An 11-year-old lad, Rayed Khan, has successfully resolved a High Court action for a total of €17,500. However, after deducting court costs and fees related his personal injury lawsuit, he will only receive €8,000. The lawsuit was against South Dublin County Council, which agreed to a settlement but did not admit any guilt.
Rayed sustained a fractured finger due to a loose gully grate that dropped onto his hand. At the time of the occurrence in 2018, Rayed was merely a five-year-old playing with his sister and a friend. They had been using a colouring marker when it accidentally fell into a roadside gully near their residence. Upon lifting the grate to reclaim the marker, it unexpectedly dropped onto Rayed’s hand, resulting in injuries.
His mother, Aziza El Jarrari, represented him in the case against South Dublin County Council. She claimed negligence on the part of the council for failing to secure the gully and ensure the safety of road users, particularly minors.
The bone of contention in the suit was whether or not the gully grate was supposed to be locked. It was later revealed that a local code of practice for drainage works in Dublin advises against the use of lockable grates due to the problems they often present during flooding.
Despite denying the allegations, the council agreed to a settlement of €17,500, inclusive of all costs. His lawyer, Maura McNally, also clarified that more than €9,400 will be incurred as legal expenses, which will leave Rayed with €8,007. This balance will be paid into court, kept in trust until he turns 18.
Rayed was initially treated in hospital for a displaced fracture due to the accident that happened on the 25th of March, 2018.
The open reduction surgical procedure had been crucial, which necessitated the insertion of wires to rectify his misaligned finger. A three-day hospitalisation was required, during which he received pain medication and antibiotics.
A fortnight in, the sutures and wires were extracted, followed by a need for physiotherapy. The settlement received approval by Mr Justice O’Higgins. The judge remarked that the recovery of the lad was exceptionally swift. He emphasised that the entire dispute revolved around responsibility. He was of the viewpoint that they could not surpass the issues of responsibility and there was a distinct possibility of the lawsuit being dismissed if brought to trial.