Buncrana pier victims family being sued

Graces7

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Your ignorance to mental health issues is astonishing!
You equate being sad or down to being clinically depressed.
This is not hyperbole, you really just do not seem to understand what mental health issues are.
In your last comment you seem to think "not letting negativity impact your life" as if people who suffer from PTSD have a say in it.

We do, have a say in it, we who suffer PTSD and what we do NOT do is afflict or involve those who have suffered far far more in the same events, and seek to make money from the incident

That family have lost FIVE loved ones, including two lovely wee lads.
How do you ever get over that?
She needs think of others in this, The family even kept in touch with her and the

real hero. So deeply grateful for the life of that baby

Rory28

beakerjoe wrote: »

Stop bringing other issues into the conversation for your own hyperbole.

By your logic, I should sure my girlfriend when I get depressed after she dumps me.

Its sucks, yes, but I wont be looking for compensation.

This is what you said. Nothing about the break up leading to clinical depression. You twist your own words to suit yourself.

Graces7

TheChizler wrote: »

She entered the water up to her waist in the dark and had to crawl back out because of how slippy how the slip was, while carrying a baby she thought had drowned. Seems pretty dangerous to me.

In what dark? fully light!

TheChizler

Graces7 wrote: »

In what dark? fully light!

I understood this happened late, let me check.

Edit: Sunset was at 18:18 on the 7th of March 2016. Incident happened around 7.

weldoninhio

beakerjoe wrote: »

Shes claiming to be suffering from this.

She is looking for compensation based on the fact that she has been diagnosed with PTSD after the events on the slipway. Getting the diagnosis would have been her very first step.

Graces7

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Wrong - You do not understand how insurance works.
This has been covered the family or the father is not being being sued.

The estate?And the sheer effrontery .

They shoudl sue HER for mental distress!

Graces7

weldoninhio wrote: »

She is looking for compensation based on the fact that she has been diagnosed with PTSD after the events on the slipway. Getting the diagnosis would have been her very first step.

So? I have PTSD and I am not suing the cause or folk involved

WHY are you defending her and her way of life?

ShowMeTheCash

Graces7 wrote: »

[/B]

We do, have a say in it, we who suffer PTSD and what we do NOT do is afflict or involve those who have suffered far far more in the same events, and seek to make money from the incident

That family have lost FIVE loved ones, including two lovely wee lads.
How do you ever get over that?
She needs think of others in this, The family even kept in touch with her and the real hero. So deeply grateful for the life of that baby

What nonsense are you harping on about?
She is not responsible for their deaths... The main issue her was the documents where sent to the father and not the insurance company.

Otherwise the family would of been none the wiser!

These insurance claim will go ahead, the father will never hear from it again, he will not find out if she was awarded compensation or if she wasn't.

Graces7

TheChizler wrote: »

I understood this happened late, let me check.

roflol!

weldoninhio

Graces7 wrote: »

The estate?And the sheer effrontery .

They shoudl sue HER for mental distress!

1. The father who got the letter received it in error.

2. He is not the executor of the estate.

3. "She" didn't send any letter, in error, or otherwise, that was her solicitor, so there would be no basis in any claim against her for mental distress.

Try to stick to the facts.

weldoninhio

Graces7 wrote: »

So? I have PTSD and I am not suing the cause or folk involved

WHY are you defending her and her way of life?

Have you a clinical diagnosis of PTSD? Or is it self diagnosed? Strange you left it to now to bring it up.

ShowMeTheCash

Graces7 wrote: »

The estate?And the sheer effrontery .

They shoudl sue HER for mental distress!

I will state again you do not under stand how this works.
It has been talked thought numerous times now.

The driver was indemnified by his insurance company, all insurance claims happen like this. Usually they solicitor would send these documents directly to the insurance company.

Rory28

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I will state again you do not under stand how this works.
It has been talked thought numerous times now.

The driver was indemnified by his insurance company, all insurance claims happen like this. Usually they solicitor would send these documents directly to the insurance company.

She is choosing to ignore it. The point that she is claiming against insurance and not suing the family is lost on a few people here.

The Bishop Basher

I'm guessing ShowMeTheCash is true to his username and has had a big claim in at some stage..

ShowMeTheCash

Rory28 wrote: »

She is choosing to ignore it. The point that she is claiming against insurance and not suing the family is lost on a few people here.

Agreed this is what is annoying.

It is one thing to think she is looking for a payout, you can have that opinion if you want.

But people keep stating she is suing the family.... 51 pages in and people still think she is taking money from a grieving family!

