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

Gaoth Laidir

Markcheese wrote: »

Done it ... takes a special breed of idiot (with long fingers) I am that idiot ..
I just got a couple of plasters and carried on ,no law suit involved ,my thumb is fine ...

Send ShatterAlan a PM there. He'll guide you through the legalities of how you're absolutely not to blame. You could afford a nice big 3-tonne car with the payout you're bound to get.

i57dwun4yb1pt8

Looks like Bruce Castor was the Defense Lawyer

JustAThought

Alex Substantial Tugboat wrote: »

Looks like Bruce Castor was the Defense Lawyer

What does that mean???

Seeing a so few people have bothered googling the original reporting - it was a pitch black night and the Lithuanian girl got off the bus and dashed across the road without looking. The female driver was driving in the bus lane - hence her liability - no doubt otherwise it would have been a different story. No doubt the Lithuanian ‘part time model’ = retail assistant in the Pavillions couldn’t pay her houseshare rent and after a few months the lease ended so hey presto she is homeless. Of course her family wern’t living in the country so she had nowhere to stay; and she gets free medical treatment here because it was an A&E job - I doubt she’d be getting all of that FOC back home.

I think her head swelled and part of her brain had to removed, part of her skull replaced with metal, pelvic broken and all kinds of other messy injuries including impaired brain function for the rest of her life. All those treatments and bed days and operations and lifelong medical treatment and surgeries - and those costs borne by the taxpayer. I wonder will the HSE be claiming off her for her irresponsible behaviour of running directly in front of a car on a dark dual carriageway in a 6 lane road where there was an overhead bridge and safe walkwat provided?

Personally I’d like to see a bit more of this.

As for the local kids that treat roads like an extension of their gardens and their disinterested parents who let their children play daily on busy roads and don’t seem to care until after an accident about their childrens safety.

Sometimes injured means permanently braininjured and crushed and damaged for life and you can’t always fix mashed by a car.

The person I feel sorry for is the totally traumatised driver didn’t stand a chance as she ran in front of her and who unlike her parents spent weeks by her bedside in the hospital and offered her own blood and organs to help. Of course little mention of this anywhere

Wheety

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sure there'll be an appeal and it'll be severely reduced down, though. Multo-million euro payout for ignoring the rules of the road. Almost as bad as that one that was hopping on the back of the Luas and fell off. Did she not make a fortune, too, doing something that she should have been laughed at for, instead of compensated for.

It was a settlement so both sides must have agreed, I can't see there being an appeal.

Gaoth Laidir

JustAThought wrote: »

What does that mean???

Seeing a so few people have bothered googling the original reporting - it was a pitch black night and the Lithuanian girl got off the bus and dashed across the road without looking. The female driver was driving in the bus lane - hence her liability - no doubt otherwise it would have been a different story. No doubt the Lithuanian ‘part time model’ = retail assistant in the Pavillions couldn’t pay her houseshare rent and after a few months the lease ended so hey presto she is homeless. Of course her family wern’t living in the country so she had nowhere to stay; and she gets free medical treatment here because it was an A&E job - I doubt she’d be getting all of that FOC back home.

I think her head swelled and part of her brain had to removed, part of her skull replaced with metal, pelvic broken and all kinds of other messy injuries including impaired brain function for the rest of her life. All those treatments and bed days and operations and lifelong medical treatment and surgeries - and those costs borne by the taxpayer. I wonder will the HSE be claiming off her for her irresponsible behaviour of running directly in front of a car on a dark dual carriageway in a 6 lane road where there was an overhead bridge and safe walkwat provided?

Personally I’d like to see a bit more of this.

As for the local kids that treat roads like an extension of their gardens and their disinterested parents who let their children play daily on busy roads and don’t seem to care until after an accident about their childrens safety.

Sometimes injured means permanently braininjured and crushed and damaged for life and you can’t always fix mashed by a car.

The person I feel sorry for is the totally traumatised driver didn’t stand a chance as she ran in front of her and who unlike her parents spent weeks by her bedside in the hospital and offered her own blood and organs to help. Of course little mention of this anywhere

I think it's the driver who was Lithuanian. The pedestrian herself is Irish.

