Woman crosses dual carriageway on foot, gets hit by car, gets €3.2M

knucklehead6

pwurple wrote: »

The council approve planning. They are accountable.

And when I look at that map link, I see a huge gap in the hedge, and worn grass showing that this is the routine way for people to cross. The footbridge is in the opposite direction. It isn't even clear that it would lead to the shopping center. It looks like it doesn't.


If you were to take that footbridge, I'd guess it's roughly 1km additional walking, instead of crossing the road with a worn path right in front of you as you get off the bus.

I guarantee you there are plenty of people insulting this victim, who would consider themselves to be idiots to take that bridge instead of walking directly to the destination in front of their face.

300m extra actually.

[IMG][/img]

[IMG][/img]

I'm not arguing with you that the council should have insisted on a bridge going in. In my opinion they shouldn't have allowed the bus stop be there, but as I mentioned, I can't remember if that was a preexisting stop. There is a link from the bridge to the shopping centre from the bridge so they may have presumed that this would suffice

pwurple

Sure if they cross a dual carriageway, they can also walk across a carpark rather than around it... but thanks for doing this, it's a good ballpark.

Yup, either the bridge link changed, or put the stop nearer the bridge. I can see the issue there too, it's the roundabout. Bus stops, traffic ploughs into the back of it., but it's not for you or me to solve, this is an infrastructure problem to design and plan, and they just didn't do it. Humans take short-cuts on the design too, right?

Unfortunately the shortcut the council took, led to the pedestrians taking shortcuts, led to someone being brain-damaged for the rest of their life. And the payout is larger the younger you are, because of the expected lifespan. This person is in their 20's.

AMKC

Utterly ridiculous. Instead of using the footbridge provided her even her own ears and eyes she walks out onto a dual carriageway in front of a car that had the right to be on the road. Pure laziness. 3.2 million just ridiculous.

is_that_so

Meanwhile coming soon, we hope.

A meeting of the country’s judges has been adjourned for two weeks to allow them to further consider proposed new guidelines expected to reduce general damages awards for many personal injuries, especially minor soft tissue injuries.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/judicial-council-adjourns-for-fortnight-to-further-consider-damage-awards-guidelines-1.4477073

DaveyDave

Even if the driver was going too fast she has eyes and ears doesn't she? Who crosses an 80kph dual carriageway and isn't extra vigilant?

PCros

I live in Swords and I'm sorry this girl went through all that pain but the payout is utter nonsense.

She got off the bus and crossed 4 lanes of traffic (plus 2 bus lanes) where there is an 80kph speed limit. Its laughable that people are saying that Fingal Coco should have closed the tiny gap in the hedge dividing the roads and there is liability with them.

There is a footbridge that she could have used a mere 200m from the bus stop which brings her to the same destination. As she chose not to use the bridge then liability is fully with the girl.

koutoubia

DaveyDave wrote: »

Even if the driver was going too fast she has eyes and ears doesn't she? Who crosses an 80kph dual carriageway and isn't extra vigilant?

On that dual carriageway from one end of Swords to the other you would be surprised (or maybe not!) at the amount of people who cut across through the median hedgerows to cross the road. There are a few footbridges across that are seldom used.

begbysback

Surely there a joke in this somewhere

Why did the part time model cross the road?

Feisar

yaknowski wrote: »

Cue a load of diving in front of cars as per Asia.

It was the heat of the moment...

Gaoth Laidir

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I assume this is roughly where it happened. The shopping centre is on the left here, so maybe that bus stop on the right is where she was coming from.

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4529952,-6.2160748,3a,75y,37.71h,82.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shr6EgVrXDMgV9qQRhYcc6w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Stupid bint should not be crossing there. End of.

I must confess, I would cross there (assuming this is the offending location)

gmisk

Reading the headline I was like...that can't be right...there must be something more to it than that...but nope.
She literally decided to run across a dual carriageway...and there was bridge over it about 200 metres away....wow

fryup

begbysback wrote: »

Surely there a joke in this somewhere

Why did the part time model cross the road?

to get 3.2 million ?

NickNickleby

begbysback wrote: »

Surely there a joke in this somewhere

Why did the part time model cross the road?

em, something, something 3.2 million. (wait for it...)


Anyway, I'd see no problem with crossing that road.

