Month: May 2019

€150,000 Hot Chocolate Ryanair Accident Compensation for Girl (8)

A personal injury compensation claim against Ryanair ,in relation to an eight-year-old girl who sustained second-degree scald burns when a cup of hot chocolate fell on her, has been settled for an approved award of €150,000.

The girl, American Sriya Venkata Neti was on a flight from Rome to Krakow with her parents when the hot liquid and the paper cup slipped on top of her as she took a drink of the hot chocolate.

Taking the legal action through her father Srinivas Neti, Sriya sued Ryanair over the accident that happened on the Rome to Krakow flight on June 25, 2016.

The young girl suffered burns to her thighs and buttocks and as as well as some scarring, the court was informed. Srinivas Neti submitted an affidavit to the court, which said that the scarring has now substantially healed. He also informed the court that his daughter has made a good recovery and the condition of her injuries has greatly improved.

Sriya’s legal representative Hugh Mohan SC told the High Court the little girl suffered serious burns.  A medical report handed in to the court said the hot liquid gathered on the seat causing extreme burning pain and the child’s mother had to release the child from her safety belt on the seat and her clothing had to be removed. Her mother said that daughter’s skin was gone from where the liquid landed and blisters were forming in other places.

When they arrived in Krakow the girl was airlifted to hospital and was then sent to to Toronto, Canada where she spent eight days being treated as an outpatient before returning home to California.

As part of the legal action it was claimed that the failure of the cabin crew to take action lead to the burns suffered being worse than they initially would have been. In particular, it was claimed that there was no efforts made to try and provide any or any appropriate means of cooling the burns. Ryanair refuted the allegations that were made in the legal action.

Presiding Judge Justice Justice Kevin Cross approved the the settlement, telling the Court that it must have been very painful when Sriya was scalded and also pointed to the fact that the young girl has also been left with bad wounds scarring despite making a good recovery to date.

 

Birth Negligence Compensation Action of €60,000 Heard in High Court

A 15-year-old boy who alleges that he sustained a wound to his face during when his mother giving birth to him via Cesarean Section in 2003 has filed a €60,000 birth injury compensation action against the master of the National Maternity Hospital and Dr Stephen Carroll, the surgeon who operated on his mother.

Through his barrister Mark O’Connell Rory Saunders and his mother Noeleen Saunders, of Silchester Park, Glenageary, informed Circuit Court President Justice Raymond Groarke that his cheek was lacerated during the delivery.

The Cesarean section compensation action was taken, Mr O’Connell told Justice Groarke, due to the consequences of the steps taken at the time of Rory’s birth on September 9, 2003. It is claimed that the scalpel employed in the procedure by Dr Carroll cut Rory’s left cheek. Following the deliverythe wound was cleaned and Steri-Strips were applied.

Rory now has a permanent 2.5cm scar on his cheek, which can be seen when standing close to him. The wound, Judge Groarke was told, is more visible during the summer season. In addition to this, the scar has become a source of stress for Rory due to negative teasing and mocking at school and among his friends.

Dr Carroll, who is a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist and a specialist in high-risk pregnancies, and the National Maternity Hospital denied the claims in relation to medical negligence. Specialist plastic surgeon Matt McHugh said that he felt that the laceration was not going to improve in the future.

Judge Groarke was provided with the medical reports of two renowned consultants during proceedings and was also informed that a birth injury compensation offer of €25,000 had been made to Rory.

Judge Groarke stated that he was not content with the compensation offer before the court and remarked that one medical report appeared to give “a very blunt view” on the issue. The Judge said that be believed that the specialist in question, who had not seen his colleague’s medical report before giving his opinion, should be asked to further review the other medical report to see if there was any new considerations for him.

The Cesarean section compensation hearing was adjourned to for more time for the medical reports to be considered by all parties.