Child cut knee, gets €20,000

Guy:Incognito

Where To wrote: »

Don't go breaking my heart

I couldn't if I tried.

Boombastic

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Yeah, the rich bastards should have 24 hour security on all playgrounds and each one should be meticulously combed at the start of each day to check for anything that might be dropped.

A 20 man team for each playground should do it and what a great use of public money it would be .

We should pay the council workers double time to come on a Sunday and clean it

Where To wrote: »

Don't go breaking my heart

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I couldn't if I tried.

PFO and get a room and stop loving up in this thread.....or I'll sue the both of ye:mad:

rebel89

Why would you need general anastetic for a few stitches on your knee? There's people dying on trolleys in corridors and this is what the doctors are doing?
My brother got his forehead stitched up when he was young and he managed to survive...

Zab

phasers wrote: »

I know exactly what general anaesthetic is, what is your point? The kid had a cut on her knee and needed a few stitches, It's happened to millions of children and it will keep happening until the end of time. I bet that the parents kicked up a fuss and that's why she got the anaesthetic, it looks better on a court report.

IT WAS A CUT. Big fcuking deal.

Yeah. They put her under a general anaesthetic because her parents "kicked up a fuss". You're just a regular Hercule Poirot, aren't you?

zom

rebel89 wrote: »

Why would you need general anastetic for a few stitches on your knee? There's people dying on trolleys in corridors and this is what the doctors are doing?
My brother got his forehead stitched up when he was young and he managed to survive...

I can't even imagine how much € he could get now if it happen on the public ground.

Hippies!

Didn't have playgrounds in my day. Children were sent to play in the field. Of course in those days children wouldn't have to be sent, they would already be there.

Yah, lot of history in that there field.

ResearchWill

Rasheed wrote: »

Judges fault for awarding her the money for a ridiculous claim.

Inch long scar may need plastic surgery in later life

Fcuk me.

The judge did not decide on the award, it was a settlement agreed between the parties. A judge only has two options in an infant settlement accept it or reject it if the judge believes its too little but he can do nothing if he believes its too much.

Where To

Boombastic wrote: »

We should pay the council workers double time to come on a Sunday and clean it




PFO and get a room and stop loving up in this thread.....or I'll sue the both of ye:mad:

Whoaaaa here she comes
Watch out boys she'll chew you up




:pac:

poisonated

Sorry if this has been mentioned but why is your knee worth close to a quarter of a million?

Boombastic

poisonated wrote: »

Sorry if this has been mentioned but why is your knee worth close to a quarter of a million?

I model it

J. Marston

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Money is held by court till 18th birthday.

That's a handy head-start for her when she's 18 and heading out into the world. And all because she cut her knee when she was a child. Unbelievable.

Hmm, how have I injured myself recently and who can I blame?

rebel89

zom wrote: »

I can't even imagine how much € he could get now if it happen on the public ground.

It was in a public park about 15 years ago...how things have changed

languagenerd

I really hate all these cases at the moment. Like your one recently who walked into a closed shutter and got €17000 off Tuthills cause they "should have told her they'd closed it." :mad:. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? If I walked into a shutter - and it's not beyond the realm of possibility, I'm particularly clumsy :pac: - I would think "Wow, I'm an idiot" and laugh it off. I used to work in a clothes shop, we had to run around like crazy picking up hangers - because if you, as a customer, knocked a hanger to the ground and the person directly behind you tripped over it, the other person could sue the shop for damages. Or if someone tripped over a very visible rail of clothes, that could also lead to a case. How does that make sense?!

Yes, compensation is sometimes necessary - if someone ends up with a serious injury that needs expensive aftercare or ends up with seriously limited work opportunities and can't earn anymore. But €20000 for things like this - a small scar that she's not even concious of - is totally ridiculous. Get them to pay her hospital bill if you want, but what the hell does she need 20 grand for?!

I'm off now to give out to my parents for all the times they didn't sue people on my behalf for all the stupid accidents I had as a child :pac:. I could have been a millionaire... The permanent scar on my wrist from falling over a table in playschool, the stitches after I crashed my bike into a pillar (who to sue there, the bike makers or the council who built the pillar? :P), the stitches after hitting my head in the swimming pool... Sure just last week I fell over a doorstep in a town - maybe I'll sue the company who owns that shop, because, y'know, they should have told me that there was a step there! :mad::mad:

df1985

ridiculous, i fell on glass as a kid in a public car park and have a lovely scar on my knee.....did I get 20 grand??...no i got a feckin bollockin from my mam for being an eejit.

gobnaitolunacy

What is it with Irish/British/US compo claims?

