Boy aged two damaged two front teeth - awarded 56k

gormdubhgorm

Paywalled -

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/family-of-boy-4-who-lost-his-front-teeth-after-fall-in-creche-settle-high-court-action-for-56k/a536695563.html

Paywall removed -

https://archive.is/OAPC6

The young boy (then 2) in the case above broke his two front teeth while playing on slide unsupervised. The boy had to have his two baby teeth removed by anaesthetic The judge in the High Court stated the amount was “fair and reasonable”.

Honestly my first reaction was the parents of the child hit the “jackpot” 56k for two teeth. I realise there would have been legal argument regarding duty of care/negligence etc. But 56k for losing two teeth doesn’t seem “fair and reasonable” to me. Why are these court awarded payments so casually high, and deemed “fair and reasonable?

Bogey Lowenstein

I thought these big payouts were being nipped in the bud?

LambshankRedemption

Who has to pay the 56k? I didnt read the article.

gormdubhgorm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123320317#Comment_123320317

So did I! In 2014 a small boy got 20k for cutting his finger, getting caught in a door. No fracture.

https://www.thejournal.ie/giraffe-awarded-finger-caught-2823441-Jun2016/

Why isn’t there more common sense is it because the legal profession see it as “handy money” ?

56k for two baby teeth is a lotto win, in my view.

LambshankRedemption

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123320362#Comment_123320362

56k for 2 baby teeth that were eventually going to fall out any way is 5 numbers in the lotto territory.

Esel

Some Tooth Fairy alright.

StormForce13

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058404870/boy-aged-two-damaged-two-front-teeth-awarded-56k

It's not a court awarded payment. Liability was admitted in the case and the insurers made an offer (probably to avoid the risk of a higher award plus legal fees) which the claimants accepted. All that the judge did was to approve the settlement.

What puzzles me is why the case took over 12 years to come to court. (But perhaps they wanted to see how the adult teeth looked before deciding how much compo was required.)

The same applies in the other case quoted.

Liability was accepted, an offer was made and the judge merely approved the settlement.

gormdubhgorm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123320400#Comment_123320400

Amazed how the defendants accept amounts like those, just shows how much they are “saving” if it went to court.

Seems way over the top was my first reaction.

Hoboo

Sued through the mother, keep the family/business name out of the papers.

LambshankRedemption

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123320419#Comment_123320419

As was pointed out, the insurers made an offer, which doesn't cost them a cent, they just add a few euros to each of their customers insurance liability bill.

StormForce13

I'm not justifying the amounts, merely defending the role of the judge in the two cases mentioned. Presumably the insurers have a database of previous compensation awards and would be familiar with the "form" of the judge selected to hear the case, so the offer made is based on their experience. They're fighting more "try-ons" these days (which is good), but when it's clear where the liability lies, they try to get out without incurring high legal costs.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123320424#Comment_123320424

The child's name goes on the title to the proceedings as in X suing by his mother and next friend Y. The family name is not kept out of anything. Infants can't sue in their own names. The award when paid has to be paid into court and will be paid out when the child turns 18.

NotThisMorning

The jaw expands as the child grows and the adult teeth follow the path of the baby tooth down when it’s time for them to descend. If they lose the teeth early they need spacers put in and dental appointments and X-rays over time to make sure things are going OK. Then there’s the trauma and pain of losing the teeth. I’d say €56k is cheap.

Hoboo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123320602#Comment_123320602

Thanks but really no need for the lesson 😁

The family name was let’s say, intentionally protected. If they sued through the father, the business and family name and not the mother’s maiden name, would be in the media. Not a good look for a local business to sue another local business in a small town. Was just an observation. Don’t want to derail the thread. Cheers.

stopthevoting

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123324118#Comment_123324118

Also don't want to derail the thread, but I don't understand your posts. The mother seems to use her maiden name (at least in this matter), as many married women do, and as is her right. Why would that matter? The child's name and address is clearly mentioned in the article, and presumably that is the father's surname. Why would there be any need to mention the family business? And the family name is given anyway, so it was not protected. If that was the intention as you seem to think, then it was in vain.

Peregrinus

What stopthevoting said. If this happened in a small town, everybody knew about it, regardless of which parent acted as next friend.

StupidLikeAFox

..... the slide was moved by a member of staff in the crèche and the boy fell off....

...It was claimed there was a failure to provide adequate supervision of the child and that the child had been caused to lose balance and fall heavily.

It was further claimed there was a failure to have any or any reasonable regard for the child’s safety, health and welfare while in the creche.

It sounds like the creche were acting the bollox tbh, which they admitted by accepting responsibility.

I have a relative who was awarded 40k for getting hit by a car reversing in a car park - on the face of it, it looked minor but it really wasn't worth the physio, muscle problems, back problems and other long term after effects that they suffered. No doubt the OP and others would be saying they should have just dusted themselves off and carried on though

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123324118#Comment_123324118

The child's family name is presumably the same as the fathers and not the mothers maiden name. Since the child's name is on the proceedings as well as the mothers how is the family name kept private?

GreeBo

I wonder what would have changed if he had been supervised but still fell?