Buncrana pier victims family being sued

ShowMeTheCash

Graces7 wrote: »

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.

You have shown yourself to be completely ignorant of the facts.

I do not mind debating the pro's and con's of a claim culture, there are arguments to be had.

But before any argument people at least to to get the facts correct, you failed before you even got started...

Have a good weekend!

kaymin

TheChizler wrote: »

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.

I'm not lying. I don't see what she did as any more traumatic to what other witnesses witnessed - the baby didn't die. The baby hadn't drowned. The baby was fine, in fact, though perhaps a little cold. This would all have been apparent almost instantly when she took hold of the baby. I'm not seeing where the trauma arises from her involvement with the baby. Out of interest, how many lifeguards who have saved drowning swimmers or RNLI volunteers who have save people have sued for PTSD? Surely that's far worse than taking hold of a baby that is in full health?

tretorn

She saw and heard people in a sinking car screaming for their lives.

She saw her partner risk his life going to help him.

What is wrong with you ?

kaymin

tretorn wrote: »

She saw and heard people in a sinking car screaming for their lives.

She saw her partner risk his life going to help him.

What is wrong with you ?

The other witnesses witnessed the same. Are they all suing?

ShowMeTheCash

kaymin wrote: »

I'm not lying. I don't see what she did as any more traumatic to what other witnesses witnessed

You mean the other witness who have also but in a claim?

ShowMeTheCash

kaymin wrote: »

The other witnesses witnessed the same. Are they all suing?

Yes.. Not sure how many but a number are.

con___manx1

Omackeral wrote: »

I hope she gets bad diarrhea on a packed rush hour bus.

I hope she gets hit by a bus

TheChizler

kaymin wrote: »

I'm not lying.

Omitting pertinent facts in what looks like an attempt to justify your position wouldn't be classed as an honest debating tactic IMO.

kaymin

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You mean the other witness who have also but in a claim?

Have all the witnesses submitted a claim? What makes this case any different to the thousands of other tragic occurrences that people have witnessed but it never dawned on them to sue because, ultimately, living is dangerous.

ShowMeTheCash

con___manx1 wrote: »

I hope she gets hit by a bus

Why? Fake moral outrage?

I am outraged you want her to get hit but a bus therefore I hope you get hit but a bus.... See where this takes us?

kaymin

TheChizler wrote: »

Omitting pertinent facts in what looks like an attempt to justify your position wouldn't be classed as an honest debating tactic IMO.

I'm waiting for these pertinent facts (and answers to the questions I posed)

ShowMeTheCash

kaymin wrote: »

Have all the witnesses submitted a claim?

A number of witness who where present on the pier are making claims.
We do not know how many or who they are.

Graces7

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You have shown yourself to be completely ignorant of the facts.

I do not mind debating the pro's and con's of a claim culture, there are arguments to be had.

But before any argument people at least to to get the facts correct, you failed before you even got started...

Have a good weekend!

My dear. I am not interested in what you call "facts" . I did not fail as I did not engage with your ideas in any way.

These are moraiity issues not legalistic, so your ideas are irrelevant to my concerns. You are on a different page and I refused to join you there. There is no argument.. no debate

kaymin

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Yes.. Not sure how many but a number are.

Probably jumping on the bandwagon.

I ask again, is this what you want Irish society to become? It's always someone else's fault - ignore the fact that he was a drunk driver, too drunk to act logically in a desperate situation that he caused by driving on a slimy sloped surface into the sea that is for use by boat users. Should we expect the councils to put up barriers along the whole coast line in case we have similar stupid actions by others?

ShowMeTheCash

Graces7 wrote: »

My dear. I am not interested in what you call "facts" . I did not fail as I did not engage with your ideas in any way.

These are moraiity issues not legalistic, so your ideas are irrelevant to my concerns. You are on a different page and I refused to join you there. There is no argument.. no debate

You thought she was taking money from the family, as did many others on this thread. If that where actually the case I could at least understand your position.
You got it wrong but instead of owning that you want to try and shift away from your mistake and focus on something else.

Next time look before you leap!

ShowMeTheCash

kaymin wrote: »

Probably jumping on the bandwagon.

It has already been stated that the others claiming put their claims in before she did.

kaymin

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

It has already been stated that the others claiming put their claims in before she did.

So she's jumping on the bandwagon. They're all the same anyway.