JustAThought

A child on the estate got 40k for falling and cutting its knee - its non working parents toss their 4 children onto the street without supervision from morning to night. You have to wonder why there are no prosecutions from Tulsa for from the gardaí for failing to adhere to the rules of the road or reckless endangerment of life.

If in this instance that woman had swerved and caused a collusion into another car to avoid hitting a pedestrian sprinting out in front of her would the pedestrian have had to pay a penny - no - it would have been all on the taxpayer or motorists insurance. Would the pedestrian have been prosecuted for crossing without due consideration for motorists safety. No. Something has to give Nd be changed when people can break every law of the road and common sense and have no financial or personal accountability . Sure noone wants her brain injury but lets face it - she brought it in herself by sprinting without looking across a busy 6 lane dual carriageway in rush hour without even looking. That car was directly behind her - the driver didn’t stand a chance.

F34

As soon as I saw the amount of the award I knew it would be Cross involved. He always awards stupid amounts of money.

Another of his awards that took no account of personal responsibility which has been overturned since.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30970292.html%3ftype=amp

Any plaintiff that gets him is in line for a bonanza payout. He should be removed from the bench as obviously is unfit to rule in these cases.

grassylawn

They decided it was 33% her fault for walking across a dual carriageway and 67% the driver's fault for speeding and not seeing her. Then they decided that everyone else who pays insurance should pay her 3.1 million. The cost of her medical expenses and reabilitation might be similar and will have already been paid by taxpayers. Stupid system.

Markcheese

We've a dangerous system where the fault follows the ability to pay ...
The girl is gonna need care for life , and I'd prefer to live in a state where she gets the care she needs regardless of fault..
... But without having to blame a bus driver or anyone else just going about their day ( different if the driver was speeding or on their phone or driving dangerously )
I think we should stop rewarding claimants with here's 10 grand for a nice holiday , and pay their justifiable expenses ..
Putting money in trust for kids who've had an accident is common ... Like it's a lottery win ..
If the kid needs medical or psychological care ,then give it to them , a scar on your knee doesn't require 30 or 40 grand to make you feel better , ( may require plastic surgery though )

AlmightyCushion

F34 wrote: »

As soon as I saw the amount of the award I knew it would be Cross involved. He always awards stupid amounts of money.

Another of his awards that took no account of personal responsibility which has been overturned since.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30970292.html%3ftype=amp

Any plaintiff that gets him is in line for a bonanza payout. He should be removed from the bench as obviously is unfit to rule in these cases.

He didn't award anything here. It was a settlement.

Gaoth Laidir

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

He didn't award anything here. It was a settlement.

He agrees with it and said it was reasonable.

F34

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

He didn't award anything here. It was a settlement.

Cross is everything that is wrong with the current system. I realise it was a settlement but as I said once a plaintiffs solicitor knows Cross is the judge they can pluck a figure out of the air and it’ll still be more reasonable than that moron will come up with.

F34

F34 wrote: »

As soon as I saw the amount of the award I knew it would be Cross involved. He always awards stupid amounts of money.

Another of his awards that took no account of personal responsibility which has been overturned since.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30970292.html%3ftype=amp

Any plaintiff that gets him is in line for a bonanza payout. He should be removed from the bench as obviously is unfit to rule in these cases.

The High Court heard Dunnes Stores has sold 11,000 such glass jugs, which are hand blown in Mexico in the last four years and the only complaint has been from Ms Cekanova.

Strange, that.

lawred2

KevRossi wrote: »

I live in Swords. The Dual Carraigeway and methods of crossing it is a total shltshow. Cars use it as a racetrack and it's mental attempting to cycle alongside it. Not surprised the accident happened, but the driver was local and must have known people cross in front of the bus.

Apart from that, she seems to be OK, €3.2m is excessive. I also think her 'homeless' situation needs to be looked at properly, and I doubt she would have made millions from her modelling. It's not a reason to get €3.2m or even a substantial part of it.