If that was Eastern Europe, you'd just be told to fcuk off and be more careful next time.

My name is URL

rebel89 wrote: »

Why would you need general anastetic for a few stitches on your knee? There's people dying on trolleys in corridors and this is what the doctors are doing?
My brother got his forehead stitched up when he was young and he managed to survive...

So, what are you saying? That doctors should go against their better judgement just because some dumb members of the public might see it as being a waste of time?

What the hell have people on trolleys got to do with how a 2 year old child is treated? Jesus some of the spiel in this thread is priceless.. basically blaming the child like!

..obviously the infant in question needs to man the fcuk up.

Rigol

Warning, use of a monitor for the purpose of reading this thread may damage your wikkle eyes

Where To

Rigol wrote: »

Warning, use of a monitor for the purpose of reading this thread may damage your wikkle eyes

k

Raisins

Rasheed wrote: »

Judges fault for awarding her the money for a ridiculous claim.

Inch long scar may need plastic surgery in later life

Fcuk me.

Read the story the judge approved the sum he didn't award anything. It was the council that settled for that figure.

Boombastic

Rigol wrote: »

Warning, use of a monitor for the purpose of reading this thread may damage your wikkle eyes

Oh noes!! I lucked and got blinded!




4 Billion dollars in unmarked notes please

ResearchWill

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

What is it with Irish/British/US compo claims?

If that was Eastern Europe, you'd just be told to fcuk off and be more careful next time.

It's funny in my travels around the world countries that have the "compo" culture have safer footpaths, roads and general infrastructure. Countries that don't have huge curbs at edge of road, and general unsafe infrastructure. Wonder why that is.

Sam Kade

Fighting Irish wrote: »

If someone crashed into your car would you want the car to be replaced with pretty much the same car as before the crash?

If someone damaged by body i'd want it back to as near perfect as it was before.

So if your leg got mangled in a car crash and you had to have it amputated you could get a leg transplant :rolleyes:

Rasheed

ResearchWill wrote: »

The judge did not decide on the award, it was a settlement agreed between the parties. A judge only has two options in an infant settlement accept it or reject it if the judge believes its too little but he can do nothing if he believes its too much.

Raisins wrote: »

Read the story the judge approved the sum he didn't award anything. It was the council that settled for that figure.

My bad. Ahhhh, I think I'll blame the mother so.

Robbo

Sam Kade wrote: »

So if your leg got mangled in a car crash and you had to have it amputated you could get a leg transplant :rolleyes:

If multiple limbs had to be replaced and say, the subject had to be almost rebuilt, the figure could be easily go into seven figures.

You'd probably end up with some kind of Six Million Dollar Man.

NIMAN

Its cos of people like this that coffee cups now have "caution, contents may be hot".

sure if the coffee was cold, they'd sue for that too.

Boombastic

ResearchWill wrote: »

It's funny in my travels around the world countries that have the "compo" culture have safer footpaths, roads and general infrastructure. Countries that don't have huge curbs at edge of road, and general unsafe infrastructure. Wonder why that is.

France and the Netherlands has got great infrastructure, better than Ireland in most cases



Here is an interesting read:

Award levels

Irish judges tend to be more generous than their British counterparts in awarding or approving settlements for child injuries.

IRELAND

Football injury

A boy who sustained a broken leg while playing football on council property, had €20,000 compensation approved in the circuit court. The boy fell on the concrete surface and had to wear a plaster cast for six weeks.

The €17,500 baby-wipe

Although the plaintiff was an adult, the baby-wipe case serves to illustrate the extent to which some businesses have to go in ensuring the safety of customers.

A court approved a settlement of €17,500 for a customer who slipped on a baby-wipe in a shopping centre. Although the store in question had a rigorous cleaning policy, the judge concluded that, because CCTV cameras showed the baby wipe was on the floor for at least 10 minutes, it was liable.

Airport injury

A toddler who injured his hand on an airport baggage conveyor belt had a settlement of €15,000 approved. He had climbed on the baggage belt and suffered the injury when his arm became trapped.

