Should €250,000 settlement have been paid following death after stag night?

D

Dave Vanian

Registered User
Messages
1,271
I read this story today.

My first reaction was one of great sympathy for the family of the man who died. I don't drink nowadays but I can (vaguely) remember back in the day rolling out of various pubs on occasion and using both sides of the path to get home, so certainly no judgement there.

My second one was to wonder what grounds his widow have for suing the taxi driver. According to the report, the taxi driver was travelling well below the speed limit and a very drunk man practically jumped onto his taxi, hit his head and tragically died from his injuries.

I'm guessing that the taxi driver's insurance will pay the claim. But really should it have been awarded at all? My reading of this is that it was a tragic accident caused mostly the man having drunk too much. Unless there's something that hasn't been reported, I would view the taxi driver as blameless. If anything, I would view the pub as having more liability and even at that I wouldn't suggest that they should be sued. Perhaps in the future the laws might be changed to impose more responsibility on publicans but that's another debate.

Any opinions?
 
The Irish Times article stated that no prosecution was brought against the driver, and that the investigation report matched his version of events. On those grounds, it would be a shame if his premiums went up or if his business suffered.
 
There seems to be no sense of “personal responsibility “. Anytime someone is injured, the first reaction is to look for someone to sue. So this guy got wildly drunk and stumbled out in front of a car. And somehow the Courts determined that the car driver was at fault. Did the deceased not have any responsibility for his own demise? Courts seem to think that there is “free money” to pay these claims, without any impact on those who pay insurance premiums. And certain Courts (Judges) are not shy about criticising Insurers who refuse to pay certain claims.
 
peemac said:
Going by the comments of the judge, it is very doubtful that such an award would have been made by the court.

Looks like another case of the insurance company afraid of taking on a case and instead settling - sure why not, the policy holders will pay for it in the end
Click to expand...
Exactly this. I saw nothing in that report that suggested that the court made this award. It very much sounds like the insurance company paid up without contesting it.
 
Yes - reading back over the article in light of above comments, I see that it does read more that the settlement was agreed and the court just rubber-stamped it. I'm still curious. I can understand why an insurance company might settle a smaller claim in order to avoid legal costs which are higher than the agreed figure. But does that principle go as high as €250,000? Would possible legal costs be as high as €250,000, even if they won their case?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top