Is that where it happened?

Yeah could see it happening along there alright.

stoneill

€3.2m?

I think she looks lovely and I for one will start sending her valentine cards.

Squiggle

The tram surfer who got €550,000 after falling off the outside of a tram she tried to jump on to must be sickened she didn't opt for the dual carriage way stunt instead !

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30876892.html

Gaoth Laidir

Squiggle wrote: »

The tram surfer who got €550,000 after falling off the outside of a tram she tried to jump on to must be sickened she didn't opt for the dual carriage way stunt instead !

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30876892.html

Sorry, is this a joke or did Mr. Cross strike again?! WTF?

Approving the settlement Mr Justice Cross said it was not necessary for the court to tell Rebecca Kelly she did a silly thing as she knew that. However, he commended her for her honesty.

I mean, read this and point out to me how tf Veolia are liable?

A young girl who sustained a severe brain injury after she fell off the side of a Luas tram when she was "tram surfing" has settled her High Court action for €550,000.

Rebecca Kelly was only 13 years of age when she and a friend jumped on the outside of Luas tram gripping on to the edge of the doors as it departed the Fatima station on the Red Line eight years ago.

The young girl fell back on to the tracks striking her head and had to be rescued by her friend. The friend along with the help of others pulled Rebecca out of the way of an oncoming Luas tram en route to the city centre.

Rebecca's Counsel, Bruce Antoniotti SC today told the High Court the young woman who became a mother just two weeks ago accepted the accident was her fault and she acknowledged she should not have been tram surfing and she knew at the time it was a dangerous activity.

Counsel said Rebecca did not want to blame the driver .

Rebecca Kelly (20) of Pearse House, Pearse Street, Dublin had though her mother Elizabeth Kelly sued the Luas operators Veolia Transport Dublin Light Rail Ltd and Veolia Transport Ireland Ltd of St John Rogerson's Quay, Dublin as a result of the accident on September 3, 2010.

She claimed there was an alleged failure to have any or any adequate visual systems employed and activated on the tram and that the driver was unable in the circumstances to see the non platform side of the tram before leaving the station.It was claimed the tram pulled off from the station without first observing the non platform side of the tram.

All the claims were denied and Veolia contended there was contributory negligence on the part of the young girl as she had she had allegedly exposed herself to the risk of injury by tram surfing with a total diregard for her own safety.

Mr Antoniotti SC told the court it was a tragic case. He said Rebecca was with a group of friends at the Fatima Luas stop on the Red Line on the inbound platform at 9.15pm.

He said at that time young people engaged in "tram surfing". Mr Justice Cross commented it was what boys used to do in the past by hanging on to the back of lorries.

Counsel said tram surfing was where young people jumped on to the side door where here was a small ledge and they put their fingers between the door and the body of the tram and " held on for dear life."

There were, he said 54 incidents of tram surfing recorded on the Luas trams between 2005 and 2010, but the placing of metal strips to prevent gripping between the door and the body of the train had helped deter the practice.

Rebecca, he said jumped on to the side of the Tallaght bound tram but fell off very quickly and hit her head. Counsel said she had never tram surfed before.

Counsel said there had been a problem in the UK and Ireland with young people tram surfing and and initially a grease was applied to the bodywork and cameras have been installed as well.

He said in this case the tram pulled in to the Tallaght bound platform and the driver had to watch the platform where passengers were getting on and off.

To view the other side of the tram where Rebecca jumped on would have required him to switch cameras. Counsel said the driver also had to be looking straight ahead when the tram moving off as people often try to cross in front.

He said that after this accident a metal strip was put in the space between the doors and the body of the trams.

Approving the settlement Mr Justice Cross said it was not necessary for the court to tell Rebecca Kelly she did a silly thing as she knew that. However, he commended her for her honesty.

kravmaga

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I think it's the driver who was Lithuanian. The pedestrian herself is Irish.

No your wrong, the driver was a Polish female living local in Swords and the part time model staff member in Pavillions is Irish.