Crèche injury

A three-year-old boy who cut his lip when he ran into a chair while playing in a crèche was awarded €17,500 in damages against the childcare centre’s owners. He was left with a tiny, slightly noticeable mark on his lip.

ilovesleep

Sheer ignorance from the mother of the child if you ask me refusing to taking personal responsibilty for her daughters fall - it's someone else's fault/not mine.
Two year olds fall all the time.
Did the mother see the broken glass on the the ground?
If so, why did she let the child run about with broken glass on the ground?
If she didn't see the glass on the ground, why did she not?

I remember a few years ago being in an upstairs floor of a small shop, and running about at the top was a young child no more than 18 months and the parents not to be seen in sight. At the other end of the shop they were. If the kid fell down the stairs, no doubt it would be the shops fault, somehow.

If the cut was that bad, the article would have mentioned ligament/bone damage. If all it was was 1 inch of cut skin I can't see how it could have been that serious.

The mother chose the park. The mother missed the glass. These things happen. Blaming them on your council who provided the park for you in the first place is not just unhealthy but pretty selfish.

Madam_X

Robbo wrote: »

Actually, the sum is very much within the range given in the PIAB Book of Quantum. PIAB as a creation for the insurance industry being known for their interest in keeping awards low.

The Book of Quantum is very much adhered to by judges these days. If you have issue with it's use, the windmills you might want to tilt at are the TDs who created PIAB and the insurance interests it represents.

ResearchWill wrote: »

The judge did not decide on the award, it was a settlement agreed between the parties. A judge only has two options in an infant settlement accept it or reject it if the judge believes its too little but he can do nothing if he believes its too much.

Ah get out of this thread with your informed comments - can't you see people are trying to speculate and pass judgment on stuff they don't know the ins and outs of, and assume?!

For all the "Ee, back in mah day" shyte from people in their sagely 20s no less, I know someone who got a huge settlement in the late 80s/early 90s for a seemingly ridiculous injury.

ResearchWill

Boombastic wrote: »

France and the Netherlands has got great infrastructure, better than Ireland in most cases



Here is an interesting read:

Award levels

Irish judges tend to be more generous than their British counterparts in awarding or approving settlements for child injuries.

IRELAND

Football injury

A boy who sustained a broken leg while playing football on council property, had €20,000 compensation approved in the circuit court. The boy fell on the concrete surface and had to wear a plaster cast for six weeks.

The €17,500 baby-wipe

Although the plaintiff was an adult, the baby-wipe case serves to illustrate the extent to which some businesses have to go in ensuring the safety of customers.

A court approved a settlement of €17,500 for a customer who slipped on a baby-wipe in a shopping centre. Although the store in question had a rigorous cleaning policy, the judge concluded that, because CCTV cameras showed the baby wipe was on the floor for at least 10 minutes, it was liable.

Airport injury

A toddler who injured his hand on an airport baggage conveyor belt had a settlement of €15,000 approved. He had climbed on the baggage belt and suffered the injury when his arm became trapped.

Crèche injury

A three-year-old boy who cut his lip when he ran into a chair while playing in a crèche was awarded €17,500 in damages against the childcare centre’s owners. He was left with a tiny, slightly noticeable mark on his lip.

Yes you have show that In Ireland some awards are good, can you show on Average EU awards are much lower, while I accept the Holland has amongst the lowest awards in Europe they do have a compensation system, which I bet some guy in Holland is saying is far to generous.

To get an award in Ireland you need to show that the defendant was negligent and you must show evidence of the damage and how severe. The Defendant has a right to present his own medical evidence to contradict. In a lot of Irish cases the award may look inflated due to medical costs which can be claimed.

mikemac1

What toddler hasn't run into something and hurt themselves?

Every toddler in Ireland has done it!!

dotsman

Fighting Irish wrote: »

If someone crashed into your car would you want the car to be replaced with pretty much the same car as before the crash?

If someone damaged by body i'd want it back to as near perfect as it was before.

And if you damaged your own body (a small scar on your knee), would you expect the taxpayers to pay a fortune for your plastic surgery?

Dublin City Council did not damage the girl's body, she damaged it herself. That's what 2-year-olds do. They are constantly falling over, running into things, banging their heads off things, picking up things they find and putting them into their mouth - the list goes on. That is why they are supposed to be in the care of a responsible adult. When a toddler falls over and hurts themselves, you say "that's life". When toddler is let run around a place with broken glass, you blame the "responsible" adult who was caring for them as any iota of intelligence would have led them to see the potential danger.

