Judgment: 2002-04-26 · Court archive

Supreme Court orders retrial of fatal Athlone-Roscommon road crash case

Supreme Court · [2002] IESC 29

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Theresa Furey
  • James Furey
  • Hans Otto Suckau
What

Supreme Court orders retrial of fatal Athlone-Roscommon road crash case

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Main Athlone-Roscommon road
  • Athlone
  • Roscommon
  • High Court
  • Supreme Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court had found both drivers negligent. It apportioned liability 80% against Mr Furey and 20% against Mr Suckau. Damages on full liability had been agreed at £247,000, leaving an award of £49,400 after the liability reduction.

The Supreme Court has ordered a retrial of a fatal road collision case involving Defence Forces Sergeant James Furey, who was killed near Kiltoom on the main Athlone-Roscommon road.

Mr Furey died after his Astra collided with a camper van driven by Hans Otto Suckau at the junction for the Hodson Bay Hotel. His widow, Theresa Furey, sued on behalf of herself and the other dependants.

The High Court had found both drivers negligent. It apportioned liability 80% against Mr Furey and 20% against Mr Suckau. Damages on full liability had been agreed at £247,000, leaving an award of £49,400 after the liability reduction.

Mr Suckau and his wife, the only eyewitnesses able to recall the collision, said their camper van was stationary near the centre line and that Mr Furey's car approached at very high speed, partly across the centre of the road. The High Court accepted excessive speed as a major cause and found the camper van had encroached by about three feet into Mr Furey's carriageway.

On appeal, Mrs Furey challenged findings about the point of impact and the position and movement of the camper van. Her experts argued that the final position of the vehicles, particularly the camper van having spun around and crossed the road, supported a collision much further into Mr Furey's side of the road.

Mr Justice Hardiman said the High Court was entitled to find that Mr Furey had been travelling excessively fast and that the camper van was stationary. However, he found that the trial judgment did not address the significant dispute between the engineers about the point of impact or potentially related gouge marks on the road.

The Supreme Court also noted ambiguity in evidence about the camper van's damage and criticised the incomplete preservation of maps, sketches and photographs used at trial.

The High Court order was therefore set aside and the case remitted for retrial. The Supreme Court stressed that a retrial might ultimately produce the same result, but all relevant evidence had to be considered.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review