Its well publicised in the daily newspapers on this payout

kippy

pwurple wrote: »

Surely the point is that where the bus stop was, it was common practice for people who worked in the shopping center to get off the bus and walk across the road.

A footbridge down the road was not generally used...

Therefore, there is a fundamental design flaw there in the road design. The busstop was not in the correct place. What should happen there, is the bus should pull in at the base of the footbridge, so it is a natural place to walk from. Fault is with the design.

You got a lot of thanks for this. It's unfortunate so many people don't believe in personal responsibility and general cop on.
Poor design or not, every day we come across situations where one might encounter 'poor design' for one reason or another. But ultimately we make a risk assessment of our actions. If a grown adult of 'allegedly' sound mind makes a decision to do something then they need to be able to accept the consequence of that action.

Now, the design could no doubt be better but if the fault were one hundred percent with the design don't you think more people would be ending up in bother here?

This county is well and truly fcuked when people are ending up in situations like this, blaming others and worse still getting awarded massive payouts for the priviledge.
This kinda this is going on way too long. Where's the redo of the legal system that the IMF tried to get us to implement back in 2010? It's badly needed.

F34

kippy wrote: »

This kinda this is going on way too long. Where's the redo of the legal system that the IMF tried to get us to implement back in 2010? It's badly needed.

Alan Shatter tried and was swiftly shown the door. The legal “profession” is a closed shop in this country and the knives quickly come out for anyone that tries to upset the apple cart.

While I don’t particularly like Shane Ross the opposition to his bill to reform judicial appointments was blocked at every opportunity.

If you look at the judicial review of pay outs for soft tissue injuries, instead of using European norms to base awards at, they started looking at the UK awards amounts which of course are higher then they started to focus on the Northern Ireland’s payouts which of course are among the highest in the UK. They of course want to use the Northern Irish awards as a base for here.

Niallof9

If you die Cross only awards 300k. Tis a bit farcical. He clearly needs to be removed from his position.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/family-of-man-hit-by-two-cars-awarded-300-000-over-his-death-1.4119327

knucklehead6

Niallof9 wrote: »

If you die Cross only awards 300k. Tis a bit farcical. He clearly needs to be removed from his position.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/family-of-man-hit-by-two-cars-awarded-300-000-over-his-death-1.4119327

Again, read the link. It’s a SETTLEMENT. It did not go before the judge apart from his rubber stamping it

Castlekeeper

knucklehead6 wrote: »

The worst thing about this is that its a settlement. The judge didn't award this amount of money, the two teams of lawyers decided it.

The defence must've been terrified what the judge was going to award if this was what they settled for

Or perhaps part of a mutually benficial arrangement?

AndrewJRenko

Niallof9 wrote: »

If you die Cross only awards 300k. Tis a bit farcical. He clearly needs to be removed from his position.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/family-of-man-hit-by-two-cars-awarded-300-000-over-his-death-1.4119327

This is presumably related to the very considerable costs of ongoing care in Ireland.

Jimmy Bottlehead

Niallof9 wrote: »

If you die Cross only awards 300k. Tis a bit farcical. He clearly needs to be removed from his position.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/family-of-man-hit-by-two-cars-awarded-300-000-over-his-death-1.4119327

Well, no, the injured payment SHOULD be higher than a death payout. That does make sense.
The injured party will usually have existing and ongoing or future medical / psychological / professional costs, loss of earnings, etc. The dead person is a finalised cost.

Gaoth Laidir

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

Well, no, the injured payment SHOULD be higher than a death payout. That does make sense.
The injured party will usually have existing and ongoing or future medical / psychological / professional costs, loss of earnings, etc. The dead person is a finalised cost.

In the case where two drivers caused the death of an innocent person then I have no problem with a payout. The fault was with the drivers.

But in this original case of someone running across in front of a car in Swords, why should there be ANY payment at all? Or over half a million to a kid who was tram-surfing? People who broke the law completely through their own actions and decisions deserve no award, regardless of how bad their injuries are. A kid who gets leukemia or some other illness doesn't get a penny and the parents will scrimp and save to get treatment, yet if you break the law and do something completely reckless and stupid, someone ELSE must foot the bill? Fūcking ridiculous.

knucklehead6

Castlekeeper wrote: »

Or perhaps part of a mutually benficial arrangement?

