The High Court has rejected appeals by two plaintiffs who sought damages for injuries they said followed a minor traffic contact in Clonmel, finding that they had not proved the incident occurred as they claimed or caused their alleged injuries.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Twomey on 15 December 2022, concerned a 2018 incident in stationary traffic on Emmet Street. The defendant accepted that his car had touched the first plaintiff’s car and that he had been negligent. The dispute was about the contact’s effects and the plaintiffs’ injury claims.
The judge found the defendant credible and accepted his account that he had moved off from behind the first plaintiff’s car, made contact, apologised, and left after the parties said they were fine. Garda Con O’Leary, who examined the car that day, saw no damage. The court preferred his evidence over the plaintiffs’ conflicting accounts of damage to the bumper.
The judgment identified inconsistencies in the first plaintiff’s accounts, including statements about car damage, the defendant allegedly leaving the scene, and whether airbags deployed. The court also considered her account of previous injuries and psychiatric treatment. It concluded that these matters, alongside other credibility concerns, undermined her evidence about the incident and her claimed injuries. The court said the second plaintiff’s claim relied substantially on her sister’s account and also found her recollection unreliable.
The judge criticised the first plaintiff’s solicitor for referring her directly to an orthopaedic surgeon and a psychiatrist, including a later second psychiatric consultation, to support her damages claim. Citing earlier High Court judgments, he said solicitor referrals to specialists without a medical basis were inappropriate. The court said the referrals contributed to its doubts about the first plaintiff’s credibility. It did not decide whether the resulting medical reports were admissible, leaving that question for a future case. The judgment also criticised the use of engineering evidence in this case as unnecessary and of little or no assistance.
The High Court agreed with the Circuit Court’s decision and rejected both appeals. It was minded to award costs to the defendant, but said it would make that order unless a party notified the Registrar within one month that they wished to argue for a different costs order.