256k for PTSD

kylith

seamus wrote: »

Right. So you therefore cannot know that when you're overtaking a large vehicle parked at the side of the road, whether someone is going to step out from behind it.

So you move out, give it plenty of room and slow down sufficiently so that you may be able to stop if someone did run out from behind it. That's the rules, if you don't like them, don't drive.

Completely impracticable. If every car moves out to give every parked car ‘plenty of room’ on the off-chance some idiot was going to step out from behind it on many streets that would mean people on each side of the road would be trying to drive with two wheels over the white line.

josip

Seamus, a hypothetical question I know, but do you think that if the motorist had killed the woman instead of injuring her, would they face any charges?

fishy_fishy

I'm on the fence.

A couple of days ago, I almost hit a pedestrian. I was coming to what can best be described as a K junction, driving along the straight bit and continuing on, when a car came shooting out of a side road onto my side of the road coming against me having completely ignored the stop sign. I swerved and avoided, but only saw the pedestrian at the last minute. I can only assume that he had been hidden by the front pillar as he started to cross. I have no doubt I'd have been partially responsible if I'd hit him. Fortunately I could avoid in time. Fwiw, there weren't any other pedestrians around. I think most people accept that if you're driving and hit a pedestrian who hasn't just run out, you're in the wrong.

I also know of nobody who has stood at every red pedestrian light waiting for green when it appears clear to cross, however, everyone knows it's a risk.

I haven't seen anything to do with the facts of where it happened, time of day, traffic conditions, driver's speed etc, so in the absence of that, it's fair to say that the blame is shared - which is the conclusion the judge who had all the facts came to.

As for the money, I'm torn. The award is less than her genuine loss of earnings so she hasn't done well out of this. And whoever said only objective injuries should receive compensation is ridiculous, they aren't the only way in which people can be injured. I've watched my mother suffer for decades after being hit by a learner who fled the scene. Whiplash is real and it doesn't go away. PTSD is real too, and it doesn't go away either, people learn to cope with it. Perhaps a payment into a treatment fund and a smaller cash portion is more appropriate. Yet I'm struggling with the loss of earnings, because she represented herself in court. If she can manage that and isn't too traumatised to do that, why is she too traumatised to complete her accountancy training?

daRobot

Most interestingly, Cheng Zange (the receipent of damages) represented herself in this case. Did all her own paperwork etc.

You would think that such a demonstration of high-functioning ability, would surely be at odds with what she was claiming.

Does not compute.

seamus

josip wrote: »

Seamus, a hypothetical question I know, but do you think that if the motorist had killed the woman instead of injuring her, would they face any charges?

Potentially.

Let's assume for the sake of the hypothetical that all circumstances are the same - the light sequence, the speed of the vehicle - but she took an unlucky fall and hit her head on the kerb and died.
Standard procedure after any accident is to caution the drivers involved that they may be charged with a road traffic offence.
The coroner's report should then indicate that death was the result of the blunt force trauma on the head, and that the vehicle speed was not the primary factor; i.e. if he'd been travelling half the speed, she would still have died from hitting her head.

This in turn would arrive with the DPP. They would have to decide if a charge is appropriate and whether that charge should be dangerous driving, careless driving or driving without reasonable consideration.

On the basis of the death, they may go with careless driving; though without knowing the full circumstances they may opt for the latter - which is just penalty points and a fixed fine.

Given that a civil court found that the balance of liability was only 45:55, it seems unlikely that the DPP would find enough evidence to press ahead with a criminal prosecution, and so he'd be issued an FPN instead.

_Dara_

fishy_fishy wrote: »

I'm on the fence.

A couple of days ago, I almost hit a pedestrian. I was coming to what can best be described as a K junction, driving along the straight bit and continuing on, when a car came shooting out of a side road onto my side of the road coming against me having completely ignored the stop sign. I swerved and avoided, but only saw the pedestrian at the last minute. I can only assume that he had been hidden by the front pillar as he started to cross. I have no doubt I'd have been partially responsible if I'd hit him. Fortunately I could avoid in time. Fwiw, there weren't any other pedestrians around. I think most people accept that if you're driving and hit a pedestrian who hasn't just run out, you're in the wrong.