CT Forum is that way.

Plasandrunt

I actually work with the husband of the driver of the car. He's named in the article as the driver of the car.

I'm not going to go into specifics but his life has been turned upside down by all this. and also his wife was driving within the speed limit fwiw.

AndrewJRenko

Plasandrunt wrote: »

I actually work with the husband of the driver of the car. He's named in the article as the driver of the car.

I'm not going to go into specifics but his life has been turned upside down by all this. and also his wife was driving within the speed limit fwiw.

Was she driving in a manner that allowed her to stop within the distance she could see to be clear, as is required by law? Was she scanning for pedestrians crossing as she approached?

There's more to responsible driving than just complying with the speed limit.

glenfieldman

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Was she driving in a manner that allowed her to stop within the distance she could see to be clear, as is required by law? Was she scanning for pedestrians crossing as she approached?

A crossing on a motorway when a foot bridge was close ? Are you for real ?
I do hope your trolling

Alias G

glenfieldman wrote: »

A crossing on a motorway when a foot bridge was close ? Are you for real ?
I do hope your trolling

People cross the dual carriage way in spite of the bridge all the time. It is the responsibility of the driver to be prepared for such eventualities. Hence the result of partial blame on the driver. If you think that is trolling then you haven't much sense.

AndrewJRenko

glenfieldman wrote: »

A crossing on a motorway when a foot bridge was close ? Are you for real ?
I do hope your trolling

I do hope that you don't actually drive yourself with that attitude.

Alias G

Driving around in a tonne of metal comes with responsibility for driving with care and attention.

KaneToad

F34 wrote: »

Alan Shatter tried and was swiftly shown the door. The legal “profession” is a closed shop in this country and the knives quickly come out for anyone that tries to upset the apple cart.

While I don’t particularly like Shane Ross the opposition to his bill to reform judicial appointments was blocked at every opportunity.

If you look at the judicial review of pay outs for soft tissue injuries, instead of using European norms to base awards at, they started looking at the UK awards amounts which of course are higher then they started to focus on the Northern Ireland’s payouts which of course are among the highest in the UK. They of course want to use the Northern Irish awards as a base for here.

This is the real problem. There is millions to be made in the legal "industry". It extends to criminal cases too. It is all theatrics. Faux outrage, adjournments, legal arguments...all with the net result of an extra days pay for counsel who are on daily rates.

But, given that these are learned gentlemen (& ladies), they know more than us plebs. They are there to uphold the Irish justice system. We wouldn't understand. Shatter understood. It didn't work out well for him. A hard man to like but a man who was brave to put his money where his mouth was.

Jimmy Bottlehead

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

In the case where two drivers caused the death of an innocent person then I have no problem with a payout. The fault was with the drivers.

But in this original case of someone running across in front of a car in Swords, why should there be ANY payment at all? Or over half a million to a kid who was tram-surfing? People who broke the law completely through their own actions and decisions deserve no award, regardless of how bad their injuries are. A kid who gets leukemia or some other illness doesn't get a penny and the parents will scrimp and save to get treatment, yet if you break the law and do something completely reckless and stupid, someone ELSE must foot the bill? Fūcking ridiculous.

I never said that there should be a payout in this case, I'm not arguing that point. I actually believe that someone who flaunts a provided safe passageway (in this case, ignoring a safe route and running across a dual carriageway) should assume personal responsibility and the penalties that come with that.

I posted in general terms about awarded costs in injured v dead cases. And my point is still correct; injured humans cost more than dead humans to maintain.

You may wish to take your poorly aimed outrage elsewhere.

glenfieldman

Alias G wrote: »

People cross the dual carriage way in spite of the bridge all the time. It is the responsibility of the driver to be prepared for such eventualities. Hence the result of partial blame on the driver. If you think that is trolling then you haven't much sense.

