Boy awarded payout - your opnion?

[kimc]

The issue in my opinion isn't the guardrail - many kids have slept on top bunks while camping, at sleepovers, etc. Heck, I once fell out of one in my sleep and lived to tell about it.

The issue is the negligence of the parents in not seeking medical treatment immediately when the child was injured. Whether he jumped off yelling "Geronimo" or accidently fell (kids do plenty of both) he should not have been bleeding for hours without care. That probably just made things worse.

 

[Jadzia]

Absence of a guard rail was wrong, and the penalty for the fall should be in proportion to that negligence only. Beyond that we should learn to accept that accidents happen. Nowadays, seeking compensation often appears to be a greedy exploitation of a mishap.

It would have been better all round if the parents of the injured boy had been invited to make their own safety check beforehand and approved the conditions of the sleepover to the point of a disclaimer. I tend to think that would be a better policy, even if it might seem a little awkward. Since the boy's parents failed to make those checks and ensure their son was in a safe place, they were kind of negligent also.

I also agree that not seeking medical treatment for the child was more significant negligence that warrants it's own penalty.

 

[Mr Awe]

I don't know how things work in Australia, but here in the US, once the family removed the safety devices in violation of the law, they'd be hosed in a lawsuit.

Beyond the legal stuff, it does seem fair that the boy is compensated, at least to pay for the medical bills. And, sheesh, the family just left the kid bleeding from his nose and ear without calling his parents?! The father came over and he was still bleeding. For crying out loud! If that delayed caused any additional harm they should be liable for that as well.

Mr Awe

 

[Mr Awe]

The amount of judgement is sickening. $860,000?!?! I won't make that much in a lifetime!

Medical care is very expensive. Throw it in any long term treatment that is require and/or compensation due to lost opportunities caused by permananent damage. The amount of the award is not outrageous at all.

Your response sounds like it's more based on your own income (or lack thereof) level.

Also, Mr. Thomas is a dick. I can't even begin to count how many times I fell down the stairs as a child. "Learning and behavioural problems" my ass.

So, somehow that Dad is a dick because he comes over and see blood pour from his sons ear who has a cracked skull? And, nothing was being done about it. No call to the parents, no trip to the emergency. Just wait until Dad comes over and let's hope he doesn't notice.

Yeah, the dad is sooo unreasonable.

Mr Awe

 

[Thestral]

The amount of judgement is sickening. $860,000?!?! I won't make that much in a lifetime!

Medical care is very expensive. Throw it in any long term treatment that is require and/or compensation due to lost opportunities caused by permananent damage. The amount of the award is not outrageous at all.

Your response sounds like it's more based on your own income (or lack thereof) level.

Perhaps it shouldn't be that expensive then. Where's all that money going? And naturally the response is based on my own income level... what else would I base it on? I'd wager that for the overwhelming majority of people, that amount would be a crushing burden. Not as crushing as it would be for me where I am in life of course, but where's all that money coming from?

Also, Mr. Thomas is a dick. I can't even begin to count how many times I fell down the stairs as a child. "Learning and behavioural problems" my ass.

So, somehow that Dad is a dick because he comes over and see blood pour from his sons ear who has a cracked skull? And, nothing was being done about it. No call to the parents, no trip to the emergency. Just wait until Dad comes over and let's hope he doesn't notice.

Yeah, the dad is sooo unreasonable.

Mr Awe

Yeah, after thinking about it I realize my response was pretty foolish. Obviously the hosting parents were irresponsible in multiple ways, to the point of lying about what happened. One might wonder why criminal penalties weren't involved? Dad's reaction was appropriate; just, any time the word "sue" is involved, my perception towards the suing party is automatically negatively colored.

 

[Mr Awe]

Perhaps it shouldn't be that expensive then. Where's all that money going? And naturally the response is based on my own income level... what else would I base it on? I'd wager that for the overwhelming majority of people, that amount would be a crushing burden. Not as crushing as it would be for me where I am in life of course, but where's all that money coming from?

You may well be right about that, but the cost of health care is an entirely different issue. In the end, the boys parents will be paying the costs of the current health care system. Pain and suffering is also a legitimate thing to compensate for as is future losses.

Yeah, after thinking about it I realize my response was pretty foolish. Obviously the hosting parents were irresponsible in multiple ways, to the point of lying about what happened. One might wonder why criminal penalties weren't involved? Dad's reaction was appropriate; just, any time the word "sue" is involved, my perception towards the suing party is automatically negatively colored.

Ok, I see where you're coming from. And, there are too many friviolous law suits. Unfortunately, those detract from the legitimate ones.

As a Dad myself, I'd be totally furious. I'm not sure why there weren't criminal penalties.

Mr Awe

 

[Aurian]

So they failed to fix the guard rail in violation of law and didn't get help for a kid who fell and was bleeding from the nose and ears? Yes, they should be both sued and criminally prosecuted.

Definitly! They should count their blessings that the kid did not die.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I find it hard to believe that a child can go to school in Tasmania with a bandage on and if the parents don't tell the school the child's medical history they'll have social services knocking on the door.

That said, bandaging a burn is the last thing anyone should do. Idiots.

The child was in pain and told her teacher that she had been burnt. When asked the child also told the teacher she hadn't been to the doctor.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Medical care is very expensive. Throw it in any long term treatment that is require and/or compensation due to lost opportunities caused by permananent damage. The amount of the award is not outrageous at all.