I think (and I've seen this RIGHT THERE) people run like hell to get across, presumably because of the traffic approaching at speed. If you're running across a fast road and watching the nearest car to you, its quite possible that a car diagonally behind it and in the next lane, is invisible to you. The down side is that you are also invisible to the driver of that car. Now, 5 or 6 paces at a run is probably less than 3 seconds. You'd actually now become visible to the driver of the second car, probably way too late for either of you to take evasive action successfully. IF this is what happened, then the pedestrian is totally to blame.

xzanti

fryup wrote: »

ah sure it'll help to pay for the mascara and fake tan

What's your point? In posting her photo I mean?

Niallof9

What an absolute load of bollocks. And going by social media i fail to see much life changing issues at all here. The only life changing thing about this case is 3.2 million. Absolutely insane. Hopefully its appealed/ rescinded whatever.

fryup

xzanti wrote: »

What's your point? In posting her photo I mean?

mascara & fake tan

BorneTobyWilde

He should sue the gas station

xzanti

I agree the settlement is excessive, but I watched the video on the independent page.

She was in hospital for 7 months. She had to learn to walk again, one of her arms doesn't work properly now. She was missing all of her hair and part of her skull when she came out of the coma. She still has to have a hip replacement and other surgeries in the future.

Can anyone here actually, honestly say they haven't ever in their lives crossed a road where they shouldn't?

And people posting her photo hoping to start a slagging spree on the girl :rolleyes: the absolute begrudgery.

xzanti

sugarman wrote: »

Had it been me, it wouldn't have even entered my mind to sue over my own stupidity.

So if you lost 7 months of your life, your job, your home and your ability to walk; and a solicitor approached you and told you that you could sue an insurance company, which would in turn help to pay for your future medical care and a place to live and get you back (excuse the pun) on your feet (forget 3.2 million), for any amount towards your pain and suffering.... You'd do the noble thing and say "nope, my stupid fault, I don't want a penny".

Good on you sir.

NewClareman

yaknowski wrote: »

Cue a load of diving in front of cars as per Asia.

In my experience, which is admittedly limited, people in Asia do not dive in front of cars. Many, too many, are forced to take crazy risks crossing roads, as they have simply no alternative. Life is cheap there, other than for the privileged classes, and these people not take the risk lightly. I have been in two near misses on dual carriageways, where the car I was been driven in nearly hit someone. The drivers were not very worried, worst case they'd have had to pay a small fine.

Niallof9

xzanti wrote: »

I agree the settlement is excessive, but I watched the video on the independent page.

She was in hospital for 7 months. She had to learn to walk again, one of her arms doesn't work properly now. She was missing all of her hair and part of her skull when she came out of the coma. She still has to have a hip replacement and other surgeries in the future.

Can anyone here actually, honestly say they haven't ever in their lives crossed a road where they shouldn't?

And people posting her photo hoping to start a slagging spree on the girl :rolleyes: the absolute begrudgery.

There's no begrudgery at all. What people take issue with, is that awards like this **** it up for the rest of us. People are fed up of these utterly ridiculous payouts. And yeah most people, suing wouldn't be the first thing that crosses anyones mind. There's a thing called personal responsibility and we're in dangerous territory here of where its being forgotten. Ironically if she had actually died she'd have got nothing most likely. At times Ireland would do your head in.

Yeah look it was terrible for her. Grave injuries etc. But its just wrong giving her a payout of 3.2 million. On any level.

And the reason people are using examples from her social media or whatnot, is because if you go by what is being posted, it doesn't seem like its had huge long lasting effects. 3.2 million might be a just award if injuries were catastrophic, i.e paraplegic, braindead etc.

xzanti

Niallof9 wrote: »

There's no begrudgery at all. What people take issue with, is that awards like this **** it up for the rest of us. People are fed up of these utterly ridiculous payouts.

I agree, the amount is obscene. But I don't see why people are personally attacking the girl.

Attack the system if you're not happy.

1874

Deleted User wrote: »

I must confess, I would cross there (assuming this is the offending location)

Many people would if they were honest, risk it, but is it the right or sensible thing to do? would you do it say if you had a child in tow?

NickNickleby wrote: »

em, something, something 3.2 million. (wait for it...)

Anyway, I'd see no problem with crossing that road.

I think (and I've seen this RIGHT THERE) people run like hell to get across, presumably because of the traffic approaching at speed. If you're running across a fast road and watching the nearest car to you, its quite possible that a car diagonally behind it and in the next lane, is invisible to you. The down side is that you are also invisible to the driver of that car. Now, 5 or 6 paces at a run is probably less than 3 seconds. You'd actually now become visible to the driver of the second car, probably way too late for either of you to take evasive action successfully. IF this is what happened, then the pedestrian is totally to blame.