Rory28

Swanner wrote: »

I'm guessing ShowMeTheCash is true to his username and has had a big claim in at some stage..

Good stuff Swanner. Start insulting the other poster.

Rory28

Swanner wrote: »

How is it insulting if there's nothing wrong with putting a claim in ?

And follow it up with the play the innocent. on serious form now.

TheChizler

Graces7 wrote: »

roflol!

Quite. Hilarious that I said "dark" when I should have said "getting dark". I certainly wouldn't like to be descending a slipway in those circumstances.

The Bishop Basher

Rory28 wrote: »

Good stuff Swanner. Start insulting the other poster.

How is it insulting if there's nothing wrong with putting a claim in ?

I suspect that a lot of the time, people who veraciously defend the claim culture have benefited from it.

Turned out to be the case yesterday and the poster was quite honest about it.

Why wouldn't he. It was a genuine claim..

So i'm not seeing the issue unless you have an issue with people making claims ?

ShowMeTheCash

Swanner wrote: »

How is it insulting if there's nothing wrong with putting a claim in ?

This is the problem with all your arguments they lack facts but are littered with ignorant assumptions... Why stop now

Luckily for me, never been involved in an accident where I have been injured.

Rory28

Swanner wrote: »

How is it insulting if there's nothing wrong with putting a claim in ?

I suspect that a lot of the time, people who veraciously defend the claim culture have benefited from it.

Turned out to be the case yesterday and the poster was quite honest about it.

Why wouldn't he. It was a genuine claim..

So i'm not seeing the issue unless you have an issue with people making claims ?

Look at you with the ghost edit.

The Bishop Basher

Rory28 wrote: »

Look at you with the ghost edit.

Is there an issue with that

Angry bunch in here this afternoon..

Rory28

Swanner wrote: »

Is there an issue with that

Angry bunch in here this afternoon..

Fed up more than angry

beakerjoe

Rory28 wrote: »

This is what you said. Nothing about the break up leading to clinical depression. You twist your own words to suit yourself.

Ignore the point.

If I am clinically depressed after a break up, do I sue my ex girlfriend ?

Im not saying PTSD or Depression arent serious, not at all. I am saying its life sucks, bad things happen. You dont have to claim for it though.

Nermal

weldoninhio wrote: »

Sums up Ireland's attitude to mental health.

It's being used as a figleaf for greed and malingering.

weldoninhio

beakerjoe wrote: »

Ignore the point.

If I am clinically depressed after a break up, do I sue my ex girlfriend ?

Im not saying PTSD or Depression arent serious, not at all. I am saying its life sucks, bad things happen. You dont have to claim for it though.

You know Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a different diagnosis to Clinical Depression right??

Rory28

beakerjoe wrote: »

Ignore the point.

If I am clinically depressed after a break up, do I sue my ex girlfriend ?

Im not saying PTSD or Depression arent serious, not at all. I am saying its life sucks, bad things happen. You dont have to claim for it though.

Its a poor example. Your girlfriend is not liable for your feelings just because she dumped you. If she drunkenly killed her whole family while you watched that would be a different matter.

kaymin

Rory28 wrote: »

Its a poor example. Your girlfriend is not liable for your feelings just because she dumped you. If she drunkenly killed her whole family while you watched that would be a different matter.

What's the precedent for making such claims? What next, nurses and police making claims for what they experience on the front line? Can I sue RTE for showing some unpleasant stories on the 9 o'clock news? Where do you draw the line?

ShowMeTheCash

Nermal wrote: »

It's being used as a figleaf for greed and malingering.

really? How much is spent on it?
Compare that do tax evasion and bank bail outs!

I think the attitude to mental health issues however is reflected in the suicide rates in this country.

ShowMeTheCash

kaymin wrote: »

What's the precedent for making such claims? What next, nurses and police making claims for what they experience on the front line? Can I sue RTE for showing some unpleasant stories on the 9 o'clock news? Where do you draw the line?

Nurses and Police will be covered by their employer and nurses and police can claim if they have been injured or are suffering from PTSD inline with doing their job. And this does happen already.

RTE - Sensor almost everything, they limit what the public sees and if anything is in anyway distressing they usually warn viewers.

Nermal

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

really? How much is spent on it?
Compare that do tax evasion and bank bail outs!

De bankers!

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/delivery-man-injured-when-mattress-lifted-by-wind-awarded-380-000-1.3468355

I have no problem with a support group for sensitive souls with mysteriously sore backs and necks. Whinge to one another all you want. I just object when it increases my premiums.