I also know of nobody who has stood at every red pedestrian light waiting for green when it appears clear to cross, however, everyone knows it's a risk.

I haven't seen anything to do with the facts of where it happened, time of day, traffic conditions, driver's speed etc, so in the absence of that, it's fair to say that the blame is shared - which is the conclusion the judge who had all the facts came to.

As for the money, I'm torn. The award is less than her genuine loss of earnings so she hasn't done well out of this. And whoever said only objective injuries should receive compensation is ridiculous, they aren't the only way in which people can be injured. I've watched my mother suffer for decades after being hit by a learner who fled the scene. Whiplash is real and it doesn't go away. PTSD is real too, and it doesn't go away either, people learn to cope with it. Perhaps a payment into a treatment fund and a smaller cash portion is more appropriate. Yet I'm struggling with the loss of earnings, because she represented herself in court. If she can manage that and isn't too traumatised to do that, why is she too traumatised to complete her accountancy training?

Yeah, it’s not a crazy amount.

As for traffic lights, they all come with an implicit ‘with caution’. The walking man - walk with caution, a green light - drive with caution.

I remember years ago crossing at a green man and being inches away from being hit by a driver who careened through a red light whilst talking on his phone. I would have been killed. He was flying.

I indignantly told my father about it afterwards. He said “Did you look before you crossed?”. “Why should I?” I said. He said “Because it’s more important to be alive than right.”. The same goes for drivers. You have the green light but you still have to be cautious especially as you are driving a two tonne vehicle.

Nermal

fishy_fishy wrote: »

And whoever said only objective injuries should receive compensation is ridiculous, they aren't the only way in which people can be injured. I've watched my mother suffer for decades after being hit by a learner who fled the scene. Whiplash is real and it doesn't go away. PTSD is real too, and it doesn't go away either, people learn to cope with it.

I never said they weren't real, I just said you can't prove you have them.

fishy_fishy

Nermal wrote: »

fishy_fishy wrote: »

And whoever said only objective injuries should receive compensation is ridiculous, they aren't the only way in which people can be injured. I've watched my mother suffer for decades after being hit by a learner who fled the scene. Whiplash is real and it doesn't go away. PTSD is real too, and it doesn't go away either, people learn to cope with it.

I never said they weren't real, I just said you can't prove you have them.

If multiple doctors reach the same conclusion then that's proof enough enough for a civil suit. It's balance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt.

If multiple doctors say the woman has PTSD, she lost her job and became homeless, then it's more likely that she has it than doesn't.

If someone walks away from a crash and is okay, then a couple of days later gets pain in their neck and maybe some tingling/numbness down their leg and doctors and physios say "that's whiplash" and they've been getting weekly physio since, they're probably suffering whiplash. If, on the other hand, they get out of the car and immediately whinge about "ah me neck, me neck" and just get a load of sick notes from the doc to excuse them from work but don't actually go to much physio... that's probably not whiplash.

Just because there isn't concrete irrefutable proof of an illness doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If that illness or injury has been caused by someone else's negligence, then why is it less valid than a broken bone?

I'm not saying money fixes everything, but money does pay for treatment and compensate loss of earnings. It's the scale of the awards in Ireland that's off the wall when a fund to cover weekly physio for 3 months, fortnightly for 3 months, monthly for 6 and twice a year for say, 10 years would be more useful. Plus a cash award of proven loss of earnings minus an amount for any contributory negligence.