You see no problem? thats sarcasm, right? with the remainder of your post, This thread that highlights the risk? She took a chance and lost out, I have no sympathy for her, the outcomes were based on her own actions.

xzanti wrote: »

I agree the settlement is excessive, but I watched the video on the independent page.

She was in hospital for 7 months. She had to learn to walk again, one of her arms doesn't work properly now. She was missing all of her hair and part of her skull when she came out of the coma. She still has to have a hip replacement and other surgeries in the future.

Can anyone here actually, honestly say they haven't ever in their lives crossed a road where they shouldn't?

And people posting her photo hoping to start a slagging spree on the girl :rolleyes: the absolute begrudgery.

Begrudgery? I dont think anyone is begrudging that she got 3.2 million in the sense that begrudge means, they think 3.2 million for her own carelessness and they think it is wrong.
She was in hospital and all the consequences of that because she made a bad decision.
As for who wouldnt do it also, dont believe I would, recal being in Helsinki and people would not walk out on the road when there was not a greenman regardless of if the road was empty or not, saw who could only have been a tourist seconds away from getting flattened by a trolley bus, I thought the Finns were supposed to be very reserved, people still tut and nodded their heads in amazement, stupid people win stupid prizes, this person brought all her pain and suffering on herself.

Rubberchikken

If only the.people who design road layouts were sensible and intelligent.

And if only the people who use the roads were also.

Niallof9

Yeah look if the payout was maybe 100k, maybe it could be understandable. If the car was breaking the speed limit etc, there is mitigation there in any criticism. Life is mostly a 50/50 thing. You choose to run across the dual carriageway and the driver chooses to break the speed limit. If the driver mounts the footpath and takes her out, 100 per cent give her whatever she can take. But we know this isn't the case, in another time it will be the same type of incident and it will be another random amount, perhaps lower. The whole system needs radical overhauling.

People ask why is insurance so expensive in Ireland etc. We know why, here is exhibit A.

And if she crossed in front of the bus, well **** me that is just so stupid. They teach you not to do that when you're a kid. Doing it on a dual carriageway is suicidal.

1874

xzanti wrote: »

I agree, the amount is obscene. But I don't see why people are personally attacking the girl.

Attack the system if you're not happy.

So when the politicians who are elected wont take on the Judiciary for review, wont take on Insurance companies, and you want individuals to take on an establishment, how exactly??? and when, when they get home after their long commute home? lunch break maybe?

TheValeyard

Judge 'Santa' Cross strikes again.

yabadabado

That's absolutely disgraceful .

Someone gets hurt through their own stupidity/laziness and it's settled for 3m


Crossing a dual carriageway FFS ,it actually paid her to walk in front of traffic.


I think the worst part is it was actually a settlement.

NickNickleby

NickNickleby wrote: »

em, something, something 3.2 million. (wait for it...)


Anyway, I'd see no problem with crossing that road.

1874 wrote: »

You see no problem? thats sarcasm, right? with the remainder of your post, This thread that highlights the risk? She took a chance and lost out, I have no sympathy for her, the outcomes were based on her own actions.

No sarcasm intended. Any road can be crossed if proper care is taken, and that its legal.

Its not illegal to cross this road. Its possible to cross it safely. However, in the event that safe crossing (eg, just too much traffic) isn't possible, then its time to use alternatives, in this case the bridge.

Hope that clears up my position for you. Its my own fault for not crossing all my 't's and dotting all my 'i's.

Fake Scores

For the driver's insurance company to concede that percentage of fault you would have to assume that the driver made a compromising statement after the accident. In terms of speed or paying attention to the road they must have shot themselves in the foot in their written statement.

Normarily 100% fault would be attributed to any reckless person who darted out onto a busy dual carriageway in the middle of the daytime. You can't do that unless there is a life or death emergency.

mcsean2163

xzanti wrote: »

So if you lost 7 months of your life, your job, your home and your ability to walk; and a solicitor approached you and told you that you could sue an insurance company, which would in turn help to pay for your future medical care and a place to live and get you back (excuse the pun) on your feet (forget 3.2 million), for any amount towards your pain and suffering.... You'd do the noble thing and say "nope, my stupid fault, I don't want a penny".

Good on you sir.

Actually happened to me, I was on my moped on the inside of a van. He turned into me and knocked me off my moped. I got up and asked him if his van was ok. He left the scene, I pushed my moped into work, was bleeding under my clothes and asked to go home after about an hour. Pushed the moped about 3km home went to bed woke up in severe pain and went to hospital where I discovered my arm was broken. Couldn't work due to broken arm and my job was given to another guy.