Not as expensive in Australia as it is in the USA. In Australia a person basic health care is covered by Medibank. So of this child is treated in a public hospital he doesn't have to pay.

What he, or his parents, would have to pay is the diffference from what the schedule fee is and what any private health provider charges.

 

[Snaploud]

They were definitely liable, and the amount was probably based somewhat on their income and assets. It would be interesting to find out if the family can pay that amount easily or whether it's going to be a life-long hardship. Obviously, half a million is going to be less of a big deal if it comes out a family with assets of over $10 million. On the other hand, it's going to be a huge burden on somebody with assets totaling $30 thousand.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

The amount of judgement is sickening. $860,000?!?! I won't make that much in a lifetime!

Also, Mr. Thomas is a dick. I can't even begin to count how many times I fell down the stairs as a child. "Learning and behavioural problems" my ass.

However, the Shaws are idiots and as disgusting as the whole thing is, they were in the wrong. Bunk beds have guard rails and ladders for a reason. Were there not other beds available? Or the bottom bunk, and put their own kid in the top bunk? Especially in this day and age, you can't be too careful.

Head injuries commonly result in such issues.

Further, had the parents immediately taken him to a hospital some of the damages might have been avoided.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

How can that family possibly be expected to pay it in any reasonable manner without being absolutely crushed?

They don't pay the whole thing. Insurance covers most if not all. Then they pay the remainder.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

They were definitely liable, and the amount was probably based somewhat on their income and assets. It would be interesting to find out if the family can pay that amount easily or whether it's going to be a life-long hardship. Obviously, half a million is going to be less of a big deal if it comes out a family with assets of over $10 million. On the other hand, it's going to be a huge burden on somebody with assets totaling $30 thousand.

No, it has nothing to do with assets. It has everything to do with an estimate of that a normal child's life is worth over time, given a set of factors and how those factors are impacted by his injury. Coupled with the cost of medical expenses, and pain and suffering, etc.

 

[Snaploud]

They were definitely liable, and the amount was probably based somewhat on their income and assets. It would be interesting to find out if the family can pay that amount easily or whether it's going to be a life-long hardship. Obviously, half a million is going to be less of a big deal if it comes out a family with assets of over $10 million. On the other hand, it's going to be a huge burden on somebody with assets totaling $30 thousand.

No, it has nothing to do with assets. It has everything to do with an estimate of that a normal child's life is worth over time, given a set of factors and how those factors are impacted by his injury. Coupled with the cost of medical expenses, and pain and suffering, etc.

Punitive damage claims will likely take into account the relative worth of the defendant (even if the exact amount is not known). It's human nature combined with pure pragmatics. You don't ask for more than they can pay.

 

[Trekker4747]

Let's see, the bed didn't have the gaurd rail (!), didn't have the ladder (!) (the bunk bed I had as a kid the "ladder" was built into the frame at the foot of the bed(s), and apparently the kid was bleeding and banged up pretty badly (after falling an entire, what, four feet? Was the bedroom floor made of granite?!) and they didn't call his parents or take him to the hospital?

Yeah, I don't think the "defendants" in this situation are looking good and deserve the judgement they got.

And yet, I just wish it was something other than the trite old suing. Brief prison stays maybe, or requirements to pay medical bills - but specific, itemized amounts. Why does everything automatically mean suing? Personally, I hate the courts, I hate the very concept of suing. Obviously I'm too young to have had to deal with it myself, but it repulses me. It strikes me as greedy and sleazy if it's for anything beyond an itemized bare minimum. And especially for that amount of money. Maybe I'm coming across as naive, but that size a sum staggers me. How can that family possibly be expected to pay it in any reasonable manner without being absolutely crushed? And what will that do to their own child(ren)?

The points are multiple. The defendants' negligence cost the "victim's" parents incredible ammounts of money in medical bills and cost the child signifcant aspects of his life -hence loss of future wages. It's possible they could've settled out of court but the other parents likely fought this and apparently fought it all the way to the Supreme Court in Australia.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

They were definitely liable, and the amount was probably based somewhat on their income and assets. It would be interesting to find out if the family can pay that amount easily or whether it's going to be a life-long hardship. Obviously, half a million is going to be less of a big deal if it comes out a family with assets of over $10 million. On the other hand, it's going to be a huge burden on somebody with assets totaling $30 thousand.

No, it has nothing to do with assets. It has everything to do with an estimate of that a normal child's life is worth over time, given a set of factors and how those factors are impacted by his injury. Coupled with the cost of medical expenses, and pain and suffering, etc.

Punitive damage claims will likely take into account the relative worth of the defendant (even if the exact amount is not known). It's human nature combined with pure pragmatics. You don't ask for more than they can pay.

That's not correct, because often times insurance companies pay judgments. THe defendants worth could be considered, but it isn't binding.

 

[Trekker4747]

No, it has nothing to do with assets. It has everything to do with an estimate of that a normal child's life is worth over time, given a set of factors and how those factors are impacted by his injury. Coupled with the cost of medical expenses, and pain and suffering, etc.

Punitive damage claims will likely take into account the relative worth of the defendant (even if the exact amount is not known). It's human nature combined with pure pragmatics. You don't ask for more than they can pay.

That's not correct, because often times insurance companies pay judgments. THe defendants worth could be considered, but it isn't binding.

Insurance companies may not cover it when the claimant violated established safety procedures -and laws.

 

[Miss Chicken]

There is such a thing as no-fault insurance.

I believe that in Australia a non-fault policy would cover all the boy's medical expenses though it would not cover loss of future earnings.