ShowMeTheCash

kaymin wrote: »

Probably jumping on the bandwagon.

I ask again, is this what you want Irish society to become? It's always someone else's fault - ignore the fact that he was a drunk driver, too drunk to act logically in a desperate situation that he caused by driving on a slimy sloped surface into the sea that is for use by boat users. Should we expect the councils to put up barriers along the whole coast line in case we have similar stupid actions by others?

The DCC will not pick up the entire tab for this.
He was drunk his insurance is liable, the insurance company will offset that against the DCC if they can argue the slipway was dangerous regardless. It will be a % of liability.

ShowMeTheCash

kaymin wrote: »

So she's jumping on the bandwagon. They're all the same anyway.

Maybe... But as I said before, I am not a doctor not a mental health professional. The only unfortunate thing that happened here was a mistake by the solicitor in sending the legal documents to the father of the deceased, they should of been sent to the insurance company. If that had been done then this would of been settled behind closed doors.
The family and the father would of been none the wiser.

The Bishop Basher

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

A number of witness who where present on the pier are making claims.
We do not know how many or who they are.

I don't care how many bad dreams they've had.

Shame on each and every one of them.

tretorn

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Maybe... But as I said before, I am not a doctor not a mental health professional. The only unfortunate thing that happened here was a mistake by the solicitor in sending the legal documents to the father of the deceased, they should of been sent to the insurance company. If that had been done then this would of been settled behind closed doors.
The family and the father would of been none the wiser.

If the documents were sent by the personal Injuries Assessment Board then by Law they do have to go to the next of kin of the deceased.

I would think this is what happened here.

Do the Insurance company have to pay out if someone is drunk driving a car, I thought the insurance policy would be invalidated except in a collision where a third party was injured.

Whats the position re passengers in a car driven by someone over the limit.

ShowMeTheCash

tretorn wrote: »

If the documents were sent by the personal Injuries Assessment Board then by Law they do have to go to the next of kin of the deceased.

I do not think that is the case.

"Insurance companies do not have an obligation to inform you of the outcome of a claim made against you and can agree a settlement without your knowledge or consent."

tretorn wrote: »

Do the Insurance company have to pay out if someone is drunk driving a car, I thought the insurance policy would be invalidated except in a collision where a third party was injured.

Third party will always be covered even if the driver is at fault

tretorn wrote: »

Whats the position re passengers in a car driven by someone over the limit.

See above.

TheChizler

kaymin wrote: »

I'm waiting for these pertinent facts (and answers to the questions I posed)

I know nothing about stats regarding PTSD and lifeguards. I don't know why you seem to think I would. I do know that she was in the water herself, do you acknowledge that?

Nermal

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You thought she was taking money from the family, as did many others on this thread. If that where actually the case I could at least understand your position.

She's not taking money from the family, she's taking it from everyone who pays motor insurance. Is that more moral?

kaymin

TheChizler wrote: »

I know nothing about stats regarding PTSD and lifeguards. I don't know why you seem to think I would. I do know that she was in the water herself, do you acknowledge that?

So she got her legs wet - what's your point?

kaymin

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I do not think that is the case.

"Insurance companies do not have an obligation to inform you of the outcome of a claim made against you and can agree a settlement without your knowledge or consent."

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the claimants suing the estate and the executor on behalf of the estate is in turn suing the insurance company?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Third party will always be covered even if the driver is at fault

I don't think it's as clear-cut - what precedent is there for third parties such as the girlfriend to successfully sue in these circumstances?

TheChizler

kaymin wrote: »

So she got her legs wet - what's your point?

Her role and involvement was much more than just holding a baby than some would suggest. Not arguing whether what happened to her was deserving of compensation or not, just get your facts right.

kaymin

TheChizler wrote: »

Her role and involvement was much more than just holding a baby than some would suggest. Not arguing whether what happened to her was deserving of compensation or not, just get your facts right.

So you criticise me for leaving out an irrelevant point that she got her legs wet, as if that makes all the difference :rolleyes:

Any other pertinent facts you want to share?

TheChizler

kaymin wrote: »

So you criticise me for leaving out an irrelevant point that she got her legs wet, as if that makes all the difference :rolleyes:

Any other pertinent facts you want to share?

Belittle her involvement all you want, as long as the facts are out there for others to see I'll be content.

kaymin

TheChizler wrote: »

Belittle her involvement all you want, as long as the facts are out there for others to see I'll be content.

