The MIBI will now pursue the mother for the €11.5m.

Procrastastudy

This all comes down to how damages work. Damages in Tort (negligence) are there to put the victim back in the position he was in. Obviously this can't happen in this case but provisions can be made.

The mother was the negligent party and in the case of motor accidents MIBI is there to deal with uninsured drivers. Yes we pay for this is our insurence premiums. That, almost every claim is paid for by insurence and we all pay for it some how. It's simply a loss distribution system.

As has been said MIBI may now persue the mother for any assets she has - the E11m belongs to the child so that won't be touched.

While it seems arseways - what is the alternative? It's not the child fault he had an idiot for a mother.

Johnnio13

Apologies..hadn't read the RTE piece.
Nothing against the poor child getting the care he needs but I just couldn't work out how the insurance payout for that amount works considering the clear negligence on the mothers part.

Milk & Honey

Johnnio13 wrote: »

Apologies..hadn't read the RTE piece.
Nothing against the poor child getting the care he needs but I just couldn't work out how the insurance payout for that amount works considering the clear negligence on the mothers part.

Apart from assault all personal injury claims are based on negligence by someone. That is why people insure themselves against claims. In the case of passengers in motor vehicles and victims of the negligence of drivers and owners of motor vehicles there are special provisions to ensure that there is compensation.

Ken.

Say the kid only lived for 3 more years and €11m of the money is left over. Where does that go in a case like this? (I wish the kid a happy and long life.)

MacGyver

MacGyver wrote: »

so he was restrained in a booster seat, yet still hit the windscreen... should she not have sued either the belt manufacturer or boosted seat manufacturer

Nonsense. My son died from hitting the window, he was in a perfectly safe car seat but leaning towards his sister at the time of impact.

The child in this case is the victim regardless of who was driving.

Procrastastudy

I actually think he has a point to be fair. If I was MIBI I would be looking to recover some of the damages from the seat manufacturer. I assume those seats are designed to restrain children in exactly these circumstances. It's not beyond the realm of reasonbly forseeable that a child may be slumped over asleep or playing with another child.

Actually come to think of it - it should be a fairly straight forward claim under the Liability for Defective Products Act surely? Having said that the mother was clearly not the most reasponible person in the world so whether or not she had him straped in properly or not is possibly up for discussion.

ResearchWill

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I actually think he has a point to be fair. If I was MIBI I would be looking to recover some of the damages from the seat manufacturer. I assume those seats are designed to restrain children in exactly these circumstances. It's not beyond the realm of reasonbly forseeable that a child may be slumped over asleep or playing with another child.

Actually come to think of it - it should be a fairly straight forward claim under the Liability for Defective Products Act surely? Having said that the mother was clearly not the most reasponible person in the world so whether or not she had him straped in properly or not is possibly up for discussion.

If there was any liability then MIBI would have joined the seat manufacturer to the proceedings.

In relation to the damages people need to understand how damages are arrived at and what they are used for.

1 General Damages this is for pain and suffering currently capped at about €500,000

2 Special damages made up of past and future usually involves loss of income but in this case would be mostly medical care, hospitals are entitled to claim from any court award their costs which could be a huge hunk of this award, all previous medical expenses will go to the hospitals. Future medical expenses would be calculated with the aid of an actuary who will take into account inflation etc. he will then calculate a lump sum amount that will provide an income to pay those future costs.

Predalien

ResearchWill wrote: »

Hospitals are entitled to claim from any court award their costs which could be a huge hunk of this award, all previous medical expenses will go to the hospitals.

Just on this point, does this include medical care that was provided for free by the state? The kind of care needed by this kid would have been free under our health system.

Milk & Honey

Predalien wrote: »

Just on this point, does this include medical care that was provided for free by the state? The kind of care needed by this kid would have been free under our health system.

