Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Child awarded €32,500 for cut eyebrow

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Strumms
    Registered Users Posts: 25,499 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    When I saw the headline I too was thinking ‘fûck that’s way too harsh’ but on reading the details where a kid had to climb on and stand on a fûcking plastic stool, without assistance to perform a simple and necessary task to wash his hands... sorry this is ALL on the creche.. they should have had facilities where by the smallest of children can access wash facilities without endangering themselves or climbing things ie. two sinks at different levels... THEY actively chose not to provide this or assistance...

    Also before opening did they engage with anyone to provide a health and safety assessment / audit of the facilities ? Unlikely as this would have been obviously flagged as a problem.... they clearly have more interest in their pockets than the welfare of the children in their care...


  • Options
    #33
    Cork Trucker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭Cork Trucker


    Boggles wrote: »
    No it isn't.

    A Judge approving it is a legal box ticking exercise which brings court proceedings to an end.

    If a Judge awarded it, he would set the amount and explain why.

    Right we'll agree to disagree.

    Next!


  • Options
    #34
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 40,236 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Cork Trucker wrote: »
    Right we'll agree to disagree.

    Next!

    You aren't disagreeing with me, it's not my opinion.


  • Options
    #35
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,220 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Dublin compo culture strikes again.


  • Options
    #36
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Cork Trucker wrote: »
    Judge had to approve it, therefore award.
    Boggles wrote: »
    No it isn't.

    A Judge approving it is a legal box ticking exercise which brings court proceedings to an end.

    If a Judge awarded it, he would set the amount and explain why.

    you're both wrong. the case involved a minor. The judge is under no obligation to accept the settlement. The only accepts the settlement if it is in the best interests of the child.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 40,236 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    you're both wrong. the case involved a minor. The judge is under no obligation to accept the settlement. The only accepts the settlement if it is in the best interests of the child.

    I never suggested he was.


  • Options
    #38
    Castlekeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 1,845 ✭✭✭Castlekeeper


    Strumms wrote: »
    When I saw the headline I too was thinking ‘fûck that’s way too harsh’ but on reading the details where a kid had to climb on and stand on a fûcking plastic stool, without assistance to perform a simple and necessary task to wash his hands... sorry this is ALL on the creche.. they should have had facilities where by the smallest of children can access wash facilities without endangering themselves or climbing things ie. two sinks at different levels... THEY actively chose not to provide this or assistance...

    Also before opening did they engage with anyone to provide a health and safety assessment / audit of the facilities ? Unlikely as this would have been obviously flagged as a problem.... they clearly have more interest in their pockets than the welfare of the children in their care...
    Grand, a 2 to bangs its head, but apart from the medical expenses, a band aid, what was the money for?


  • Options
    #39
    Castlekeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 1,845 ✭✭✭Castlekeeper


    downtheroad wrote: »
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    He's left with a scar. He was just two years old.

    Maybe some of it should be kept for him until he's 18 but the amount is fine.

    So if he can live with his scar from age 2 to 18 without this money then why would he suddenly need it at age 18?
    😂😂😂in a nutshell.


  • Options
    #40
    Sparkey84
    Registered Users Posts: 289 ✭✭Sparkey84


    there was a duty of care to the child, and that duty was neglected.
    the cash amount seems ridiculous though. will he even give the scar a second thought as he ages? i can't know for sure but i don't think i would have.

    more serious note though what if the little fella was coming to a birthday for your child at your home? would you be worried about it?


  • Options
    #41
    shesty
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,913 Mod ✭✭✭✭shesty


    Or you were hosting a party at a playcentre for your kids or something?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Boggles wrote: »
    I never suggested he was.
    A Judge approving it is a legal box ticking exercise which brings court proceedings to an end.

    it is not a box ticking exercise.


  • Options
    #43
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 40,236 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    it is not a box ticking exercise.

    In 99% of cases it is merely a formality in the Circuit Court.

    It's rare that a Judge would rule that compensation is not adequate.

    Ironically this is one of those cases.

    Another Judge turned down a settlement of 25K from the PIAB.

    The case got dragged out for another 2 years for a "measly" 7 extra grand.

    No wonder the mother was pissed. :pac:


  • Options
    #44
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Boggles wrote: »
    In 99% of cases it is merely a formality in the Circuit Court.

    It's rare that a Judge would rule that compensation is not adequate.

    Ironically this is one of those cases.

    Another Judge turned down a settlement of 25K from the PIAB.

    The case got dragged out for another 2 years for a "measly" 7 extra grand.

    No wonder the mother was pissed. :pac:

    so not a box ticking exercise then. i'm glad we established that.


  • Options
    #45
    Cork Trucker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭Cork Trucker


    Boggles wrote: »
    In 99% of cases it is merely a formality in the Circuit Court.

    It's rare that a Judge would rule that compensation is not adequate.

    Ironically this is one of those cases.

    Another Judge turned down a settlement of 25K from the PIAB.

    The case got dragged out for another 2 years for a "measly" 7 extra grand.

    No wonder the mother was pissed. :pac:

    An extra 2 years for €7k extra in the settlement, what were the hidden legal costs though. The legal costs are more than the settlements in a lot of cases.


  • Options
    #46
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 40,236 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    so not a box ticking exercise then. i'm glad we established that.

    In 99% of the cases it is.

    But again the main point is, a settlement isn't an award.


Advertisement