Chat Forum
It is currently Sat Dec 15, 2018 5:46 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4474 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 ... 112  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20932
Surprised the kid hasn't been taken away in those circumstances.

Seems very light.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33977
Location: Pigdogistan
I just don't understand some people. Why would you physically abuse a baby? FFS.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53641
Nolanator wrote:
I just don't understand some people. Why would you physically abuse a baby? FFS.


Post natal depression isn't a walk in the park. One of the main questions they ask you to diagnose it is whether you've ever thought of harming your baby. Couple that with an immature mind, not ready for parenthood and.....

But I'm with AJ, I still would have thought they'd take the child away from her.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 14732
normilet wrote:
http://www.thejournal.ie/mother-baby-injuries-court-4277775-Oct2018/

Quote:
A MOTHER WHOSE five-month-old baby girl suffered a catalogue of injuries in her care including a skull fracture, a broken arm and two broken legs has walked free from court.

At Ennis Circuit Court, Judge Gerald Keys told the 23-year old woman: “I see no benefit to society, to the child, to yourself or to the father of the child by imposing a custodial sentence. I just don’t see any future in that and I don’t think that anyone will benefit from it.”

Judge Keys said that the woman’s continuing efforts to rehabilitate herself would not be possible if she was jailed and he imposed a suspended two year suspended sentence on condition that she continue to comply with the directions of a Probation Service report.

He said that the standard of care provided to the baby “fell well below of what one would one expect from a mother and was totally unacceptable”.

Judge Keys said that the mother was unable to explain why she persisted “with this behaviour towards the baby knowing that it caused her harm”.

Injuries

In the case, the mother presented to her GP on 13 February 2015 in a distressed state with the baby as her daughter’s left arm wasn’t moving and she had bruising to her face.

The doctor referred the case immediately to the paediatric unit to University Hospital Limerick (UHL).

There, medics at the hospital carried out a full skeletal survey of the baby that detected older injuries – a healing fracture of the left tibia – the larger bone on the lower left leg; a healing fracture of the right femur – the thigh bone extending from the hip to the knee – and an older right sided skull fracture.

Medics also detected a torn frenulum- the muscle under the tongue – and the child’s mother said that this could have occurred as a result of forcing a baby’s bottle or a soother into the baby’s mouth.

In the case, the woman pleaded guilty to wilfully assaulting and neglecting the child in a manner likely to cause unnecessary injury to the child’s health and seriously affect her well being.

The woman can’t be named in order to protect the identity of her child and the charge is contrary to Section 246 of the Children’s Act.

The offence took on dates between the summer of 2014 and February 2015 when the mother was aged 19.

Evidence

In evidence, consultant paediatrician at University Hospital Limerick (UHL), Dr Barry Linnane provided care to the baby and expressed doubt over the explanations given by the mother for the injuries.

Dr Linnane said that the injuries occurred on different dates during the baby’s first five months.

Judge Keys said that a Probation Report on the mother found that the accused accepted that a lack of care for the baby caused her to suffer the injuries, but she doesn’t accept responsibility for all of the injuries caused to the child.

The judge said that the mother put the neglect down to “poor judgement, bad decision making and use of force that was unknowingly unnecessary”.

He said that the woman’s pregnancy was unplanned and the then-teenager “was subsequently ambivalent about motherhood”. He added that the mother was overwhelmed by the birth of her child and was subsequently diagnosed with postnatal depression.

Supervised access

Judge Keys said that today the child’s father has custody of the toddler and the mother had supervised access.

He said that a report records that the mother has affection for the child, but recognises that she is not ready to care for her without proper support and supervision.

“You have lost confidence in yourself after you realised the harm you have caused your child,” he said.

The Probation Report found that the woman was at a low risk of re-offending.

Counsel for the woman, Pat Whyms BL said that the State had not proceeded with assault causing harm charge against his client and there was no evidence to support a charge that the mother had deliberately assaulted the baby.

Whyms pointed to a report from the baby’s Guardian ad Litem (GAL) who he said shared the view with the mother’s clinical psychologist “that the harm incurred by the baby was unlikely that the to have been deliberately inflicted”.

He said that his client had a deep sense of remorse over her “rough-handling of the baby”.

Counsel for the State, Philip Rahn said that the report cited by Whyms is not evidence and the evidence concerning how the injuries came about was provided by Dr Linnane.