Didn't get a penny and had to move back home as I was unemployed. Ended up on the dole for the first time in my life.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Riddle101 wrote: »

Imagine what the driver who hit her is going through right now. To have something like that hanging over your head.

The driver should have sued her for the trauma of seeing a fcuking arsehole crossing the dual carriageway in front of her and for damaging her car. The car owner should be included in that suit. The justice system is so fcuked in this country that they are sure to win.

I understand that the judge didn’t make the settlement or decide the amount but he approved it. He should have thrown it out and told them to go away and agree a reasonable amount for something she caused herself.

I’m away for a walk on the motorway to cool down after reading that Shiite.

the_pen_turner

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

The driver should have sued her for the trauma of seeing a fcuking arsehole crossing the dual carriageway in front of her and for damaging her car. The car owner should be included in that suit. The justice system is so fcuked in this country that they are sure to win.

I understand that the judge didn’t make the settlement or decide the amount but he approved it. He should have thrown it out and told them to go away and agree a reasonable amount for something she caused herself.

I’m away for a walk on the motorway to cool down after reading that Shiite.

dont forget your black coat . dont want anyone seeing you too early.

Strumms

feelings wrote: »

Is this in relation to Fingal?

Failure to maintain the divide, failure to make reasonable effort to stop pedestrians crossing the dual carriageway, failure to fix street lighting etc.

There are street lights on that road, near the Pavilions end that do not get fixed for months (I have reported broken lights a few times).

How do the know the driver was driving with 'excessive speed' btw?

If somebody robs a gun, shoots themselves in the head... should the state get sued for not preventing said act ? Slashes their wrist, same ?

The state and local councils , fair enough they have responsibilities to its citizens but they are not baby sitters, or idiot sitters...not responsible for somebody choosing to disregard their safety and welfare and meeting life ending consequences...

I was taught as a kid of 2/3 whatever onwards ... that when you exit a car, van, bus or whatever vehicle... you cross ‘behind’ said vehicle, only when you’ve verified it is safe to do so... educated by parents and the school..the safe cross code hammered home to us...

Now if you climbed the fence at Dublin airport, ran onto the runway, got killed by a landing 737.... your family will probably get about 5 million because there were not announcements and security guards to prevent you from being a stupid cûnt... why is personal responsibility spat upon.....?

The rest of us end up paying more to fly too as the DAA have their insurance skyrocket....

Make stupid cünts history, please.

crybaby

yaknowski wrote: »

Cue a load of diving in front of cars as per Asia. China

Sorry, just wanted to fix that for you.

poisonated

Will the insurance pay for that? I don’t drive but I thought most people had very basic car insurance just to comply with the law.

poisonated

NewClareman wrote: »

In my experience, which is admittedly limited, people in Asia do not dive in front of cars. Many, too many, are forced to take crazy risks crossing roads, as they have simply no alternative. Life is cheap there, other than for the privileged classes, and these people not take the risk lightly. I have been in two near misses on dual carriageways, where the car I was been driven in nearly hit someone. The drivers were not very worried, worst case they'd have had to pay a small fine.

I agree. Have you ever tried to cross the road in Vietnam? Madness!

poisonated

poisonated wrote: »

I agree. Have you ever tried to cross the road in Vietnam? Madness!

Yep in Hó Chí Minh. You just go for it and people just have a knack to navigate around you on the bikes.

Madness is right!

FishOnABike

poisonated wrote: »

Will the insurance pay for that? I don’t drive but I thought most people had very basic car insurance just to comply with the law.

That's what insurance is for. Third party cover is the most basic motor insurance.

El Gato De Negocios

Fake Scores wrote: »

For the driver's insurance company to concede that percentage of fault you would have to assume that the driver made a compromising statement after the accident. In terms of speed or paying attention to the road they must have shot themselves in the foot in their written statement.

Normarily 100% fault would be attributed to any reckless person who darted out onto a busy dual carriageway in the middle of the daytime. You can't do that unless there is a life or death emergency.

Incorrect.

Making a statement immediately after an accident, while not advisable, eg admitting fault, doesn't ultimately effect how a claim will play out. Any half competent barrister will argue it away by saying the driver was in shock in the immediate aftermath and wasn't thinking straight.

Our court systems are so heavily skewed towards the third party that even if the claimant is completely and utterly the author of their own misfortune such as in this case, they will still get some level of compensation.

