Buncrana pier victims family being sued

mikemac2

she wasnt very traumatised partying in amsterdam last weekend

Hah from the Facebook comments on Donegal Daily :pac:

Captain Obvious

TallGlass wrote: »

She is suing for PTSD or post traumatic stress from it.

Now, if she was in the car then I might say she has a point, from my understanding, she was basically watching there while the car sunk into the water.

All I can say is, no one forced her to watch the car sink and rubberneck like she done. At any stage, she could have decided to walk away. No one asked her to stay and watch or even help.

The last part, she is entitled to do what she is doing, but clearly hasn't thought this one over at all. She is going to get slammed by the community and I have my doubts about this claim being entertained and if it is, the sum of money is not going to be worth the hassle/backlash she will get.

But for me, the main part is the PTSD, she watched and no-one forced her to. The fella on the other hand, watched and decided that he had seen enough and action needed to be taken and went into the water to help. If anyone, he should be the one with PTSD.

How did you feel the last time you had to hear the screams of people as they began drowning despite your efforts to help them? Perhaps you could give her some advice on getting over it?

Spanish Eyes

If the mother/partner who was not there on the day can sue the council for a slippy slipway, then surely all those who were witnesses to that awful event can do the same.

Up to the courts to decide who is entitled to be recompensed for trauma or whatever.

Let them at it.

At the end of the day nothing will bring the drowned people/kids back.

suicide_circus

^^^a big wad of sweaty money can do wonders for the soul

iamwhoiam

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

If the mother/partner who was not there on the day can sue the council for a slippy slipway, then surely all those who were witnesses to that awful event can do the same.

Up to the courts to decide who is entitled to be recompensed for trauma or whatever.

Let them at it.

At the end of the day nothing will bring the drowned people/kids back.

She is not suing the council as far as I know . She is suing the family

corks finest

ItsLikeThis wrote: »

http://www.donegaldaily.com/2018/03/26/woman-who-helped-save-baby-in-buncrana-drowning-tragedy-sues-victims-family/
I take what Donegal Daily says with a pinch of salt but then again, nothing surprises me anymore...

Hard to believe?

Captain Obvious

iamwhoiam wrote: »

She is not suing the council as far as I know . She is suing the family

Has that been confirmed? I'd say it's more likely she is suing the driver and his insurance and someone in his family is acting as his representative.

Stargate

If it's true, health profession ( cardiac physiologist ) Heart of stone. What is the world coming to?

Purple Mountain

I can totally understand how she would be traumatised by the event.
She saw her boyfriend swim out into deep water not knowing if he'd come back.
She also went into the water herself.
After the outcome, it's no wonder she has whatever stress and trauma she has...but..I think it's very insulting and unnecessary to seek financial gain from this tragedy.
It's crass and insensitive at best.

Graces7

Captain Obvious wrote: »

How did you feel the last time you had to hear the screams of people as they began drowning despite your efforts to help them? Perhaps you could give her some advice on getting over it?

Is that the point? At what stage do you then decide to sue the family ie send a "legal letter" to the 86 year old father who has lost his son and other precious family? Have they not suffered enough? How will money help her?

Captain Obvious

Graces7 wrote: »

Is that the point? At what stage do you then decide to sue the family ie send a "legal letter" to the 86 year old father who has lost his son and other precious family? Have they not suffered enough? How will money help her?

Well that depends. If she has had to get counselling it will help her pay for that. If she had to take time off work to deal with the trauma she will get recompensed for that.

iamwhoiam

Graces7 wrote: »

Is that the point? At what stage do you then decide to sue the family ie send a "legal letter" to the 86 year old father who has lost his son and other precious family? Have they not suffered enough? How will money help her?

I agree . There must be thousands of people who were traumatised from witnessing horrors . I very much doubt they felt the need to make it about them
A member of my family witness a young girl jump from a bridge on a motorway and land near his car . He was deeply shocked but never once felt it was ever about him .

jackboy

ItsLikeThis wrote: »

http://www.donegaldaily.com/2018/03/26/woman-who-helped-save-baby-in-buncrana-drowning-tragedy-sues-victims-family/
I take what Donegal Daily says with a pinch of salt but then again, nothing surprises me anymore...

Comments at the end are gas. Unbelievably aggressive. What's the story with so many people calling her a tramp?

bucketybuck

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

then surely all those who were witnesses to that awful event can do the same.

Up to the courts to decide who is entitled

TallGlass wrote: »

The last part, she is entitled to do what she is doing

Bollocks to you, her, and everybody else who has made "entitlement" such a dirty word.