Sweet mother of God


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14338
Location: Best country in the world.
What chance has that poor child got for any sort of productive happy future....... it's so sad for the kid but pathetic that a judge takes that view.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15386
anonymous_joe wrote:
Surprised the kid hasn't been taken away in those circumstances.

Seems very light.


It has? The father has custody and she only has supervised access


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 2:01 pm
Posts: 11326
Location: Donegal
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/disclosures-tribunal-report-published-maurice-mccabe-was-repulsively-denigrated-for-being-no-more-than-a-good-citizen-37408610.html

Quote:
Disclosures Tribunal report published: Maurice McCabe 'was repulsively denigrated for being no more than a good citizen'

The Disclosures Tribunal has found former Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan and former Garda press officer Supt Dave Taylor had a plan to spread a historic sexual abuse allegation about whistleblower Sgt Maurice McCabe.



:shock:

This is fairly awful.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 3:23 pm
Posts: 67
Taylor has seemingly been suspended but has put in his papers which will likely be accepted and will retire with full pension. Inquiry into him will terminate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 7:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28107
I think Harris won't accept his early retirement request. To stamp his authority and all that jazz. Now if Taylor knows where more bodies are buried then he will be allowed go and be given a big silver platter


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31524
Has McCabe gone after Taylor personally in a civil court? Pension won’t count for much if he loses that


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 9:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20932
Duff Paddy wrote:
Has McCabe gone after Taylor personally in a civil court? Pension won’t count for much if he loses that

Nope.

Suing the Commissioner in three separate sets of proceedings, and Callinan personally in one.

Keep in mind Taylor was officially on his side when the Tribunal was called for. It was Taylor's lies that led to a Tribunal after all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2018 3:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4046
Location: 3 from 3
https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/c ... ssion=true

Fair play to the judge for understanding that "feelings were running high".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2018 5:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33977
Location: Pigdogistan
http://www.thejournal.ie/anti-social-be ... 1-Oct2018/

This seems an unusual measure for Dublin. The two in question particularly bad, or is it the beginning of a push back against the worst of the beggar/addict types in the city centre?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 3:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 42610
Here's a doozy.

Why on earth should anyone take any ressponsibility for their actions, when they'll get a half million payout anyway. KaChing.

You don't even have to prove negligence now FFS !

From the IT :

Quote:
Woman injured ‘tram surfing’ on Luas awarded €550,000
Judge says Rebecca Kelly, now aged 20, knew that she did a ‘silly thing’ at the Fatima stop
about an hour ago

A woman who sustained a severe brain injury when she was a teenager after falling off the side of a Luas while ‘tram surfing’, has settled her High Court action for €550,000.

Rebecca Kelly, who was 13 at the time of the incident, jumped on the outside of a Luas tram and gripped the edge of the doors as it departed the Fatima stop on the Red Line on the night of September 3rd, 2010.

She then fell back onto the tracks and hit her head before her friend and others pulled her out of the way of an oncoming Luas tram.

Bruce Antoniotti SC, for Ms Kelly, told the High Court his client, who recently became a mother, accepted the accident was her fault. She acknowledged she should not have been ‘tram surfing’ and knew at the time that it was a dangerous activity. He said his client did not want to blame the driver.

Ms Kelly, now aged 20, of Pearse House, Pearse Street, had, through her mother Elizabeth Kelly, sued the Luas operators, Veolia Transport Dublin Light Rail Ltd and Veolia Transport Ireland Ltd as a result of the incident.

Visual systems
She alleged failure to have any or any adequate visual systems employed and activated on the tram. She alleged that meant the driver was unable in the circumstances to see the non-platform side of the tram before leaving the station.

It was claimed that the tram pulled off from the station without first observing the non-platform side.

All the claims were denied and Veolia pleaded contributory negligence on Ms Kelly’s part in allegedly exposing herself to the risk of injury by ‘tram surfing’ with a total disregard for her own safety.

Mr Antoniotti said it was a tragic case. He said Ms Kelly was with a group of friends on the inbound platform at the Fatima stop at 9.15pm. At that time, young people engaged in ‘tram surfing’, he said.


Mr Justice Cross said it was what boys used to do in the past by hanging on to the back of lorries. Counsel said ‘tram surfing’ involved people jumping on to the side door where there was a small ledge and putting their fingers between the door and the body of the tram whole holding on “for dear life”.

Metal strips
There were 54 incidents of tram surfing recorded on 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, counsel said.

He said Ms Kelly jumped on to the side of the Tallaght bound tram but fell off very quickly and hit her head. She had never ‘tram surfed’ before, he added.

