To wonder why this mother has not been prosecuted for the death of child

[Marmotte3]

www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/he-wouldnt-settle-so-i-had-to-take-him-in-my-hands-while-driving-inquest-31595840.html

The article details the outcome of the inquest - death by misadventure. The father blames the airbag for killing the child but it is clear to me that it is the mother who is responsible for the death.

Maybe I'm wrong, I suppose it's possible there is a separate legal prosecution against her but it doesn't sound like it form the article.

Thanks for explaining the case Booyaka. Too many people then?

I'm quite sure that the father was shooting about the air bag killing the baby, because he will sue the insurance company.
I've seen cases before where an unrestrained traveler child suffered bad injuries sure to its own parents crashing the car then they all sued, and in behalf of the child too fit large sums.

The time of anyone bending rules or being in the least sympathetic towards the clergy are long gone, even here in very rural Ireland.

The laws on children being properly restrained in cars are, I think, more rigorous than they are in the UK, for instance a booster seat must be used until the child reaches 150cm tall.

Too many typos there.
They sued on behalf of the child too, though they failed to put her in a car seat, and they caused the crash, they still sued.
Oh well, rest in peace baby.
Better off dead maybe.

Better off dead maybe.

Why?

Better off dead maybe?

Fuck off.

She hasn't been prosecuted, I imagine, because she is not deemed a danger to society, not likely to re-offend, and she's been punished enough by causing the death of her child.

quickly, what a pile of shit. Civil law completely applies to travellers and unless fault on the part of another party could be proven they wouldn't have won. You've just made that up.

"How many priests that were caught speeding and told you this, do you know exactly?"

"The time of anyone bending rules or being in the least sympathetic towards the clergy are long gone, even here in very rural Ireland."

It was a fairly close relative, it was in the last few months, it was, erm, relatively rural. If you want to believe it didn't happen, that's up to you. I was pretty shocked to hear it too. I actually think the priest in question was a bit shocked, he certainly wasn't asking to be let off. If you say that's a real exception and one-off, I'd be happy to accept that (we can hardly do a survey of numbers of priests who've been let off driving offences, we'd be getting into Father Ted kind of territory there). But please don't try to say it couldn't have happened when you can't possibly know that.

I have not made it up
It was widely reported.
But why should a child not be compensated for its injuries when they were accidental?
Why should a father not be compensated for the loss of his baby just because the mother contributed to it?
I'm not saying he should not sue.
I'm simply guessing that he will.

And the child is better off dead maybe, than facing dreadful injuries from an airbag.

It's simply dreadful.

i read all the reports and never read they sued. Are you making this up?

A different case.
A couple of years ago.
Not this family.
Is that clear?
Look mumsnet, you cannot prove me wrong until some years go by without this man suing.

If it was widely reported please can you link to these stories? Google is drawing a blank.

quickly, you don't seem to understand this whole compensation thing. Compensation doesn't come out of nowhere. It comes from the party being sued. And the person suing has to prove that they are at fault for the death/injuries concerned.

So if your car crashes because the breaks are faulty you can sue the car manufacturer. But if your car crashes and nobody is at fault but you there is nobody to sue.

It's very, very unlikely that this father can sue either. The airbag and child seat were being used improperly by the mother so she is at fault, not the manufacturer.

Archfarchnad, I've no problem believing that it happened once but I inferred from your post that you thought it was common and it really isn't.

Now, I'm not a priest (and I don't dress like a priest) but I've recently imported a car and during the last week while the car has had Irish plates but no tax, insurance or NCT disc (because of the threatened post strike) I've been stopped in three separate road blocks and questioned by members of An Garda Síochána who gave me the impression that nothing would make them happier than finding something wrong with my paperwork and imposing a big fine.

I haven't read thebfull thread so someone might have already said this - but if it was the father who had been driving and had the baby in his lap, this thread would be totally different.

Can't believe someone said the baby would be 'better off dead' though. Yuk.

I lived in Ireland in the mid-90s and I vaguely remember being told at the time that you could apply for a series of driving licenses and you were able to drive unacompanied on a provisional licence, seemingly forever.

