The High Court has ordered separate trials of liability and damages in a personal injury action arising from a 2007 road traffic accident, citing the complexity of medical evidence and the disputed question of liability.
Mr Justice Ryan made the order under Order 36, rule 9 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. He said the rule did not require a case to involve exceptional complexity or multiple defendants, and that the decision was a matter for the court’s discretion.
The judgment says the plaintiff’s pleaded injuries include severe head injuries and disabling organic brain damage. The plaintiff had been made a Ward of Court in 2009. The case also involves a previous road traffic accident in 2000, in which the plaintiff appears to have suffered serious injuries, including a major head injury, according to reports referred to in a discovery request letter. The judgment records that the plaintiff recovered €257,000 in general damages for that earlier accident.
For the defendant, counsel argued that hearing liability first could avoid the cost and effort of calling medical witnesses if the plaintiff did not establish negligence. If liability were established, a later hearing could focus on the extent and causes of the injuries and continuing disability. The plaintiff’s counsel argued for the usual approach of hearing both issues together, saying a second hearing would delay any award.
The judge accepted the application, finding that the medical evidence was complex and its relevance depended on the outcome of the liability question. He said a liability decision could also help the parties reach agreement on damages, subject to court approval. If the plaintiff succeeds, the court could consider an interim payment based on agreed medical facts or the defendant’s reports, and an expedited hearing of medical issues. Any medical witness with relevant evidence on liability could still be called at that hearing.
The order separates the trials of liability and damages. It does not decide whether the defendant was negligent or determine the amount of any damages. The case was listed for hearing on 18 April 2012. The supplied judgment text ends mid-sentence after describing the judge’s view that separate trials can make sense in cases involving complex or lengthy technical, scientific or medical evidence.