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 Ms Kelly jumped on, would have required him to switch cameras and the driver also had to be looking straight ahead when the tram moving off as people often try to cross in front, counsel said.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 3:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 14732
Jesus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20346
That is mind boggling that it was settled for that.

Was just reading about that Kerry farmer getting off murder for mauling that other farmer with a teleporter too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 14732
That was the jury tbf


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20346
Mullet 2 wrote:
That was the jury tbf


Yeah true enough.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:58 am
Posts: 21165
camroc1 wrote:
Here's a doozy.

Why on earth should anyone take any ressponsibility for their actions, when they'll get a half million payout anyway. KaChing.

You don't even have to prove negligence now FFS !

From the IT :

Quote:
Woman injured ‘tram surfing’ on Luas awarded €550,000
Judge says Rebecca Kelly, now aged 20, knew that she did a ‘silly thing’ at the Fatima stop
about an hour ago

A woman who sustained a severe brain injury when she was a teenager after falling off the side of a Luas while ‘tram surfing’, has settled her High Court action for €550,000.

Rebecca Kelly, who was 13 at the time of the incident, jumped on the outside of a Luas tram and gripped the edge of the doors as it departed the Fatima stop on the Red Line on the night of September 3rd, 2010.

She then fell back onto the tracks and hit her head before her friend and others pulled her out of the way of an oncoming Luas tram.

Bruce Antoniotti SC, for Ms Kelly, told the High Court his client, who recently became a mother, accepted the accident was her fault. She acknowledged she should not have been ‘tram surfing’ and knew at the time that it was a dangerous activity. He said his client did not want to blame the driver.

Ms Kelly, now aged 20, of Pearse House, Pearse Street, had, through her mother Elizabeth Kelly, sued the Luas operators, Veolia Transport Dublin Light Rail Ltd and Veolia Transport Ireland Ltd as a result of the incident.

Visual systems
She alleged failure to have any or any adequate visual systems employed and activated on the tram. She alleged that meant the driver was unable in the circumstances to see the non-platform side of the tram before leaving the station.

It was claimed that the tram pulled off from the station without first observing the non-platform side.

All the claims were denied and Veolia pleaded contributory negligence on Ms Kelly’s part in allegedly exposing herself to the risk of injury by ‘tram surfing’ with a total disregard for her own safety.

Mr Antoniotti said it was a tragic case. He said Ms Kelly was with a group of friends on the inbound platform at the Fatima stop at 9.15pm. At that time, young people engaged in ‘tram surfing’, he said.


Mr Justice Cross said it was what boys used to do in the past by hanging on to the back of lorries. Counsel said ‘tram surfing’ involved people jumping on to the side door where there was a small ledge and putting their fingers between the door and the body of the tram whole holding on “for dear life”.

Metal strips
There were 54 incidents of tram surfing recorded on 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, counsel said.

He said Ms Kelly jumped on to the side of the Tallaght bound tram but fell off very quickly and hit her head. She had never ‘tram surfed’ before, he added.

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 Ms Kelly jumped on, would have required him to switch cameras and the driver also had to be looking straight ahead when the tram moving off as people often try to cross in front, counsel said.

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

Plus she just belched out a sprog so will no doubt be given a house at taxpayers expense soon


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 8:10 pm
Posts: 578
AJ will be around soon to point out that it was a settlement so the judge was just rubber stamping the offer. so nothing to d with the judge he can only approve what is offered.

why the company felt the need to make such a high settlement offer when she has admitted she was at fault is a separate matter all together.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 1:16 pm
Posts: 80
Onelostbear wrote:
AJ will be around soon to point out that it was a settlement so the judge was just rubber stamping the offer. so nothing to d with the judge he can only approve what is offered.

why the company felt the need to make such a high settlement offer when she has admitted she was at fault is a separate matter all together.


The claims were denied so it was being litigated. The defendant's issue is she was 13 when it happened, there's a kind of "kids will be kids" rule that makes any contribution to their own injury really hard to stick.

It depends on how debilitating the injury was but brain injury awards are millions, so I'd say they were delighted to get out of it for that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33977
Location: Pigdogistan
The Prophet Zarquon wrote:
Onelostbear wrote:
AJ will be around soon to point out that it was a settlement so the judge was just rubber stamping the offer. so nothing to d with the judge he can only approve what is offered.

why the company felt the need to make such a high settlement offer when she has admitted she was at fault is a separate matter all together.