If you want to blame someone here, blame the mother. If someone should be forced to pay, it's the mother. The only thing this court case proved was that the mother should be investigated to see if she is capable of raising a child.

Boombastic

Compared to the UK (Same Link)

UNITED KINGDOM

School accident

Playing in a field at school, a boy sustained a laceration to his lower leg requiring sutures when he tripped on an object hidden in long grass. The scar measured 6cm and a £5,000 (€6,300) award was approved by the court.

Bus injury

A six-year-old girl hit her mouth on the seat in front of her and damaged two teeth when her bus braked suddenly. A settlement of £5,000 was approved.

Car crash injury

When he was nine, Tom was a rear-seat passenger in a car being driven by an uninsured relative. The driver of the car in which he was travelling caused a horrific crash in which passengers in other cars were killed. Four people in his car were injured including Tom who fractured his lower leg. He was awarded £7,500 by the court.

In Ireland, fractures to a lower leg generally see awards of between €15,000 and €85,000.

According to the study, the situation is particularly bad in Ireland because we have the highest average personal injury damage awards in the EU. As well as that, 90% of cases are settled out of court, a situation that encourages many people to sue, secure in the knowledge that there is little risk of having to pay substantial court costs.

Also

"Often, the solicitor representing the injured party will never speak to the negligent person apart from finding out the name of their insurance company. The insurers decide whether or not to admit liability, whether or not to settle, and how much to offer.

"These decisions are based on commercial reasons. One commercial decision often made by insurance companies is to settle outside court, whether there is blame or not, in order to save the expense of mounting a defence in court. This practice encourages opportunistic claims — there is little to be lost in having a go. Without insurance, an innocent defendant would possibly fight harder to clear his name and protect his/her own level of wealth."

Fighting Irish

Rigol wrote: »

If someone was about to crash their car into me I'd want my mam to do her job and make sure they didn't.

Some argument

Rasheed wrote: »

Ah Jasus, 20 grand for an inch scar!

Bottle of Bio oil is a tenner in Boots, deadly for scars.

What if that doesn't work?

Sam Kade wrote: »

So if your leg got mangled in a car crash and you had to have it amputated you could get a leg transplant :rolleyes:

What?

dotsman wrote: »

And if you damaged your own body (a small scar on your knee), would you expect the taxpayers to pay a fortune for your plastic surgery?

Dublin City Council did not damage the girl's body, she damaged it herself. That's what 2-year-olds do. They are constantly falling over, running into things, banging their heads off things, picking up things they find and putting them into their mouth - the list goes on. That is why they are supposed to be in the care of a responsible adult. When a toddler falls over and hurts themselves, you say "that's life". When toddler is let run around a place with broken glass, you blame the "responsible" adult who was caring for them as any iota of intelligence would have led them to see the potential danger.

If you want to blame someone here, blame the mother. If someone should be forced to pay, it's the mother. The only thing this court case proved was that the mother should be investigated to see if she is capable of raising a child.

Ok totally agree, i didn't read the story fully

But I still believe you should be compensated if someone damages your body

NIMAN

The conclusion to this entire situation, from reading through it, is that only people of a certain disposition would actually claim for something like this.

The vast majority of citizens would never claim, and would put it down to either accidents, bad luck or just 'something that happens'. I have small infants and I know for a fact that if my little lad split his lip in a creche running around, I would never ever think about taking it to court.

But there is an seedy underbelly of people in this country, and they are growing in numbers, who are looking for easy money and know that there's a fair chance they will get something if they claim, especially when a child is concerned. It started out in the US, then the UK started it, and we are now just catching up. It would never have happened in our parents era, but Ireland has changed (unfortunately).

Rasheed

Fighting Irish wrote: »

Some argument



What if that doesn't work?



What?



Ok totally agree, i didn't read the story fully

But I still believe you should be compensated if someone damages your body

So in your opinion €20,000 of tax payers money was fair for this child?

If this is the only scar she gets on her knees as she gets older, she's damn lucky.

mikemac1

Only in America...

oh wait

Rigol

I wonder is ice-slip man reading this.