I've seen it time and again from serious incidents like this one to minor RTA's, once its clearly established that the policy holder impacted the third party, regardless of events leading up to the collision, then more often than not the claimant will be paid, this rings even truer for incidents involving a motorist and a pedestrian.

I've seen more than one claim where people absolutely steaming drunk fell asleep on the side of roads and were hit by a car and getting paid out for example.

Our courts and legal system are a fcuking pit of greed and that's what's driving it.

Patches oHoulihan

She was in a bus lane. She's not a bus.

Patches oHoulihan

poisonated wrote: »

I agree. Have you ever tried to cross the road in Vietnam? Madness!

Luckily I have and its scary but you realise that traffic avoids you.

feelings

I agree with you.

Strumms wrote: »

If somebody robs a gun, shoots themselves in the head... should the state get sued for not preventing said act ? Slashes their wrist, same ?

The state and local councils , fair enough they have responsibilities to its citizens but they are not baby sitters, or idiot sitters...not responsible for somebody choosing to disregard their safety and welfare and meeting life ending consequences...

I was taught as a kid of 2/3 whatever onwards ... that when you exit a car, van, bus or whatever vehicle... you cross ‘behind’ said vehicle, only when you’ve verified it is safe to do so... educated by parents and the school..the safe cross code hammered home to us...

Now if you climbed the fence at Dublin airport, ran onto the runway, got killed by a landing 737.... your family will probably get about 5 million because there were not announcements and security guards to prevent you from being a stupid cûnt... why is personal responsibility spat upon.....?

The rest of us end up paying more to fly too as the DAA have their insurance skyrocket....

Make stupid cünts history, please.

Itssoeasy

Maybe I’m being too logical here, but what happened to personal responsibility and cop on ? Why should someone get money for doing an inherently dangerous thing of walking along a dual carriageway but gets compensated because the fact she got hit by a car was somehow unexpected ? It’s like walking along a railway line and being shocked when a train is coming towards you.

Fake Scores

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

Incorrect.

Making a statement immediately after an accident, while not advisable, eg admitting fault, doesn't ultimately effect how a claim will play out. Any half competent barrister will argue it away by saying the driver was in shock in the immediate aftermath and wasn't thinking straight.

You misread my post. I spoke of his/her written statement. This is the voluntary statement made after caution and signed. Usually made in the weeks after such an incident. If you think anything said in that is of no relevance or can be “argued away” then you don’t know what you’re talking about.

donegal_man

Whilst I agree the sum certainly appears excessive we are basing that on a synopsis of the case in the media.
The fact it's an agreed settlement based on two thirds of the liability being placed on the defendant would suggest we are not seeing the full story.

knucklehead6

donegal_man wrote: »

Whilst I agree the sum certainly appears excessive we are basing that on a synopsis of the case in the media.
The fact it's an agreed settlement based on two thirds of the liability being placed on the defendant would suggest we are not seeing the full story.

Or, as has been said in this thread, the defendant company were so terrified of what the judge would give that this is the cheaper option

donegal_man

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Or, as has been said in this thread, the defendant company were so terrified of what the judge would give that this is the cheaper option

Which again suggests that they were not confident they had a strong defence. Why would they admit two thirds liability if all they wanted was for the case to go away? They could have offered a settlement with no admission of liability.
As I said it seems excessive but we don't have the full facts of the case. Just a synopsis and a headline figure guaranteed to whip up outrage against the "compo culture".

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

xzanti wrote: »

I agree the settlement is excessive, but I watched the video on the independent page.

She was in hospital for 7 months. She had to learn to walk again, one of her arms doesn't work properly now. She was missing all of her hair and part of her skull when she came out of the coma. She still has to have a hip replacement and other surgeries in the future.

Can anyone here actually, honestly say they haven't ever in their lives crossed a road where they shouldn't?

And people posting her photo hoping to start a slagging spree on the girl :rolleyes: the absolute begrudgery.

My thoughts too. The settlement is excessive but no, I wouldn’t think myself lucky to receive it if I had to take a traumatic brain injury to go with it.

DaveyDave

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

My thoughts too. The settlement is excessive but no, I wouldn’t think myself lucky to receive it if I had to take a traumatic brain injury to go with it.

She made a decision to walk into traffic, she should be greatful her actions didn't get her killed.

This isn't a driver running a red at a pedestrian crossing. She chose not to use a pedestrian bridge and walked into a dual carriageway.