The claims were denied so it was being litigated. The defendant's issue is she was 13 when it happened, there's a kind of "kids will be kids" rule that makes any contribution to their own injury really hard to stick.

It depends on how debilitating the injury was but brain injury awards are millions, so I'd say they were delighted to get out of it for that.


So if you get a brain injury, despite it being your own fault, you're quids in?

Image=cash money


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24990
Nolanator wrote:
The Prophet Zarquon wrote:
Onelostbear wrote:
AJ will be around soon to point out that it was a settlement so the judge was just rubber stamping the offer. so nothing to d with the judge he can only approve what is offered.

why the company felt the need to make such a high settlement offer when she has admitted she was at fault is a separate matter all together.


The claims were denied so it was being litigated. The defendant's issue is she was 13 when it happened, there's a kind of "kids will be kids" rule that makes any contribution to their own injury really hard to stick.

It depends on how debilitating the injury was but brain injury awards are millions, so I'd say they were delighted to get out of it for that.


So if you get a brain injury, despite it being your own fault, you're quids in?

Image=cash money


There should have been signage saying it's dangerous to slam your face into it on that car. It's a disgrace Joe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 12:42 pm
Posts: 361
Have a look at her sister mouthing off in the comments of the indo story on FB. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 8:10 pm
Posts: 578
Gauss wrote:
Have a look at her sister mouthing off in the comments of the indo story on FB. :lol:


Wash your neck...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28107
They brought in a load of measures to stop the surfing practice. This was clearly an acknowledgement that the Luas lended itself to this dangerous practice

And tonight Matthew I am...ANON JOE *crowd cheers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31524
The Prophet Zarquon wrote:
Onelostbear wrote:
AJ will be around soon to point out that it was a settlement so the judge was just rubber stamping the offer. so nothing to d with the judge he can only approve what is offered.

why the company felt the need to make such a high settlement offer when she has admitted she was at fault is a separate matter all together.


The claims were denied so it was being litigated. The defendant's issue is she was 13 when it happened, there's a kind of "kids will be kids" rule that makes any contribution to their own injury really hard to stick.

It depends on how debilitating the injury was but brain injury awards are millions, so I'd say they were delighted to get out of it for that.

Kids will be kids... fine
Contribution to her own injury... admitted by the defendant herself
How debilitating the injury... not very, she’s just had a child
Brain injury awards are millions... that should only be to paid for a lifetime of care if needed
Delighted to get out of it for that... certainly but that only speaks to the madness of our PI scam/system


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31524
EverReady wrote:
They brought in a load of measures to stop the surfing practice. This was clearly an acknowledgement that the Luas lended itself to this dangerous practice

And tonight Matthew I am...ANON JOE *crowd cheers

We’re not the only country to use these type of teams are we


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53641
Any more info on the 'severe brain injury'?

If we want to move to a no fault system then fine, go for it. And if she did suffer an injury, fine, cover the medical costs. But is she really being given 500k into her bank account? That's not going to end well if so.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31524
CM11 wrote:
Any more info on the 'severe brain injury'?

If we want to move to a no fault system then fine, go for it. And if she did suffer an injury, fine, cover the medical costs. But is she really being given 500k into her bank account? That's not going to end well if so.


Why does it have to be somebody’s fault? Kids do stupid shit, accidents happen. There is no justification for a payout here. It was a tragic accident.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:58 am
Posts: 21165
Duff Paddy wrote:
CM11 wrote:
Any more info on the 'severe brain injury'?

If we want to move to a no fault system then fine, go for it. And if she did suffer an injury, fine, cover the medical costs. But is she really being given 500k into her bank account? That's not going to end well if so.


Why does it have to be somebody’s fault? Kids do stupid shit, accidents happen. There is no justification for a payout here. It was a tragic accident.

Tragic? She was clearly a bit of moron before the accident.so no change there. The only tragedy is that she got anything other than ridicule


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53641
Duff Paddy wrote:
CM11 wrote:
Any more info on the 'severe brain injury'?

If we want to move to a no fault system then fine, go for it. And if she did suffer an injury, fine, cover the medical costs. But is she really being given 500k into her bank account? That's not going to end well if so.


Why does it have to be somebody’s fault? Kids do stupid shit, accidents happen. There is no justification for a payout here. It was a tragic accident.


:?

