Advertisement
This site uses cookies to improve your experience and to provide services and advertising. By continuing to browse, you agree to the use of cookies described in our Cookies Policy. You may change your settings at any time but this may impact on the functionality of the site. To learn more see our Cookies Policy.
OK
Dublin: 10 °C Sunday 24 March, 2019

Comment #5242666 by Patricia Ellis Dunne

Patricia Ellis Dunne Jul 5th 2016, 3:34 PM #

Seems strange that the driver is liable if somebody runs out in front of the. Not a lot you can do

| Share | Report this comment

Read the article where this comment appeared:

Girl given €25,000 after being knocked down while chasing her dog

Girl given €25,000 after being knocked down while chasing her dog

The girl had been visiting family friends.

REPLIES

    Favourite Ron Spaghettini
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Jul 5th 2016, 4:32 PM

    I love this, an ATM on wheels!

    398
    Favourite Mark Ryan
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Jul 5th 2016, 4:46 PM

    Your supposed to be able to stop for all hazards! Every gateway or laneway is classed as a potential hazard so your driving should be adjusted for eventualities like these

    31
    Favourite fintolini
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Jul 5th 2016, 5:10 PM

    Are you serious?
    Are you saying that there is no hazard that you shouldn’t be able to predict / avoid?
    Are you saying no matter what happens the driver would always be liable?

    In my mind (and if this were my child I would feel the same) the parents are liable to the driver for any damage done to their car, assuming the gardai are satisfied the driver was driving within speed limits, due care and was unreasonable to expect sufficient reaction time to avoid the accident.

    This is one of many crazy reasons why we have to pay ridiculous insurance premiums.

    460
    Favourite Shawn O'Ceallaghan
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Jul 5th 2016, 5:24 PM

    Liability not down to her mother .?

    303
    Favourite Rosie Murray
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Jul 5th 2016, 5:27 PM

    This is why our car insurance premiums are sky high this year. The mother should be ashamed of herself.

    455
    Favourite Mark Ryan
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Jul 5th 2016, 5:33 PM

    Fintolini… If you were driving through a housing estate would you drive slowly or put the boot down? You would drive slowly in case children are playing, yet in countryside ppl assume gateways etc mean nothing. Why not apply same risk assessment to them?? No there is a difference between intentionally running jumping in front of a car and someone running out.. The dog should have been a pre warning for the driver and she still could not stop without colliding with the child so she may not have been paying attention to the road. Or using due care and attention.

    21
    Favourite Paul
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Jul 5th 2016, 5:36 PM

    As crazy as it seems that’s the way it is. The driver is always at fault.

    75
    Favourite fintolini
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Jul 5th 2016, 5:54 PM

    There is a speed limit on country roads different to estates. If the driver was obeying that limit with due caution, why should they be liable?

    Do you think it’s okay to allow child to run out on to road with 80kph speed limit? In an estate it’s a lot lower obviously, you expect kids in an estate this the reason for lower speed limit.

    My house is in countryside, with road with cars speeding down outside, they obey speed limit though, I have gates, it’s up to me to ensure my kids don’t go on that road, I would blame myself and my kids depending on their age a lot sooner than I looked to the driver.

    That’s the problem, people are too quick to look for damages, when those they are taking the action against were not at fault. Sick of it

    174
    Favourite Avina Laaf
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Jul 5th 2016, 5:54 PM

    Do you actually drive Mark? If so do you ever go above 10kmh??

    128
    Favourite Mary Murphy
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Jul 5th 2016, 6:16 PM

    Mother should have been glad her child was left alive and that Judge just loves giving away public money. He must think he’s Santa

    165
    Favourite Mark Hosford
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Jul 5th 2016, 6:27 PM

    The mother’s not insured, liability usually follows the insured

    6
    Favourite Mark Hosford
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Jul 5th 2016, 6:32 PM

    To be fair if she’d been driving at 30 kph, and braked hard when she saw the dog, and only hit the child because she braked she’d have been liable… More to the point , did the child deserve 25 grand ?? And why didnt it go through the personal injuries board..

    77
    Favourite Cosaint
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Jul 5th 2016, 6:34 PM

    insurer probably didnt want to spend unnecessary money putting it into PIAB, saw the way liability would fall, and settled it

    21
    Favourite John Considine
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Jul 5th 2016, 7:14 PM

    They never reached liability, this is a settlement, offered and accepted.

    27
    Favourite Bilbo Baggins
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Jul 5th 2016, 8:11 PM

    Mark couldn’t read the last two paragraphs from his high horse , no point in dealing in facts here!

    26
    Favourite dstaffx
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Jul 5th 2016, 9:29 PM

    Mark. The fact so many people are disagreeing with you is what is wrong with driver in this country. They haven’t a clue about what a hazard is and how to read / predict them

    4
    Favourite Sinead Hanley
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Jul 5th 2016, 10:49 PM

    The mother should be thanking the driver that he was driving at a safe speed and thanking the Lord that her daughter wasn’t seriously hurt. She thinks she won the jackpot today when in reality she already was a winner when her daughter made a full recovery

    43
    Favourite Avina Laaf
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Jul 5th 2016, 11:13 PM

    @dstaffx
    “They haven’t a clue about what a hazard is and how to read / predict them”
    God forbid a hidden toddler runs out from between parked cars at the precise moment you’re passing, because unless you drive everywhere at walking speed there is absolutely no way you’ll be able to avoid them.
    If you’re so blase and overconfident about always being able to avoid any hazard you encounter while driving you’re probably a far more dangerous driver than most of the people on here.

    23
    Favourite Gavin Scott
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Jul 5th 2016, 11:17 PM

    I think boy racer types(probably unfair but most average drivers really) can learn from this. The bottom line is this: don’t kill kids in your estate. Do what you have to do, err, maybe cruise along at 4 miles an hour. I don’t care. Simple really. Just drive defensively using K53 techniques. Simple really, and only one rule; always expect the worst. Case A; You see a kid playing football… You better be doing a million calculations in your head leading to kid being under your front bonnet and you need to avoid this!

    3
    Favourite Shane Kavanagh
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Jul 6th 2016, 3:59 PM

    @Mark. This happened outside my mothers estate, it was a main road not in an estate with a 60kph limit. The mother should be thankful that her daughter wasn’t hit at 60kph. I actually ran down as my nephews were playing on the green and wanted to make sure they were ok, they are 12 and 8 and my son is 4 and they know NEVER to just walk onto a road without stopping and looking first. Awards like this is the reason insurance companies are ripping us off.

    3
    Favourite bings
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Jul 7th 2016, 12:46 PM

    The dog should have been on a leash. The IKC site states that all dogs should be on a leash in a public place & that is the law. Also the dog owner is liable for damage caused by the dog. The dog wouldn’t have run across a road if it was under control I never take my dog off the leash in any public place. No dog owner can guarantee 100% what their dog will do. The parents of the child should be help responsible for their child & dog. That is why insurance is going sky high.

    1
    Favourite John Considine
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Jul 7th 2016, 1:12 PM

    Bings.. post a link to that law please?

    1

Trending Tags