Mr McBoatface

Maybe just maybe this judgement will force the council and local Garda to actually police the park and enforce the law on drinking in a public place and deal with anti-social behaviour. Maybe the Council should pursue the scumbag drinkers who broke the glass in the first place so they can recovery the cost of damages and legal fee's. Often local authorities and government only react to situations that give them bad press or hit them in the pocket. This has hit them in the pocket and affected their budget.

The park and playground is a facility for the public being paid for by the tax payer, it's meant to be maintained by those who we pay taxes to. If it was in a dangerous state on that day as appears to be the case then it should not have been open to the public until it was made safe. The person who took the decision to open it to the public while in an unsafe state should also be held accountable. Public parks and play area's should have the same standards applied to them as a privately run facilities. If a child cut themselves on glass in a privately run playgroup or activity centre people would sue, I see no difference here.

But of course it's easier to describe the family concerned as money grabbing gits.

cintec

pwurple wrote: »

What was a broken beer bottle doing next to the toddler swings in a playground ffs?

Alcoholics drink beside the play ground in the evening and then over the weekend alot of underage kids drink there.

The guards very rarely do anything about it

Larianne

Rasheed wrote: »

Judges fault for awarding her the money for a ridiculous claim.

Inch long scar may need plastic surgery in later life

Fcuk me.

phasers wrote: »

A disgusting case, what a moneygrabbing ho.

FFS, a couple of stitches! Rushed to the hospital with a cut knee! gowayourratha!

phasers wrote: »

It was a cut.

NIMAN wrote: »

Lets be honest, this wain probably wasn't rushed to theatre to be stitched up. The triage nurse could put in a few stitches.

Couldn't imagine a hospital getting a theatre prep'd and staffed to put a few stitches in an inch long scar on a knee.

phasers wrote: »

I know exactly what general anaesthetic is, what is your point? The kid had a cut on her knee and needed a few stitches, It's happened to millions of children and it will keep happening until the end of time. I bet that the parents kicked up a fuss and that's why she got the anaesthetic, it looks better on a court report.

IT WAS A CUT. Big fcuking deal.

rebel89 wrote: »

Why would you need general anastetic for a few stitches on your knee? There's people dying on trolleys in corridors and this is what the doctors are doing?
My brother got his forehead stitched up when he was young and he managed to survive...

It was a 2 year old child. So a 1 inch cut is going to have a bigger impact on a smaller body.

She was probably put under GA because of her age. Good luck to any doctor put a stitch in a child's knee, a 2 year old, with a local anaesthetic.

You have parents bring their kids into A&E for much less an injury. The child had a glass in her knee. I'm guessing the parents didn't have much medical knowledge to have an idea of how far the glass went into the knee or how much damage was done.

true-or-false wrote: »

If the cut was that bad, the article would have mentioned ligament/bone damage. If all it was was 1 inch of cut skin I can't see how it could have been that serious.

The mother chose the park. The mother missed the glass. These things happen. Blaming them on your council who provided the park for you in the first place is not just unhealthy but pretty selfish.

dotsman wrote: »

And if you damaged your own body (a small scar on your knee), would you expect the taxpayers to pay a fortune for your plastic surgery?

Dublin City Council did not damage the girl's body, she damaged it herself. That's what 2-year-olds do. They are constantly falling over, running into things, banging their heads off things, picking up things they find and putting them into their mouth - the list goes on. That is why they are supposed to be in the care of a responsible adult. When a toddler falls over and hurts themselves, you say "that's life". When toddler is let run around a place with broken glass, you blame the "responsible" adult who was caring for them as any iota of intelligence would have led them to see the potential danger.

If you want to blame someone here, blame the mother. If someone should be forced to pay, it's the mother. The only thing this court case proved was that the mother should be investigated to see if she is capable of raising a child.

So the mother is meant to scope out the whole of the park before allowing her child to play in it?? There shouldn't have been any glass in the area. Someone has to open the park in the morning. It should have been their job to inspect the park and make sure it was safe to use.

I agree the settlement is ridiculous. 5 grand at the most but I'm guessing someone was able to argue that amount of money was needed for future medical costs??

GreeBo

In Soviet Russia, glass sues you.

upstairs for coffee

If as the article says that these parks are subject to regular "drunken parties in public parks" and the council had done nothing about, then yes I would want as much compensation as I could get for my 2 year old child.