I do drive, and I drive on the N4 and M50 everyday and in 15 years I never encountered a moron crossing
Also the speed limit on most motorways is 80 km so any moron crossing and hit at that speed has no chance, therefor it totally their fault

Alias G

glenfieldman wrote: »

I do drive, and I drive on the N4 and M50 everyday and in 15 years I never encountered a moron crossing
Also the speed limit on most motorways is 80 km so any moron crossing and hit at that speed has no chance, therefor it totally their fault

The incident didn't occur on a national road or a motorway so your comparisons are not equivalent. It was a regional road which happens to be dual carriagway through a significantly urbanised locality with large volumes of cyclists, pedestrians and vulnerable road users in the immediate environs. Your attitude is typically motorist centric and selfish. Pedestrians can and do cross the road frequently. Any driver not conscious of the risk to themselves and others is not worthy of a license.

B.A._Baracus

Am a little confused. So the driver who hit her owes her 3.2 million?! Lol.

TheChizler

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Am a little confused. So the driver who hit her owes her 3.2 million?! Lol.

The insurance company does.

B.A._Baracus

TheChizler wrote: »

The insurance company does.

Cheers. Silly me, of course it's the insurance company. Brain fart.

Tis a mad amount alright.

TheChizler

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Cheers. Silly me, of course it's the insurance company. Brain fart.

Tis a mad amount alright.

No idea of what her current situation is but speaking from personal experience that kind of money doesn't go far if serious brain injuries are involved. Hopefully it is a ridiculous amount and not needed cause I wouldn't wish that situation on anybody.

AndrewJRenko

glenfieldman wrote: »

I do drive, and I drive on the N4 and M50 everyday and in 15 years I never encountered a moron crossing
Also the speed limit on most motorways is 80 km so any moron crossing and hit at that speed has no chance, therefor it totally their fault

This case wasn't on a motorway.

Gaoth Laidir

TheChizler wrote: »

The insurance company does.

Meaning you and I

Gaoth Laidir

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Was she driving in a manner that allowed her to stop within the distance she could see to be clear, as is required by law? Was she scanning for pedestrians crossing as she approached?

There's more to responsible driving than just complying with the speed limit.

Alias G wrote: »

People cross the dual carriage way in spite of the bridge all the time. It is the responsibility of the driver to be prepared for such eventualities. Hence the result of partial blame on the driver. If you think that is trolling then you haven't much sense.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I do hope that you don't actually drive yourself with that attitude.

Alias G wrote: »

Driving around in a tonne of metal comes with responsibility for driving with care and attention.

Alias G wrote: »

The incident didn't occur on a national road or a motorway so your comparisons are not equivalent. It was a regional road which happens to be dual carriagway through a significantly urbanised locality with large volumes of cyclists, pedestrians and vulnerable road users in the immediate environs. Your attitude is typically motorist centric and selfish. Pedestrians can and do cross the road frequently. Any driver not conscious of the risk to themselves and others is not worthy of a license.

To the both of you, are you saying that every road incident is automatically the fault of the driver? If a kid runs out from behind a parked car, also fault of the driver? Is there ANY case in which you would argue for the case of the driver if someone deliberately choses to run out in front of a car?

I know that road very well and I have never seen anybody running across there. Significant amount of pedestrians, pedestrian and vulnerable road users? Who are these vunerable users?

All drivers know the risks and responsibilities that come with driving a car, including due care and attention and anticipation, but that is all within reasonable bounds. For you two it seems that the responsibility of the driver extends to infinity and that of the pedestrian is zero.

Do you question the actions of the pedestrian in this case at all or what?

Kermit.de.frog

TheChizler wrote: »

The insurance company does.

Erm no, you do.

You pay in premiums to the insurance company doing the paying.

That's how this gig works. The "injured" get paid and you pay the insurance company to get them paid. This person was clearly injured but many would argue due to her own actions.

Alias G

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

To the both of you, are you saying that every road incident is automatically the fault of the driver? If a kid runs out from behind a parked car, also fault of the driver? Is there ANY case in which you would argue for the case of the driver if someone deliberately choses to run out in front of a car?