I suggest you cease accusing people of lying without anything to back up your assertion.

TheChizler

kaymin wrote: »

I suggest you cease accusing people of lying without anything to back up your assertion.

I suggest you don't accuse people of accusing people of lying when they haven't. I was criticising a post for omitting information in order to belittle someone's experience. All I need to do prove that information was left out is quote the post saying all she did was take a baby, which I did. Just debate honestly and you'll get no objections from me.

kaymin

TheChizler wrote: »

I suggest you don't accuse people of accusing people of lying when they haven't. I was criticising a post for omitting information in order to belittle someone's experience. All I need to do prove that information was left out is quote the post saying all she did was take a baby, which I did. Just debate honestly and you'll get no objections from me.

Kind of ironic that you lie about accusing others of lying. Here's your original post before you revised it:

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

You can't even put forward a coherent argument about why the omission of the fact she got her legs wet is so vital to the discussion. It's getting pathetic.

TheChizler

kaymin wrote: »

Kind of ironic that you lie about accusing others of lying. Here's your original post before you revised it:

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

You can't even put forward a coherent argument about why the omission of the fact she got her legs wet is so vital to the discussion. It's getting pathetic.

??? I used the word omissions, take a look. You quoted it yourself.

I'm going round in circles now but for the last time saying (quoting from memory, can't multi quote on phone) 'she took the baby from her boyfriend. I don't think that's that traumatic' when nobody's arguing that's traumatic is dishonestly reducing her role.

It's being argued that entering the water on a dangerous slip, taking a baby which had possibly died from her boyfriend who was returning to the vehicle people were drowning in (and could possibly drown himself from her POV) crawling back up the slip and performing lifesaving actions on the baby is traumatic.

I'm not saying it's worthy of compensation or not, but of you're omitting facts from posts in an apparent move to strengthen your argument makes it seem that your argument wasn't all that strong to begin with.

kaymin

TheChizler wrote: »

??? I used the word omissions, take a look. You quoted it yourself.

I'm going round in circles now but for the last time saying (quoting from memory, can't multi quote on phone) 'she took the baby from her boyfriend. I don't think that's that traumatic' when nobody's arguing that's traumatic is dishonestly reducing her role.

It's being argued that entering the water on a dangerous slip, taking a baby which had possibly died from her boyfriend who was returning to the vehicle people were drowning in (and could possibly drown himself from her POV) crawling back up the slip and performing lifesaving actions on the baby is traumatic.

I'm not saying it's worthy of compensation or not, but of you're omitting facts from posts in an apparent move to strengthen your argument makes it seem that your argument wasn't all that strong to begin with.

Really? You're going to persist with this lie and then selectively quote what I've said after criticising me for leaving out some irrelevant point that you have no view whether it makes a difference to the discussion or not. You really take the biscuit.

In the interests of not derailing the thread further I'll not be replying to any more of your posts.

Ilovethe bonesofyou

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.

And does that make you feel good? To point that out.

Seriously, what should be talked about here, is not how much money should be owed here or how insurance works but if it is ethically and morally wrong to take these proceedings.

Graces7

Ilovethe bonesofyou wrote: »

And does that make you feel good? To point that out.

Seriously, what should be talked about here, is not how much money should be owed here or how insurance works but if it is ethically and morally wrong to take these proceedings.

Banging head against that brick wall gets tedious. Does not compute with this username,,

Thankful that we know right.

weldoninhio

Graces7 wrote: »

As it is my affair and am not suing anyone!

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

You haven’t answered the question. Are you clinically diagnosed as having PTSD? Or self diagnosed? What symptoms have you?

UsedToWait

weldoninhio wrote: »

You haven’t answered the question. Are you clinically diagnosed as having PTSD? Or self diagnosed? What symptoms have you?

Why are you haranguing the poster?

Rory28

Ilovethe bonesofyou wrote: »

And does that make you feel good? To point that out.

Seriously, what should be talked about here, is not how much money should be owed here or how insurance works but if it is ethically and morally wrong to take these proceedings.

Why should be out of pocket for counseling when it was the drunk drivers fault? Whats ethical or moral about a girl suffering PTSD as a direct result of someone elses stupidity being left with the bill?