Was just mulling over whether this could possibly have been true and it seems to have been the case:

"Prior to serious reforms in 2007, many people who drove never completed the process of receiving a full licence - 400,000 people held provisional licences in October 2007 when the new Learner Permit system was introduced. Serious crackdowns and a huge increase in testing facilities have brought this number down heavily.
The reason for the high number of people driving under a Provisional Licence under the old system was because a Provisional Licence holder could drive unaccompanied after obtaining their second Provisional Licence, and many drivers chose this route rather than going through the full testing process. This is system was very unusual - Most countries' provisional/learner licences require a fully qualified driver to accompany a learner."

I wonder if the mother in this scenario even had a valid driving licence.

I'm not buying any of the PND/overtired suggestions, personally, just strikes me that she was a stupid person who made a stupid decision (I formed that view before I heard of her ethnic bakground, before anyone starts..)

Though, while we're on the sugject, I remember arguing with a poster on here probably about 6 years ago because she said it was absolutely fine to take her baby DS out of the car seat on the motorway to change his nappy as she was driving a 4 X 4 with all sorts of safety extras. She was also a stupid person.

I presume quickly means the father will claim against the mothers insurance company on behalf of the child. Not the car manufacturer (or rather, I presume that's what happened in the case she refers to)

So if your car crashes because the breaks are faulty you can sue the car manufacturer. But if your car crashes and nobody is at fault but you there is nobody to sue

That's not strictly true. If the driver is insured it is possible and is done for actions to be raised against the driver on behalf of passengers, even if the passengers are family members.

It is the insurance company who pays out. In theory the claim is subrogated if the company pays out and the insurer could claw back what it paid out from the driver but in practice that is unlikely.

Yes babytook That is it exactly, assuming the mother had insurance.

I don't know how damages are quantified in Ireland but in Scotland one wouldn't get that much for the death of a baby. There are 2 heads - loss of society and patrimonial loss (loss of support). Devastating as this loss is in law the loss of a baby would justify very little under either head.

I feel so bad for that poor little baby, he never stood a chance.
I do think she should have been prosecuted though.
Yes she will have to live with it everyday, but so do others who have killed somebody.
If she had mh problems, so have other killers but nobody says "oh well they will hAve to live with what they have done for the rest of their life"
If she wasn't in the right frame of mind when she made the decision to take him out of his safe baby chair and hold him whilst driving.
People who drink driver aren't in the right frame of mind at the time of accidents, should they not be charged for crimes?
She not only risked her baby's life, but she risked other road users also!
She made a series of reckless decisions that cost her poor baby's life and could have hurt other people.
Not one person is perfect however i don't think you'll find many ( if any) body that the best thing to do to settle a baby isto hold it whilst driving.
I do feel compassion for her, i feel for her whole family, but that doesn't mean i don't think she should be prosecuted.
I hope atleast she will get help so that this or anything like this will never happen again.

This is a truly tragic case.

I agree that the mother should have been prosecuted, as she committed one or more illegal acts. Driving with an unrestrained baby on the drivers lap on the wrong side of the road is completely out of the realm of acceptable or excusable.

The circumstances surrounding what happened, and the tragic loss of her baby's life, should be taken into account at sentencing.

YANBU, she should have pulled over the car, and dealt with the baby.

What on earth was so critically important that she needed to get to the shop? What could not have waited 10, 20, 30 mins while she settled the infant?

How many of us mums have been frustrated as all hell because all we want to do is nip to the shop to pick up X, Y and it's taken an hour and a half because we need to feed, change, settle, car seat, feed again etc etc.

Yes she will feel horrible for ever after, maybe that is punishment enough. But what she did was a criminal act, and the legal system cannot be deployed on a pick n mix basis.

I read an article yesterday from another thread (will try to find it) where a mother was prosecuted and sentenced to 5 yrs imprisonment after her 2yo DS drowned in the family pond, while she was on Facebook. Is this really any different? Dead child as a result of poor parenting decisions?

As Lass says, innocent passengers can bring an action against the negligent driver and receive damages from their motor insurer under civil law.
A claim could be made on behalf of the deceased baby against its mother and, if she has insurance, they will pay.
I'm not saying this is what is happening but it's perfectly legitimate.

I think if this woman wasn't a traveller she'd have been jailed and rightly so.

What she did is no better than driving drunk. Incredibly stupid and irresponsible. Blaming the airbag is fucking ludicrous.