Funny how these days the only time you hear the word "entitled" is when some scab wants a handout.

bear1

So this, let's call her a person, who has been trained as a nurse, held a baby while her ex swam out and did most of the work, is now suing the estate of the family that died for trauma.
Have I seriously just read it like that?
I hope she gets counter sued.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

iamwhoiam

bear1 wrote: »

So this, let's call her a person, who has been trained as a nurse, held a baby while her ex swam out and did most of the work, is now suing the estate of the family that died for trauma.
Have I seriously just read it like that?
I hope she gets counter sued.

Just to be pedantic she is not a nurse she is a cardiac physiologist

nacho libre

I knew there would be one or two defending the actions of this vile brat. As if the elderly man has not suffered enough.:(

TheChizler

Purple Mountain wrote: »

I think it's very insulting and unnecessary to seek financial gain from this tragedy.
It's crass and insensitive at best.

Didn't the article mention she was just suing for loss of earnings? It's way too sparse on details, irresponsible reporting in my view, being purposely vague in order to stir up outrage. We have know way of knowing is she's in it for gain, or if she's been having flashbacks and unable to work for the last year due to extreme PTSD and is unable to even make rent or something like that. It's very easy to assume the worst without getting both sides, and here we hardly even have one side.

I'd at least like to know who she's suing, the estate or the insurance via the estate.

JJJJNR

Something not sitting right about this, possible smear campaign, someone using a fake solicitor to extort money.

Avatar MIA

This is shocking!



















Still would though :eek:

Captain Obvious

nacho libre wrote: »

I knew there would be one or two defending the actions of this vile brat. As if the elderly man has not suffered enough.:(

His suffering comes from one place, the actions of the driver. It's all well and good saying she should be sympathetic to their plight but if she did indeed suffer a trauma that has affected her everyday life, required medical treatment and caused her to miss work, then being sympathetic won't help her recover mentally or financially.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Anyone can sue anyone for anything they want. That doesn’t mean the case will be allowed. Hopefully the president of the High Court or who ever makes these decisions throws the case out and issues a decree that this absolute <removed> cannot take any legal action against any of the family concerned.

However if she is successful, she’ll have a big price to pay, she’ll be treated like a pariah in her community and hopefully her friends and family will shun her.

iamwhoiam

If this case results in money being handed out then it will open a huge can of worms . Thousands can sue for trauma at the scene of an accident and some will . Its not as if this country needs another door opened for the sueing culture we have

TheChizler

iamwhoiam wrote: »

If this case results in money being handed out then it will open a huge can of worms

This is nothing new, just the case is so high profile.

up for anything

Lollipops23 wrote: »

How on earth could she have loss of earnings? And what makes her think the family have money to spare??

This.

TallGlass wrote: »

All I can say is, no one forced her to watch the car sink and rubberneck like she done. At any stage, she could have decided to walk away. No one asked her to stay and watch or even help.

But for me, the main part is the PTSD, she watched and no-one forced her to. The fella on the other hand, watched and decided that he had seen enough and action needed to be taken and went into the water to help. If anyone, he should be the one with PTSD.

Rubberneck? Are you joking? No one forced her to stay and watch. It was her partner went into the water. Of course, she stayed. In most water scenarios anyone with a shred of sense would know that it would be stupid for the two of them to have swum out to the car. Do we even know if she could swim? If she hadn't gone out into the water to take the baby from him both him and the baby could have drowned that little bit too far from safety.

It must have been terrifying for her having watched the events unfolding and then having to access the water using the slip. Anyone who has tried walking on a wet algae/seaweed covered slip would know how impossible it can be. Tramore, for instance, has the Men's Slip which leads down to sand when the tide is out but there are times during the year when it's extremely slippy and if the tide is in I know I wouldn't like to try getting down it, never mind trying to get back up with a baby in my arms and I'm not fond of water. I can swim a few strokes but after that my arms become dead weight and no matter how much I'd want to rescue someone there would be no point in me heading in.

Never try and minimise someone else's experience. You just don't know how you would react until you stand in similar shoes. You have absolutely no idea as to impact this may have had on her life. Yes, the people left out of those families have sustained major losses and traumas but so maybe has she and because of a drunk driver. That is not her fault. If she is suing the family then that is because that is the way the law works and you can be sure that any payout from the council to the mother will have contained some kind of addition for such an event. Those amounts are carefully calculated in the main and not just pulled out of a judge's ass.

iamwhoiam

TheChizler wrote: »

This is nothing new, just the case is so high profile.

Is it not ? I must be naive but I genuinely did not know you could even sue for witnessing an accident . Have you any links for any other such case

nacho libre

Captain Obvious wrote: »

His suffering comes from one place, the actions of the driver. It's all well and good saying she should be sympathetic to their plight but if she did indeed suffer a trauma that has affected her everyday life, required medical treatment and caused her to miss work, then being sympathetic won't help her recover mentally or financially.