It's a shame that it needed this for the council to get into gear regarding this issue.

I won't say fair play to the woman, but if it was my child I would want every cent I could get.

Cavehill Red

The Jammy dodger wrote: »

We live in a society that wants to imitate America year by year. Pretty soon we'll have a Judge pat Kenny show to counter Judge Judy.

I have already judged Pat Kenny and found him guilty of being extremely dull. I expect others have too.
On-topic - this decision is ridiculous. It should have been accompanied by a ruling charging the mother with neglect of a child in her care.

Larianne

Larianne wrote: »

So the mother is meant to scope out the whole of the park before allowing her child to play in it?? There shouldn't have been any glass in the area. Someone has to open the park in the morning. It should have been their job to inspect the park and make sure it was safe to use.

There's nothing wrong with the mother not knowing it was there, but that's the point. She didn't know it was there, the council didn't know it was there, and she didn't know her child was going to fall right on top of it. These things happen. The only person genuinely at fault is the idiot breaking glass around a playground. But the only reason I can think of that she would look for a settlement is either she's just a genuinely scabby person, or she went on the offence as a way of being defensive about feeling that harm had come upon her child and she hadn't been there to stop it. That she was just looking for someone to blame.

I'm not familiar with the park in question though, and didn't realise someone is actually in charge of it (my local playground is just open to the public in general all the time and gets cleaned regularly, but not daily). So if it was actually someone's job to inspect the park then yes there was a failing, but was that actually the case? It seems a bit of a waste of resources to me.

lukesmom

Out walking with my mother and tripped over a concrete step when I was 3. Split my lip open and left a visible scar which I still have almost 30 years on. No notion of suing in the 80's. I'd say my mam put tcp on it and sent be back out to play. I hate how things have become.

Cookie_Monster

pwurple wrote: »

Good lesson for the council, they need to make an effort keep the cretins who do this away from childrens play areas.

of course it's the councils fault, not the scum who just threw away their rubbish without giving a damn...

Ihatecuddles-old

I have a 2 year old, if this happened to him I think I'd just rub some savlon on it....am I a terrible mother?!

I have a few scars, one on my knee from a motorbike exhaust..I love my scars. Always an interesting conversation starter.

So ridiculous, some people just need a good dose of reality. Things happen, children fall.

We won't see the mother putting any of the money into helping clean up the community, raise awareness of the dangers of leaving things like that lying around or volunteering her time to clean the playgrounds. She'll sit on her greedy hole with a smug grin.

gobnaitolunacy

jobyrne30 wrote: »

Maybe just maybe this judgement will force the council and local Garda to actually police the park and enforce the law on drinking in a public place and deal with anti-social behaviour. Maybe the Council should pursue the scumbag drinkers who broke the glass in the first place so they can recovery the cost of damages and legal fee's. Often local authorities and government only react to situations that give them bad press or hit them in the pocket. This has hit them in the pocket and affected their budget.

The park and playground is a facility for the public being paid for by the tax payer, it's meant to be maintained by those who we pay taxes to. If it was in a dangerous state on that day as appears to be the case then it should not have been open to the public until it was made safe. The person who took the decision to open it to the public while in an unsafe state should also be held accountable. Public parks and play area's should have the same standards applied to them as a privately run facilities. If a child cut themselves on glass in a privately run playgroup or activity centre people would sue, I see no difference here.

But of course it's easier to describe the family concerned as money grabbing gits.

The most cost effective solution is to close the playgrounds. Otherwise you have to surround the place with a big fence and pay someone to open it up in the morning and lock it up in the evening.
Realistically the guards aren't going to bother policing them.

AudreyHepburn

This 'Compo Culture' thing really drives me mad. I just can't understand why people are so unwilling to take a little personal responsability when things go wrong. But working in Insurance claims nothing really surprises me in terms of what people are willing to try and claim for.

I mean I suppose it was too much hassle for this mother to keep an eye on her little one playing and to make sure the child stayed away anything that could potentially hurt her?

I have an inch long scar on on my knee that I got as a child and a similar one on my forhead and I can tell you now that neither one will ever require plastic surgery....the mother in this case has completely over reacted imo.

The child cut her knee, she didn't suffer any kind of serious life threatening injury. Children will fall, they will hurt themselves. Claim against others for simple little accidents is totally unreasonable.