ShowMeTheCash

Nermal wrote: »

De bankers!

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/delivery-man-injured-when-mattress-lifted-by-wind-awarded-380-000-1.3468355

I have no problem with a support group for sensitive souls with mysteriously sore backs and necks. Whinge to one another all you want. I just object when it increases my premiums.

Well you need to take the rough with the smooth.

If you are involved in an accident and you can no longer work because of your neck pain are you happy for the insurance company to point you in the direction of a support group whist the bank repossess your house?

kaymin

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Nurses and Police will be covered by their employer and nurses and police can claim if they have been injured or are suffering from PTSD inline with doing their job. And this does happen already.

RTE - Sensor almost everything, they limit what the public sees and if anything is in anyway distressing they usually warn viewers.

Fair enough - nurses and police are put in that situation by their employers and this seems a legitimate basis to sue. I've not heard of any instances in the past where bystanders have grounds to successfully sue - this case could surely open the floodgates if it succeeds. I'm aware RTE censor some stories but if I'm a sensitive soul I might suffer PTSD nonetheless (censorship or not).....

The Bishop Basher

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Nurses and Police will be covered by their employer and nurses and police can claim if they have been injured or are suffering from PTSD inline with doing their job. And this does happen already.

It certainly does. The Gardai top the bill from 2010 to 2017 with €28,000,000 in personal injury payouts.

The Dept of health comes way down the list. The museum of art seems to be a dangerous place to work though if personal injury claims are anything to go by.

I’m in the phone so won’t link but you can google the IT article if you wish.

Oddly enough, claims accross the board are sharply on the rise. Despite all the focus on health and safety it seems we’re getting clumsier and clumsier as a nation.

kaymin

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Well you need to take the rough with the smooth.

If you are involved in an accident and you can no longer work because of your neck pain are you happy for the insurance company to point you in the direction of a support group whist the bank repossess your house?

Considering soft tissue injuries outside of Ireland do not merit anything like the awards given in Ireland, then back to work you go - the reality here is it's seen as easy money.

ShowMeTheCash

kaymin wrote: »

Fair enough - nurses and police are put in that situation by their employers and this seems a legitimate basis to sue. I've not heard of any instances in the past where bystanders have grounds to successfully sue - this case could surely open the floodgates if it succeeds. I'm aware RTE censor some stories but if I'm a sensitive soul I might suffer PTSD nonetheless (censorship or not).....

There is a difference and this case in unique.
The driver was I think a few times over the legal limit so their was fault here with regards the incident, she was directly involved in the rescues of the child so she was not just someone who watched this from the side lines.

Graces7

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I will state again you do not under stand how this works.
It has been talked thought numerous times now.

The driver was indemnified by his insurance company, all insurance claims happen like this. Usually they solicitor would send these documents directly to the insurance company.

I know this but it is still a filthy trick which wiil perforce affect and distress bereaved family; period . We do not all have your clinical detachment, thankfully. Still a painful event for the family an dstill an inexcusable way to behave

Some imports from America should be banned . like this

The Bishop Basher

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

There is a difference and this case in unique.
The driver was I think a few times over the legal limit so their was fault here with regards the incident,

Exactly.

The driver was at fault so why is she suing the tax payer ?

Would deep pockets have anything to do with it ?

ShowMeTheCash

kaymin wrote: »

Considering soft tissue injuries outside of Ireland do not merit anything like the awards given in Ireland, then back to work you go - the reality here is it's seen as easy money.

Do you have figures on this? I actually do not know what the figures are.

I think the OP was suggesting no compensation in these cases. The amount is perhaps a different argument.

The argument I am making is where do you draw the line between genuine vs spurious?

kaymin

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

There is a difference and this case in unique.
The driver was I think a few times over the legal limit so their was fault here with regards the incident, she was directly involved in the rescues of the child so she was not just someone who watched this from the side lines.

I appreciate she took the child from the arms of her boyfriend. I can't see that as being any more traumatic than if I was standing beside her watching things unfold.

Personally it's a sad indictment of society if her case succeeds - next thing is people will choose not to help people in need for fear of suffering PTSD. Btw - I also view the grieving widow and this girl in the same way - they're both money grabbing given the circumstances.

ShowMeTheCash

Swanner wrote: »

Exactly.

The driver was at fault so why is she suing the tax payer ?

Would deep pockets have anything to do with it ?

You are talking about this you know very little about.

The driver was indemnified by his insurance policy.
The insurance company will be the one who will assess the situation and it will be their assessors that will implicated the DDC of any failings in terms of safety.