She is well enough to party in Amsterdam it seems. He has been through enough. Suing the family is only compounding it. Can you imagine the distress of reading that letter. To most people the sympathy is with him first and foremost.

Spanish Eyes

iamwhoiam wrote: »

She is not suing the council as far as I know . She is suing the family

I was referring to the mother of the drowned children and partner of the drunk driver. She has taken Donegal CC to court for having a slippy slipway.

There will be multiple suits IMO regarding this episode in time.

I don't recall any vitriol against the mother/partner for suing the council when her partner was drunk in charge of the vehicle and all those passengers drowned as a result, including his kids. One law.....

iamwhoiam

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I was referring to the mother of the drowned children and partner of the drunk driver. She has taken Donegal CC to court for having a slippy slipway.

There will be multiple suits IMO regarding this episode in time.

I don't recall any vitriol against the mother/partner for suing the council when her partner was drunk in charge of the vehicle and all those passengers including his kids either. One law.....

Was it well known ? I certainly hadn't read about the mother suing the council . I did hear locals say it was not the first time a car had run into trouble on that slip

TheChizler

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Is it not ? I must be naive but I genuinely did not know you could even sue for witnessing an accident . Have you any links for any other such case

You can sue for anything, but it's important to remember that she wasn't just a witness, she was very much involved in the rescue. She was in the water and had to crawl up the same slipway the car came off carrying a baby she thought had drowned. Not exactly a bystander. I don't have any examples to hand but it's not unheard of for first responders to sue for stress incurred. They normally would sue their employer, not sure exactly who is being sued here.

Captain Obvious

nacho libre wrote: »

She is well enough to party in Amsterdam it seems.

The nerve of her. There's this guy in work who claims to suffer from depression but I saw him laughing at a joke the other day. Maybe I should call him out on his obvious lie.

Honestly, I don't know if this argument is hopelessly ignorant or deliberate trolling. Do you think people who suffer PTSD spend the rest of their lives curled up in the fetal position under a bed?

Spanish Eyes

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Was it well known ? I certainly hadn't read about the mother suing the council . I did hear locals say it was not the first time a car had run into trouble on that slip

I am not heartless, but I am a realist. The suit against Donegal CC was held off until the inquest was over.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/mother-sues-donegal-council-over-buncrana-pier-tragedy-463549.html

She is quite entitled to do so on legal advice, as is the lady who is the subject of this thread.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Chrongen

This surely has to be a p1ss-take.

dr.fuzzenstein

up for anything wrote: »

.

Never try and minimise someone else's experience. You just don't know how you would react until you stand in similar shoes. You have absolutely no idea as to impact this may have had on her life. Yes, the people left out of those families have sustained major losses and traumas but so maybe has she and because of a drunk driver. That is not her fault. If she is suing the family then that is because that is the way the law works and you can be sure that any payout from the council to the mother will have contained some kind of addition for such an event. Those amounts are carefully calculated in the main and not just pulled out of a judge's ass.

Yes, how dare those people kick the bucket in front of her and ruin her fun weekend!
Anyone who cannot see how what she is doing is the absolute pits is someone bereft of any morals, utterly without any emotional understanding or basic understanding of right and wrong and lacking any moral decency or in fact any qualities that separate us from pond scum. Or her solicitor.
This for one is about right and wrong and ethics. I know that many in the legal procession react to those concepts like a vampire does to garlic, but there has to be a point where anyone who used to be a human being, before turning to the law, discovers some semblance of decency within themselves.
There are probably legal experts rolling on the floor in tears of laughter right now, but what the hell, it had to be said.
Anyone who doesn't see how this is wrong has sold their soul and has ceased to be a human being.

4ensic15

iamwhoiam wrote: »

What insurance exactly would cover this ? Car insurance or what ?

Personal liability on the house insurance would be the most likely.

NinetyTwoTeam

funny how the real hero who actually endangered himself in this incident isn't suing. not surprised either that he shot himself well clear of this woman.

TheChizler

How can you make sweeping judgments regarding morals and ethics considering the few one-sided details of the suit that have been published?

Captain Obvious

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yes, how dare those people kick the bucket in front of her and ruin her fun weekend!
Anyone who cannot see how what she is doing is the absolute pits is someone bereft of any morals, utterly without any emotional understanding or basic understanding of right and wrong and lacking any moral decency or in fact any qualities that separate us from pond scum. Or her solicitor.
This for one is about right and wrong and ethics. I know that many in the legal procession react to those concepts like a vampire does to garlic, but there has to be a point where anyone who used to be a human being, before turning to the law, discovers some semblance of decency within themselves.
There are probably legal experts rolling on the floor in tears of laughter right now, but what the hell, it had to be said.
Anyone who doesn't see how this is wrong has sold their soul and has ceased to be a human being.