But to say nothing should be paid for whiplash, or fibromyalgia, or PTSD, or anything else without irrefutable evidence is outrageous because they're genuine harm caused to people, often through no fault of their own. You basically want to let people away with their own negligence.

fishy_fishy

fishy_fishy wrote: »

As for the money, I'm torn. The award is less than her genuine loss of earnings so she hasn't done well out of this.

you're ignoring that to incur the earnings lost she'd have had to earn the qualifications and then earn the forecast amounts

and why would you bother doing that if a judge will just throw a ball of cash at you instead

shuyin1

Deleted User wrote: »

you're ignoring that to incur the earnings lost she'd have had to earn the qualifications and then earn the forecast amounts

and why would you bother doing that if a judge will just throw a ball of cash at you instead

The women represented herself and won. Let's just say most accountants aren't capable of what she did never mind her potential to be a chartered accountant.

Standard salary for a qualified accountant is 50-60k just qualified, which is 5x the 250k award, a pittance for the potential long term (lifetime) effects of the accident.

Award deserved, if not more.

Gatling

Would she have been here on s student visa

Amirani

knucklehead6 wrote: »

It’s attitudes like yours, the “someone else is always to blame for my mistakes and balls ups” that have this country in the state it’s in

Haha, what are ya like? Need to get over yourself.

McCrack

I always get a laugh at these threads because I know for certain every bitter cnut on them would be straight down to a solicitor if they were injured and it was someone elses fault

rob316

We have a client in work who deals with personal injury claims he told me if you were involved in a very minor tip, and claimed for whiplash you will get atleast €15k no questions asked. The insurance company will be desperate to settle it out of court.

It's impossible to prove or disprove and if it ended up in court the claimant could be awarded up to €75k.

Gatling

McCrack wrote: »

I always get a laugh at these threads because I know for certain every bitter cnut on them would be straight down to a solicitor if they were injured and it was someone elses fault

But would they have pocketed quater of a million for being stupid enough to walk across a road on a red light I think not

Nermal

fishy_fishy wrote: »

If multiple doctors reach the same conclusion then that's proof enough enough for a civil suit. It's balance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt.

Multiple doctors reached the same conclusion on the same evidence: i.e. the person says they have PTSD or whiplash etc. - so that doesn't corroborate it whatsoever. Doesn't satisfy the balance of probabilities for me, given the incentives involved. You and the judge are just credulous.

fishy_fishy wrote: »

But to say nothing should be paid for whiplash, or fibromyalgia, or PTSD, or anything else without irrefutable evidence is outrageous because they're genuine harm caused to people, often through no fault of their own. You basically want to let people away with their own negligence.

If that's what it takes to ensure the undeserving don't get compensation, I don't really care if it means some of the deserving don't get it either.

knucklehead6

McCrack wrote: »

I always get a laugh at these threads because I know for certain every bitter cnut on them would be straight down to a solicitor if they were injured and it was someone elses fault

And there’s the rub. If I was at a green pedestrian light and go to cross the road and some lunatic comes along and knocks me down while driving through a red light then yeah, I’ll go after him

But if I’m at a red light and decide shag it, technically I have right of way and get splatted by a car, then no, I won’t.

Scenario A is the drivers fault
Scenario B is my own fault.

ShiverinEskimo

The bang of holier than thou heads placing the blame on the driver is ridiculous. I'm not without sympathy for the pedestrian but at the same time there will always be cases where the driver is given no chance to react and will mow a pedestrian down who crossed at a time or place where they should not have. Pedestrian lights for crossing are ignored almost universally by the population more so than vehicle lights are. In other Western countries this lady would likely have been prosecuted for causing an accident. There is a responsibility on pedestrians to obey lights and to ensure their personal safety and this kind of judgement and payout heavily erodes that responsibility.

I feel sorry for the driver. Their insurance will rocket up because someone else took a huge risk and caused a collision.

Fol20

Business Cat wrote: »

PTSD is even more difficult to prove than whiplash.

It is also a common enough symptom tacked onto whiplash claims.

I'm a nervous passenger now your honour.

I wake up with night terrors now your honour.

As its virtually impossible to disprove the law will invariably side with the injured party and payment will be made.

Based on the limited details available here it does seem like the claimant suffered psychological damage following the accident but rather than paying her a big fat cheque, I'd be much more in favour of having insurers fully covering the cost of all medical needs, getting the best psychologists money can buy and getting her intensive therapy.