No. A condition of free treatment after an accident is that if there is any recovery in court the hospital has to be refunded.

kala85

How would this have worked if the mother herself was injured

GerardKeating

kala85 wrote: »

How would this have worked if the mother herself was injured

Then the claim would have been against her insurer rather that MIBI

Milk & Honey

ken wrote: »

Say the kid only lived for 3 more years and €11m of the money is left over. Where does that go in a case like this? (I wish the kid a happy and long life.)

The money goes to the kid's estate. It would then go according to the rules of intestacy. If his mother was to get any of it the MIBI would execute their order against her and take the money.

Del2005

GerardKeating wrote: »

Then the claim would have been against her insurer rather that MIBI

She wasn't insured. So we'd have had to pay for her injuries also through the MIBI or if they didn't pay out the State would have to pay, in the end it's the law abiding citizens who are paying for her negligence in driving uninsured.

Shame that there's no mention that she's being prosecuted for anything. It's sending out the message that you don't need insurance if you maim your own children as some other sap will cover you.

McCrack

No if the mother had been injured (maybe she was I don't know) she would be denied redress because she was at fault.

Lets suppose she wasn't to blame for the crash. Lets suppose another driver caused the accident.

In that case her son would still obviously have a claim against the other driver and so would she BUT if the other driver was also not insured then she would not have any claim vis a vis MIBI Agreement 1988. Her son would still be able to claim though.

Jo King

McCrack wrote: »

No if the mother had been injured (maybe she was I don't know) she would be denied redress because she was at fault.

Lets suppose she wasn't to blame for the crash. Lets suppose another driver caused the accident.

In that case her son would still obviously have a claim against the other driver and so would she BUT if the other driver was also not insured then she would not have any claim vis a vis MIBI Agreement 2009. Her son would still be able to claim though.

That was changed following the WOODS v Woods case.

http://www.cmhaugheysolicitors.ie/index.php/personal-injury/road-traffic-accidents/accident-involving-two-uninsured-drivers/217

In order to be denied compensation it has to be shown that the injured person entered the vehicle which caused the damage knowing that there was no insurance. If the mother was the blameless victim of an accident with another uninsured driver she would be compensated because she was not in the vehicle which caused the damage.

McCrack

Its a condition precedent of the 1988 Agreement that a driver not at fault and is suing the MIBI must himself have insurance.

What is also precluded as you have said is a person knowingly getting into a vehicle as a passenger that the driver has no insurance. Typically this happens when lads joy-ride as passengers in stolen cars. The onus is on the MIBI to show that.

The website is a little misleading in that regard. The Wood decision I haven't come across and I've searched to no avail. The 2004 & 2009 Agreements are silent on what Haughey solicitors are saying. Unless there is an amended Agreement or an SI to reflect what they are saying is the situation I am doubtful.

Milk & Honey

McCrack wrote: »

Its a condition precedent of the 1988 Agreement that a driver not at fault and is suing the MIBI must himself have insurance.

What is also precluded as you have said is a person knowingly getting into a vehicle as a passenger that the driver has no insurance. Typically this happens when lads joy-ride as passengers in stolen cars. The onus is on the MIBI to show that.

The website is a little misleading in that regard. The Wood decision I haven't come across and I've searched to no avail. The 2004 & 2009 Agreements are silent on what Haughey solicitors are saying. Unless there is an amended Agreement or an SI to reflect what they are saying is the situation I am doubtful.

The 1988 agreement is no longer operative and neither is the 2004. You can take it that the condition precedent you are quoting is no longer operative. The 2009 Agreement was in response to a case taken in the ECJ against Ireland for not implementing the EU Insurance directives properly following a complaint by two brothers involved in an accident who were both driving uninsured vehicles when they crashed into each other.

The Agreement must be construed with reference to
DIRECTIVE 2009/103/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

"Member States may, however, exclude the payment of compensation
by that body in respect of persons who voluntarily
entered the vehicle which caused the damage or injury when
the body can prove that they knew it was uninsured."

In the case of the mother who was driving uninsured and was injured through no fault of her own she would be entitled to compensation from the other driver whether or not he was insured.