I know that road very well and I have never seen anybody running across there. Significant amount of pedestrians, pedestrian and vulnerable road users? Who are these vunerable users?

All drivers know the risks and responsibilities that come with driving a car, including due care and attention and anticipation, but that is all within reasonable bounds. For you two it seems that the responsibility of the driver extends to infinity and that of the pedestrian is zero.

Do you question the actions of the pedestrian in this case at all or what?

I know the road well myself. I have seen people alight the bus and proceed across the road countless times. It sounds like you should be paying more attention. And it was stated during the trial that people are on the habit of crossing at that very point

Vulnerable road users quiet obviously consist of pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists etc.

Nobody has absolved the pedestrian of culpability. Nor did the judgement in fact.

What I am stating is that motorists are responsible for operating their vehicle with due consideration of their surroundings. Unfortunately I witness a distinct lack of this responsibility in motorists on a daily basis. In this instance there was an alleged failure to apply the brakes promptly. This would indicate the driver was not paying due care and attention.

It is a dual carriage way which intersects the urban area of swords which is the 7th most populous urban area in the state and consequently has large volumes of pedestrians and cyclists utilising and crossing at various points. A failure to anticipate other road users places culpability on the motorist.

OMM 0000

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Another case of idiots getting their pockets lined by crazy compensation, is there anything to be said for a swift kick up the hole instead...

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/part-time-model-settles-court-action-for-32m-after-being-struck-by-car-on-dual-carriageway-40052486.html

This doesn't make sense.

Is the judge corrupt? He's related to her...?

How can someone possibly get millions for stupidly walking across a dual carriageway? Holy **** the world gets dumber by the day.

kippy

Alias G wrote: »

I know the road well myself. I have seen people alight the bus and proceed across the road countless times. It sounds like you should be paying more attention. And it was stated during the trial that people are on the habit of crossing at that very point

Vulnerable road users quiet obviously consist of pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists etc.

Nobody has absolved the pedestrian of culpability. Nor did the judgement in fact.

What I am stating is that motorists are responsible for operating their vehicle with due consideration of their surroundings. Unfortunately I witness a distinct lack of this responsibility in motorists on a daily basis. In this instance there was an alleged failure to apply the brakes promptly. This would indicate the driver was not paying due care and attention.

It is a dual carriage way which intersects the urban area of swords which is the 7th most populous urban area in the state and consequently has large volumes of pedestrians and cyclists utilising and crossing at various points. A failure to anticipate other road users places culpability on the motorist.

I don't disagree that the blame can be apportioned.
BUT on the same basis a failure to adequately asscess the risk of death of injury as a consequence of YOUR OWN ACTIONS (That is the controllable) surely places a considerable portion of blame on the person making the decision to run across the road in the first instance.

Blaming others, when you have had control of your own destiny, is an extremely worrying and consistent trend that appears across the board when it comes to these types of cases.
The lack of ability to adequately make the right decisions, when they have been within your control is a worry.

Alias G

OMM 0000 wrote: »

This doesn't make sense.

Is the judge corrupt? He's related to her...?

How can someone possibly get millions for stupidly walking across a dual carriageway? Holy **** the world gets dumber by the day.

No, just you.

Alias G

kippy wrote: »

I don't disagree that the blame can be apportioned.
BUT on the same basis a failure to adequately asscess the risk of death of injury as a consequence of YOUR OWN ACTIONS (That is the controllable) surely places a considerable portion of blame on the person making the decision to run across the road in the first instance.

Blaming others, when you have had control of your own destiny, is an extremely worrying and consistent trend that appears across the board when it comes to these types of cases.
The lack of ability to adequately make the right decisions, when they have been within your control is a worry.

Again, the privilege of driving around in one tonne of metal with the ability to seriously maim or kill comes with responsibilities. At a very minimum that responsibility includes due diligence with regard to driving in a manner that considers the driving environment and presence of other more vunerable road users. Regardless of the right or wrong actions of the other individuals. Being hit by one tonne at 80 km/h is hardly a fair penalty for Jay walking.