Instead, due to her own recklessness she walks away with a quarter of a million and a precedent has now been set.

Joke shop judiciary strikes again.

The thing I don’t get though is that I thought your innocent until proven guilty and you would think the onus would be on “victim” to prove they are injured and without it, they get nothing.


I hate our system now. Years ago I was involved in a car accident. I just wanted him to pay for the repairs on my car as my car was worth 500e at the time but due to him driving a brand new Audi he went though his insurance. In the end even though I wasn’t claiming any injuries they still gave me 4K for car that was worthless. Likewise I did less damage to a car I hit where the dent was the size of a 2 euro coin, he claimed whiplash and got 20k off my insurance. All they want to do is settle settle settle instead of actually check are some people actually injured

erica74

_Dara_ wrote: »

He said “Because it’s more important to be alive than right."

I have said this so many times to people. It needs to be drilled into people.
I've heard people say things like sure they have to stop, I have right of way etc, that's no good when you're dead, nobody is going to attend your bedside or funeral and say "ah well, at least he was right".

erica74

Fol20 wrote: »

The thing I don’t get though is that I thought your innocent until proven guilty and you would think the onus would be on “victim” to prove they are injured and without it, they get nothing.

The onus is on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has to prove their case.

Rubberchikken

Probably a bit ott as payments go. similiar amoint to a garda who developed same in line of work when some guy pulled a gun on him. Just do your job imo.

Btw the term 'bitch' to refer to anyone is tasteless.

Kivaro

McCrack wrote: »

I always get a laugh at these threads because I know for certain every bitter cnut on them would be straight down to a solicitor if they were injured and it was someone elses fault

Not true at all.
I was in a car that was rear-ended recently in an Irish city. We got a good thump, with a slight bit of damage to the rear bumper.

After getting out to check on the N plate driver (who was a young-ish girl) and her father, I recommended that she should pay attention to the cars ahead of the car in front of her to better judge what's happening .............. just a bit of friendly advice ...... given in a friendly manner.
Myself and my friend then left without even considering a lawsuit. The car was old, so the dent on the bumper gave it "further" character.

The one thing of the incident that I will never forget is the look on the face of the N driver. She was terrified that we were going to sue her.
And there are a lot of people like me in this country who did not sue in similar circumstances.

Noveight

Quarter of a million for foolishly walking out on to the street. Ridiculous.

Kivaro

Noveight wrote: »

Quarter of a million for foolishly walking out on to the street. Ridiculous.

Without a doubt.
Hopefully it is appealed.
And I would like to see Judge Anthony Barr removed from his judicial position.
He stated that "her ability to present her case was quite extraordinary and her ability to understand complex issues that arose in the course of litigation was remarkable."

How bad was her PTSD to be this remarkable after the accident?

The size of the "award" is the contentious factor with this case.
In other countries (where judges are held accountable), this student would have received a different type of "award" for walking out into traffic when the signal explicitly told her not to.

pickarooney

What do people think PTSD is or what relation does it bear to a person's cognitive faculties?

erica74

Kivaro wrote: »

Not true at all.
I was in a car that was rear-ended recently in an Irish city. We got a good thump, with a slight bit of damage to the rear bumper.

After getting out to check on the N plate driver (who was a young-ish girl) and her father, I recommended that she should pay attention to the cars ahead of the car in front of her to better judge what's happening .............. just a bit of friendly advice ...... given in a friendly manner.
Myself and my friend then left without even considering a lawsuit. The car was old, so the dent on the bumper gave it "further" character.

The one thing of the incident that I will never forget is the look on the face of the N driver. She was terrified that we were going to sue her.
And there are a lot of people like me in this country who did not sue in similar circumstances.

So you weren't injured and you decided not to take the matter further.

McCrack

Kivaro wrote: »

Not true at all.
I was in a car that was rear-ended recently in an Irish city. We got a good thump, with a slight bit of damage to the rear bumper.