My take on the is you are all trying to come at this thinking you're being the "good guy" so too speak but most of the posters here are just being horrible. Graces says the good deed she did has been cancelled out by the claim. Kaymin has reduced what she did to getting her legs wet.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/buncrana-pier-tragedy-stephanie-knox-12264727

After the story broke the family did not take the view of all you did.

“My family doesn’t want that. The newspapers aren’t thinking of the consequences of this.

"The wee girl must have suffered psychological shock and I can understand that.

“This is in the hands of our solicitors. Life has to go on, I’m that type of person.”

From the Father who's interests you are all trying to defend.

dark crystal

Rory28 wrote: »

Why should be out of pocket for counseling when it was the drunk drivers fault? Whats ethical or moral about a girl suffering PTSD as a direct result of someone elses stupidity being left with the bill?

My take on the is you are all trying to come at this thinking you're being the "good guy" so too speak but most of the posters here are just being horrible. Graces says the good deed she did has been cancelled out by the claim. Kaymin has reduced what she did to getting her legs wet.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/buncrana-pier-tragedy-stephanie-knox-12264727

After the story broke the family did not take the view of all you did.

“My family doesn’t want that. The newspapers aren’t thinking of the consequences of this.

"The wee girl must have suffered psychological shock and I can understand that.

“This is in the hands of our solicitors. Life has to go on, I’m that type of person.”

From the Father who's interests you are all trying to defend.

Hopefully the big bucks the 'wee girl' gets from this family tragedy compensate for her psychological shock. Money always helps in these situations, doesn't it?

I hope her ex partner, who actually put his life at risk to save those people, manages to pull through without those big bucks.

weldoninhio

UsedToWait wrote: »

Why are you haranguing the poster?

Haranguing?? Hahaha. I asked a question.

Triangle

Rory28 wrote: »

Why should be out of pocket for counseling when it was the drunk drivers fault? Whats ethical or moral about a girl suffering PTSD as a direct result of someone elses stupidity being left with the bill?

My take on the is you are all trying to come at this thinking you're being the "good guy" so too speak but most of the posters here are just being horrible. Graces says the good deed she did has been cancelled out by the claim. Kaymin has reduced what she did to getting her legs wet.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/buncrana-pier-tragedy-stephanie-knox-12264727

After the story broke the family did not take the view of all you did.

“My family doesn’t want that. The newspapers aren’t thinking of the consequences of this.

"The wee girl must have suffered psychological shock and I can understand that.

“This is in the hands of our solicitors. Life has to go on, I’m that type of person.”

From the Father who's interests you are all trying to defend.

This is opening the flood gate for people who now witness accidents having compensation for the stress of witnessing it.
Where does it stop? If someone tells me a story that affects me? Watching a video that causes ptsd? Playing games?

At some point the line needs to be drawn where people are told that sometimes sh1t just happens.

dr.fuzzenstein

Well, if she gets money the landfills won't be able to cope with the influx of soiled tissues from smarmy, ambulance-chasing solicitors who will immediately crank up the old advertising press.

Have you been at the scene of an accident? Have you seen human suffering or bodily injuries?
Then come on over to Smarmy Vulture Solicitors where we will fight for your right to compensation!
If someone has disturbed your fragile little mind by having the audacity to suffer an injury or worse in front of you, we WILL make them pay.
Don't worry if the person has not survived the event that caused you sleepless nights, we can make the next of kin pay up. Where there is death, there is family, children or spouses we can make pay for your misfortune!
So, be it an accident at work, in the street, a public building, at home or even just visiting a friend, come on over, we'll tell you how much money YOU are entitled to!
If others were present, invite them along.
We also specialise in crowd compensation, so if you are in a large crowd when this awful thing happened to you, get everyone's name and number.
Special crowd discounts!

Rory28

dark crystal wrote: »

Hopefully the big bucks the 'wee girl' gets from this family tragedy compensate for her psychological shock. Money always helps in these situations, doesn't it?

I hope her ex partner, who actually put his life at risk to save those people, manages to pull through without those big bucks.

Or maybe they just compensate her for the counselling. Money is a worry to most people so if she doesn't have to worry about the cost of it then yes I would imagine it will help in this situation.

She should not profit from this tragedy but she should also not be out of pocket because of it as well.

Rory28

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, if she gets money the landfills won't be able to cope with the influx of soiled tissues from smarmy, ambulance-chasing solicitors who will immediately crank up the old advertising press.