It doesn't. That's the point of a no fault system. My point was that this payout really seemed to be along the lines of 'she was a kid, she suffered an injury, she deserves a payout' which looks very much like a no fault payout. My follow up was that pretty much all that should be covered is medical costs and paid directly to the medical provider. Pretty much what you said, I think.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 1:16 pm
Posts: 80
Nolanator wrote:
The Prophet Zarquon wrote:
Onelostbear wrote:
AJ will be around soon to point out that it was a settlement so the judge was just rubber stamping the offer. so nothing to d with the judge he can only approve what is offered.

why the company felt the need to make such a high settlement offer when she has admitted she was at fault is a separate matter all together.


The claims were denied so it was being litigated. The defendant's issue is she was 13 when it happened, there's a kind of "kids will be kids" rule that makes any contribution to their own injury really hard to stick.

It depends on how debilitating the injury was but brain injury awards are millions, so I'd say they were delighted to get out of it for that.


So if you get a brain injury, despite it being your own fault, you're quids in?

Image=cash money


If you're young enough,its not legally your "fault" regardless of what you did. the law assesses that at 13 did she fully appreciate and weigh up the risk, and decide to do it anyway? Was she induced to do it because she'd seen her friends do it and nobody stopped them? If it was a common thing, should the Luas operators not have taken more measures to stop it happening? Is it reasonable to expect a 13 year old to be that cognisant of the risk. If so, at what age does this responsibility kick in? If she was 6? 5?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53641
Looking at my kids. I'd say around 5 for knowing not to jump on a moving train. The 3 year old would probably think twice too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:58 am
Posts: 21165
CM11 wrote:
Looking at my kids. I'd say around 5 for knowing not to jump on a moving train. The 3 year old would probably think twice too.

Yeah but your kids aren't inbred scummers one notch above Neanderthal on the evolutionary scale


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 1:16 pm
Posts: 80
Quote:
Kids will be kids... fine
Contribution to her own injury... admitted by the defendant herself


The kids will be kids thing means that she was too young to really know that what she was doing is reckless and the consequences of it, so it isn't legally her fault. Egro it is someone else's fault in our system. The tram operators knew it was a. common practice and b. very dangerous. should they not have done something to prevent it?

Quote:
How debilitating the injury... not very, she’s just had a child


Her brain isn't in her ovaries or uterus. The indo reported a "severe" injury

Quote:
Brain injury awards are millions... that should only be to paid for a lifetime of care if needed


that's special damages. the general damages awards for a permanent and life altering brain injury can also get into millions, especially when the injured person is very young and a lifetime of opportunity is lost.

Quote:
Delighted to get out of it for that... certainly but that only speaks to the madness of our PI scam/system


normally I'd agree, but the acid test is would you voluntarily submit to her injury if someone paid you €500k? I wouldn't.

I'm just explaining the legal thinking here btw, though I've a little sympathy for her. This gobsh1te on the other hand:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/fireman-sued-after-his-helmet-fell-out-of-his-locker-and-hit-him-on-the-head-1.3664534

He claimed for anxiety - a firefighter actually claimed that he's anxious now going to his locker because one time his helmet fell out and hit him on the head and he wanted some money for that. He should have been fired by the authority as being incapable of carrying out the role of firefighter if something so trivial makes him anxious to the point of needing compensation. Did he come up with the whole "I'm anxious" crap himself? Did he fcuk. This one's down to his lawyer - routine now to add PTSD to claims because its unproveable and easy money. We'll get to a stage soon where PTSD claims stick without any injury or even collisison.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 42610
The Prophet Zarquon wrote:
Quote:
Kids will be kids... fine
Contribution to her own injury... admitted by the defendant herself


The kids will be kids thing means that she was too young to really know that what she was doing is reckless and the consequences of it, so it isn't legally her fault. Egro it is someone else's fault in our system. The tram operators knew it was a. common practice and b. very dangerous. should they not have done something to prevent it?

Quote:
How debilitating the injury... not very, she’s just had a child


Her brain isn't in her ovaries or uterus. The indo reported a "severe" injury

Quote:
Brain injury awards are millions... that should only be to paid for a lifetime of care if needed


that's special damages. the general damages awards for a permanent and life altering brain injury can also get into millions, especially when the injured person is very young and a lifetime of opportunity is lost.

Quote:
Delighted to get out of it for that... certainly but that only speaks to the madness of our PI scam/system


normally I'd agree, but the acid test is would you voluntarily submit to her injury if someone paid you €500k? I wouldn't.