After getting out to check on the N plate driver (who was a young-ish girl) and her father, I recommended that she should pay attention to the cars ahead of the car in front of her to better judge what's happening .............. just a bit of friendly advice ...... given in a friendly manner.
Myself and my friend then left without even considering a lawsuit. The car was old, so the dent on the bumper gave it "further" character.

The one thing of the incident that I will never forget is the look on the face of the N driver. She was terrified that we were going to sue her.
And there are a lot of people like me in this country who did not sue in similar circumstances.

You didn't suffer an injury

I had said every bitter cnut on this thread who suffers an injury through another's fault would be straight down to a solicitor

CrankyHaus

What happens to the driver Stephen Farrell?

Does this payout make him virtually uninsurable?
What effect would this have on his employment prospects?

It seems very unfair.

McCrack

Gatling wrote: »

But would they have pocketed quater of a million for being stupid enough to walk across a road on a red light I think not

Liability and quantum of damages would have to be assessed

Each case is different you see

Gatling

pickarooney wrote: »

What do people think PTSD is or what relation does it bear to a person's cognitive faculties?

She seems to have list of conditions including Anxiety disorder which would suggest one might struggle with anything stressful ,
Representing your self in a court case where your claiming that you suffered major major mental health issues as a result of what seemed a minor accident.
Including facing cross examination by legal professionals

Kivaro

McCrack wrote: »

You didn't suffer an injury

I had said every bitter cnut on this thread who suffers an injury through another's fault would be straight down to a solicitor

How do you know we didn't suffer an injury.
Maybe it was minor enough that it was not warranted ..... i.e. warranted by our conscience. I've another family member who broke a limb recently in a business, but did not sue because there was fear that the business would close down due to the costs involved in a lawsuit. That's the way we were reared.

No really impressed by your language; it says a lot. But it's okay, I will not sue you.

McCrack

Kivaro wrote: »

How do you know we didn't suffer an injury.
Maybe it was minor enough that it was not warranted ..... i.e. warranted by our conscience. I've another family member who broke a limb recently in a business, but did not sue because there was fear that the business would close down due to the costs involved in a lawsuit. That's the way we were reared.

No really impressed by your language; it says a lot. But it's okay, I will not sue you.

Well if you did in fact suffer an injury from being rear ended and did not seek compensation from the wrongdoer more fool you

Your conscience wont pay your medical expenses, loss of earnings and compensation for pain etc arising from another person's negligence

knucklehead6

McCrack wrote: »

Well if you did in fact suffer an injury from being rear ended and did not seek compensation from the wrongdoer more fool you

Wait a minute.... I thought anyone who sought compensation from a wrongdoer was a bitter Cnut. Was that not what you said earlier???

knucklehead6

McCrack wrote: »

I always get a laugh at these threads because I know for certain every bitter cnut on them would be straight down to a solicitor if they were injured and it was someone elses fault

Yep. I KNEW I saw it somewhere.....

McCrack

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Wait a minute.... I thought anyone who sought compensation from a wrongdoer was a bitter Cnut. Was that not what you said earlier???

No

The ones on these threads giving out about "compo" payouts in general

knucklehead6

McCrack wrote: »

No

The ones on these threads giving out about "compo" payouts in general

I don’t see anyone giving out about compo payments in general. Just the amount in this case and the incorrect attribution of the blame.

ahnowbrowncow

seamus wrote: »

Traffic lights mean "proceed if it is safe to do so", not "you can go no matter what". A pedestrian actively crossing the road still has right of way over a turning vehicle regardless of the light sequence.

Her awarded was reduced by 45% because she crossed at the red light.

You can thank the stupid inattentive driver who crashed into a slow-moving visible hazard on a city centre street for any rise in insurance premiums.

I seem to remember you being very cynical of these large payouts in your early boards.ie life, now you appear in similar threads defending them, what changed?

seanrambo87

Bank balance? Tee hee I jest

McCrack

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I don’t see anyone giving out about compo payments in general. Just the amount in this case and the incorrect attribution of the blame.