I disagree. If this woman has suffered as a result of this tragedy you are saying she should just suck it up and deal with the mental and financial consequences. We have mandatory car insurance to cover third parties who suffer as a result of driver negligence so why do you figure this particular third party should be denied that path? I think you are being particularly callous to someone who tried to help mitigate the immediate damage of this tragedy and suffered as a result.

facehugger99

Hope she sues the Donegal Daily too.

Spanish Eyes

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

funny how the real hero who actually endangered himself in this incident isn't suing. not surprised either that he shot himself well clear of this woman.

He may not have sued YET. He may never, but there is nothing to stop him.

The mother/partner had no compunction about suing the county council when after the inquest she knew her partner was drunk and three times over the limit.

But it is always someone else's fault.

Sweetemotion

Captain Obvious wrote: »

The nerve of her. There's this guy in work who claims to suffer from depression but I saw him laughing at a joke the other day. Maybe I should call him out on his obvious lie.

Honestly, I don't know if this argument is hopelessly ignorant or deliberate trolling. Do you think people who suffer PTSD spend the rest of their lives curled up in the fetal position under a bed?

Typing her own name into Google from now on certainly wont help her "PTSD".

foxy farmer

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

He may not have sued YET. He may never, but there is nothing to stop him.

The mother/partner had no compunction about suing the county council when after the inquest she knew her partner was drunk and three times over the limit.

But it is always someone else's fault.

He got a medal for bravery last year along with members of various rescue sevices around the country. Maybe she's a bit put out at not getting any recognition for her role in the rescue.

georgina toadbum

How could she be so cruel? I actually feel a bit sick to my stomach reading this. I thought it was a Waterford Whispers article at first.

foxy farmer

Bravery award.
https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-37666971&ved=2ahUKEwjr2c7e84raAhWD16QKHVaRAbI4ChAWMAZ6BAgAEAE&usg=AOvVaw0xDBYWphWn9X_B8daQEQGK&ampcf=1

Debtocracy

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

He may not have sued YET. He may never, but there is nothing to stop him.

The mother/partner had no compunction about suing the county council when after the inquest she knew her partner was drunk and three times over the limit.

But it is always someone else's fault.

This guy risked his life to save that family. This shows a high degree of moral courage. Most people would try to help in this situation but few would put their life on the line.

The chances of this guy then suing the dead man's family for some extra cash is highly unlikely. The last I heard he was opening up his own business.

I've always considered the growing compensation culture to be a ticking time bomb. It used to be about debilitating injuries. Now it's about sore thumbs and rhyming off the symptoms of a mental illness.

It shows a growing sense of victim-hood in modern society. And what I worry about it's self-perpetuating nature. The more people get compensated, the greater jealously other people experience, which increases the chance's that they'll make a claim. It like FOMO in investing (fear of missing out). Eventually we'll all have to sue one another just to pay for our insurance.

Mrs OBumble

eviltwin wrote: »

I ended up in counselling for a while after arriving at the scene of a car crash. The victim was quite young and it was a very graphic scene and really horrible. It would never enter my head to sue anyone, it was an accident and all involved have suffered enough. I can't believe anyone would even consider this let alone actually do it.

You may have felt differently if the event had made you unable to work in the profession that you'd invested a lot of time and cash training to do, and you were looking at perhaps never again being able to hold much more than a minimum wage job.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The emergency services (the likes of fire service, the Gards and health workers) are usually the first people at the scene of such tragic circumstances, and occasionally priests etc.

What would society come to if they all started suing because of trauma witnessed because they did their jobs?

Some do sue their employers for failing to provide a safe workplace for them.

Some employers even have policies which say that their staff must not be involved in stressful out-of-work activities, because the job itself is so stressful.

_Dara_

Loss of earnings? What? How?

What. A. Cow.

Spanish Eyes

Debtocracy wrote: »

This guy risked his life to save that family. This shows a high degree of moral courage. Most people would try to help in this situation but few would put their life on the line.

The chances of this guy then suing the dead man's family for some extra cash is highly unlikely. The last I heard he was opening up his own business.

I've always considered the growing compensation culture to be a ticking time bomb. It used to be about debilitating injuries. Now it's about sore thumbs and rhyming off the symptoms of a mental illness.

It shows a growing sense of victim-hood in modern society. And what I worry about it's self-perpetuating nature. The more people get compensated, the greater jealously other people experience, which increases the chance's that they'll make a claim. It like FOMO in investing (fear of missing out). Eventually we'll all have to sue one another just to pay for our insurance.

Maybe think about it from the other side, you know the legal advisors.

It works well for many people, so it's worth a shot. Slip on a chip, here's 40k and so on.