Have you been at the scene of an accident? Have you seen human suffering or bodily injuries?
Then come on over to Smarmy Vulture Solicitors where we will fight for your right to compensation!
If someone has disturbed your fragile little mind by having the audacity to suffer an injury or worse in front of you, we WILL make them pay.
Don't worry if the person has not survived the event that caused you sleepless nights, we can make the next of kin pay up. Where there is death, there is family, children or spouses we can make pay for your misfortune!
So, be it an accident at work, in the street, a public building, at home or even just visiting a friend, come on over, we'll tell you how much money YOU are entitled to!
If others were present, invite them along.
We also specialise in crowd compensation, so if you are in a large crowd when this awful thing happened to you, get everyone's name and number.
Special crowd discounts!

hilarious

weldoninhio

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, if she gets money the landfills won't be able to cope with the influx of soiled tissues from smarmy, ambulance-chasing solicitors who will immediately crank up the old advertising press.

Have you been at the scene of an accident? Have you seen human suffering or bodily injuries?
Then come on over to Smarmy Vulture Solicitors where we will fight for your right to compensation!
If someone has disturbed your fragile little mind by having the audacity to suffer an injury or worse in front of you, we WILL make them pay.
Don't worry if the person has not survived the event that caused you sleepless nights, we can make the next of kin pay up. Where there is death, there is family, children or spouses we can make pay for your misfortune!
So, be it an accident at work, in the street, a public building, at home or even just visiting a friend, come on over, we'll tell you how much money YOU are entitled to!
If others were present, invite them along.
We also specialise in crowd compensation, so if you are in a large crowd when this awful thing happened to you, get everyone's name and number.
Special crowd discounts!

Quick, quick the sky is falling.

kaymin

Rory28 wrote: »

Kaymin has reduced what she did to getting her legs wet.

Would you listen to yourself! Did you even read my posts? I omitted the fact that she got her legs wet which chizler has been haranguing me about ever since. You now claim that's all I said she did. Some plonkers on this forum.

Rory28

kaymin wrote: »

So she got her legs wet - what's your point?

What?

dr.fuzzenstein

Rory28 wrote: »

hilarious

weldoninhio wrote: »

Quick, quick the sky is falling.

If every witness to a car crash is now entitled to compensation due to trauma, well, what you think will happen?
Do you enjoy paying paying €1k annually for car insurance?
I guess you will enjoy paying €2k even more.
Then you'll start threads why cars over 10 years are uninsurable and car insurance are a cartel and only out to gouge you.
It's bad enough that "ouch my neck hurts" nets you €15k in compo cash, but now "I saw something bad!", will also bag you a few grand.
If this becomes a thing, anyone who thinks that solicitors will not mercilessly and ruthlessly exploit this for maximum gain, is as innocent as a newborn kitten.
And anyone suggesting that people aren't willing to exploit an unfortunate situation for financial gain, is either very blue eyed or a solicitor.
The first duty of a business is to exploit all avenues of profit to the absolute max.
This will be like solicitors striking a massive mother lode.
But of course we all know that compo cash is like manna from the sky. It's inexhaustible and has absolutely no connection to insurance premiums whatsoever.
Or so solicitors are very adamant at pointing out quite passionately.
Well, they're not gonna piss in their own soup and they will shut anyone up doing so.

Rory28

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

If every witness to a car crash is now entitled to compensation due to trauma, well, what you think will happen?
Do you enjoy paying paying €1k annually for car insurance?
I guess you will enjoy paying €2k even more.
Then you'll start threads why cars over 10 years are uninsurable and car insurance are a cartel and only out to gouge you.
It's bad enough that "ouch my neck hurts" nets you €15k in compo cash, but now "I saw something bad!", will also bag you a few grand.
If this becomes a thing, anyone who thinks that solicitors will not mercilessly and ruthlessly exploit this for maximum gain, is as innocent as a newborn kitten.
The first duty of a business is to exploit all avenues of profit to the absolute max.
This will be like solicitors striking a massive mother lode.
But of course we all know that compo cash is like manna from the sky. It's inexhaustible and has absolutely no connection to insurance premiums whatsoever.
Or so solicitors are very adamant at pointing out quite passionately.
Well, they're not gonna piss in their own soup and they will shut anyone up doing so.

She has been diagnosed with PTSD. Its a bit more serious than "I saw something bad!"