I'm just explaining the legal thinking here btw, though I've a little sympathy for her. This gobsh1te on the other hand:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/fireman-sued-after-his-helmet-fell-out-of-his-locker-and-hit-him-on-the-head-1.3664534

He claimed for anxiety - a firefighter actually claimed that he's anxious now going to his locker because one time his helmet fell out and hit him on the head and he wanted some money for that. He should have been fired by the authority as being incapable of carrying out the role of firefighter if something so trivial makes him anxious to the point of needing compensation. Did he come up with the whole "I'm anxious" crap himself? Did he fcuk. This one's down to his lawyer - routine now to add PTSD to claims because its unproveable and easy money. We'll get to a stage soon where PTSD claims stick without any injury or even collisison.

I thought that's been tried on already by someone who claimed PTSD after witnessing a car accident/assault ?

And whilst her ovaries aren't in her brain, is there not something very unsettling about a 17 year old who's not the full shilling becoming pregnant in the first place ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14338
Location: Best country in the world.
'Tis our culture, boss...... https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/c ... 48342.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20932
Generals are usually capped in and around €450k to €500k and that would be for catastrophic paralysis.

Brain injury compensation would be future care and loss of opportunities as put forward by actuarial evidence and occupational therapists.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 42610
anonymous_joe wrote:
Generals are usually capped in and around €450k to €500k and that would be for catastrophic paralysis.

Brain injury compensation would be future care and loss of opportunities as put forward by actuarial evidence and occupational therapists.

I'll just leave this, from this mornings IT, here so.

Quote:
Woman in ‘Luas surfing’ case initially said claim worth €4m
Rebecca Kelly, who received more than €550,000 for injuries, conceded her own actions played a significant role in the incident
about 7 hours ago
Conor Gallagher


The woman who received more than €550,000 last week for injuries she suffered while “Luas surfing” initially claimed her case was worth up to €4 million.

Lawyers for Rebecca Kelly (20) told Veolia, which operated Dublin’s Luas light rail system at the time, that this claim was based on her injuries, the cost of her medical care and the loss of potential earnings relating to her injuries.

Ms Kelly suffered a subdural haematoma which left her with significant cognitive impairment, her lawyers told the tram operator.

The woman also conceded her own actions played a significant role in the incident and was advised by her lawyers she stood little chance of receiving anything close to the €4 million figure, legal sources said.

Ms Kelly was 13 in 2010 when she and a friend jumped on to the side of a tram as it left the Fatima station. She fell on to the tracks and suffered a serious head injury.

Veolia was aware Luas surfing was an issue and cameras set up in response to the problem were not functioning on the day in question.

Woman injured ‘tram surfing’ on Luas awarded €550,000
Ms Kelly of Pearse House, Pearse Street, Dublin, spent a month in the National Rehabilitation Hospital and continues to have problems with her concentration and memory.


When her case came to court her lawyers entered into a mediation process with Veolia. They admitted contributory negligence but argued it was lessened by her young age.

No liability
At the end of the mediation process Veolia agreed to a €550,000 settlement, about 1/7th of what Ms Kelly initially claimed the case was worth. It did not admit liability.

When the settlement was brought to Mr Justice Kevin Cross for High Court approval on Friday he commented there was a strong possibility the case would have been dismissed if it went to trial and Ms Kelly “would have ended up with nothing”.


Garrett Cooney, a barrister specialising in personal injury cases, said companies engage in “very complex” risk assessments when deciding if they will settle and how much to settle for.

These assessments incorporate multiple factors including actuarial assessments of the monetary impact of an injury on a plaintiff as well as legal assessments of what award a particular judge is likely to make if a case went to trial.

Social media abuse
“Experienced practitioners would be able to give advices as to what a judge is likely to do,” Mr Cooney told The Irish Times, speaking generally.

The age of the injured person also plays a significant role in assessing settlements, Mr Cooney said. “A child is not held to the same standard as an adult.”

An initial paper based actuarial assessment of Ms Kelly’s claim said the light rail company could be exposed to up to €10 million in damages if no other factors were taken into account other than her injuries.

On Monday Ms Kelly’s sister Jennifer said her sister is afraid to leave the house because of the abuse received via social media.

“She has a child two weeks old, she deserves that money. She went through eight years of hell and she’ll suffer with this for the rest of her life. It’s bad enough without all these people abusing her,” she told the 98FM radio station.






Last edited by camroc1 on Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4474 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 ... 112  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DOB, Google Adsense [Bot], Jay Cee Gee, malky, Nieghorn and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group