They will come up with a ratio split - Car insurance will cover 70% DCC 30% or whatever they agree on.

Graces7

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Agreed this is what is annoying.

It is one thing to think she is looking for a payout, you can have that opinion if you want.

But people keep stating she is suing the family.... 51 pages in and people still think she is taking money from a grieving family!

Do you think this wil not adversely affect that family? Cause more pain and grief?

I think too you need to google "buncrana death suing estate"and read the reports and what they actually say not some sanitised version such as you are dispensing to try to defend the indefensible..

Oh my error; it was in fact TWO years since the accident.Long time lapse there.

And she has lost her man too. ,

ShowMeTheCash

kaymin wrote: »

Next thing is people will choose not to help people in need for fear of suffering PTSD. Btw.

Fear of injury or PTSD not sure but what about fear of not getting help after doing the right thing if you need it?

Graces7

weldoninhio wrote: »

Have you a clinical diagnosis of PTSD? Or is it self diagnosed? Strange you left it to now to bring it up.

As it is my affair and am not suing anyone!

I can hardly believe that so many ar e supporting this woman.

Graces7

Totally morally defunct.

ShowMeTheCash

Graces7 wrote: »

Do you think this wil not adversely affect that family? Cause more pain and grief?

So you are wrong now you want to jump to something else.

How is this now going to cause more pain? The mistake of sending the documents to the father is done, cannot be undone. Her claim from this point on will be in secret....

Explain how her proceeding or withdrawing the claim is going to effect the family?

Graces7 wrote: »

I think too you need to google "buncrana death suing estate"and read the reports and what they actually say not some sanitised version such as you are dispensing to try to defend the indefensible..

Oh my error; it was in fact TWO years since the accident.Long time lapse there.

And she has lost her man too. ,

I have read it, I understand the law, I understand how insurance claims work..... Even now do you understand how this works? Answer the above questions and we can find out...

kaymin

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Do you have figures on this? I actually do not know what the figures are.

I think the OP was suggesting no compensation in these cases. The amount is perhaps a different argument.

The argument I am making is where do you draw the line between genuine vs spurious?

I understand figures will become available, but the indications are not great from an Irish context:

There are considerable variations in the frequency of
‘whiplash’ claims across Europe and based on the limited
information available, Ireland’s and the UK’s incidence rate
of such claims, appears significantly higher than those in
other EU countries such as Germany and France. A
comparison of costs is even more difficult where there
can be different heads of damages for recoverable
non-economic losses (e.g. general damages).

In some countries injury compensation levels are
determined with the aid of tables. In others, case law
precedents or guidelines assist courts and insurers.

The PIC will report in more detail on international
benchmarking of awards in its second report.
A high-level comparison of the cost of a ‘whiplash’ claim
can be made between levels of damage in Ireland and
England/Wales based on the respective versions of the
Book of Quantum and the Judicial Studies Board
Guidelines. Such a comparison indicates that less severe
injuries in Ireland tend to attract higher levels of damages
but that is less pronounced as the severity of injury
increases. The provision of comprehensive data and
settlement figures from insurers is a key element in
facilitating a more detailed and useful comparison.

https://dbei.gov.ie/en/Publications/Publication-files/First-Report-of-the-Personal-Injuries-Commission.pdf

ShowMeTheCash

Graces7 wrote: »

As it is my affair and am not suing anyone!

I can hardly believe that so many ar e supporting this woman.

No one is supporting her, just pointing out ignorance and fake moral outrage from people who have no clue what they are talking about.

Graces7

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

No one is supporting her, just pointing out ignorance and fake moral outrage from people who have no clue what they are talking about.

W know what matters. That claims like this are morally defunct and greedy.
And cancel out the good she did that day, and cause suffering to those far worse affected then she was.

OK?

OK!

Off outside to clear my old head of this junk!

For if money matters and justifying this... greed and inhumanity?

Have a good evening.

TheChizler

kaymin wrote: »

I appreciate she took the child from the arms of her boyfriend. I can't see that as being any more traumatic than if I was standing beside her watching things unfold.

Why do people keep minimising her involvement to just holding the baby? Is it an attempt to justify their argument that what she experienced wasn't traumatic?

She entered the water herself during twilight on the same dangerous slipway the car went off, took the baby from her boyfriend (which she had thought had drowned at this point) and crawled back up the slip while her boyfriend went back to the submerged car, and used her body heat to prevent hypothermia.

Whether that is traumatic or not and due compensation is worthy of debate, but not some omissions trying to make her involvement seem spurious.