Nah its the same thing time and time again whenever there is a personal injuries case reported that that has a novel edge to it or it is dismissed etc

The Court of public opinion will cry out how excessive the award is, insurance going up, judges dont have a clue yada yada yada

The usual ill informed statements from people unqualified to give any opinion on personal injuries law and practice

erica74

Kivaro wrote: »

How do you know we didn't suffer an injury.
Maybe it was minor enough that it was not warranted ..... i.e. warranted by our conscience. I've another family member who broke a limb recently in a business, but did not sue because there was fear that the business would close down due to the costs involved in a lawsuit. That's the way we were reared.

No really impressed by your language; it says a lot. But it's okay, I will not sue you.

Well, you didn't say you were injured and given the topic of the thread, it is reasonable to deduce from your post, where you don't mention being injured, that you weren't injured.
If you were injured, I hope you have recovered well.

Greyfox

McCrack wrote: »

The usual ill informed statements from people unqualified to give any opinion on personal injuries law and practice

A red light means stop, the woman decided to ignore a sign that says stop or you might die, its that simple. trying to defend this silly woman is like trying to defend a person driving on the wrong side of the road.

McCrack

Greyfox wrote: »

A red light means stop, the woman decided to ignore a sign that says stop or you might die, its that simple. trying to defend this silly woman is like trying to defend a person driving on the wrong side of the road.

Well clearly the particular facts and circumstance of that ladys accident (of which none of us here are privy to) was enough for the other drivers insurers and/or the Court to find liability against the driver for her injuries suffered

PandaPoo

I was in a taxi a few months ago, he jammed on the brakes when a fox ran out in front of him. I really hurt my neck and it gives me trouble ever since. I even had to take time off work for it too.
I should have sued, id be rolling in it.

I understand that pedestrians have the right of way but it just seems crazy that you can walk out on the road and get a payout.

Allinall

Greyfox wrote: »

A red light means stop, the woman decided to ignore a sign that says stop or you might die, its that simple. trying to defend this silly woman is like trying to defend a person driving on the wrong side of the road.

Or someone running down a person they could clearly see in front of them.

colm_mcm

These judges must think they’re on a Winning Streak, and that big chunks of magic free money from insurance companies can be used to change someone’s life. Same old crap. No personal responsibility anymore.


If she was a motorist and broke a red light, causing another motorist to crash into her, she’d suddenly not be entitled to the money, and would most likely be found to be 100% at fault.

marknjb

what about the pictures on one of yesterdays papers of the young lads playing chicken on the m50 should they get money as well if they get hit not much difference in what they are doing and that woman did

ShiverinEskimo

Allinall wrote: »

Or someone running down a person they could clearly see in front of them.

You are in no position whatsoever to assume what the driver could or couldnt see, let alone how much notice he had to bring the vehicle to a stop. The fact we're talking PTSD here and no life changing injuries suggests the driver wasn't going that fast when the collision happened.

To suggest he could clearly see a pedestrian and somehow mowed her down anyways is suggesting attempted murder. If he could clearly have seen her, and isn't a psycho murderer, he probably would have avoided her and/or stopped. She stepped out when he had a green light and apparently gave him no chance.

Nermal

McCrack wrote: »

Nah its the same thing time and time again whenever there is a personal injuries case reported that that has a novel edge to it or it is dismissed etc

The Court of public opinion will cry out how excessive the award is, insurance going up, judges dont have a clue yada yada yada

The usual ill informed statements from people unqualified to give any opinion on personal injuries law and practice

Funny how the people qualified to give any opinion on personal injuries law benefit from this orgy of greed continuing, isn't it?

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Greyfox

McCrack wrote: »

was enough for the other drivers insurers and/or the Court to find liability against the driver for her injuries suffered

Which is where the problem is, her injurys are her fault for breaking a red light, she did not have the right of way. Insread of making these payouts we should be sending a message that it's never ok to break a red light, rules of the road are there for a reason.