The Court of Appeal reduced the damages awarded to a man injured when a hotel lift crashed in Killarney, substituting a total judgment of €383,649, including special damages. It assessed his general damages at €250,000, down from €375,000 awarded by the High Court.
The defendants’ appeal was confined to general damages for pain and suffering and loss of employment opportunity. Liability was not in issue. The High Court had awarded €125,000 for pain and suffering to date, €175,000 for future pain and suffering and €75,000 for loss of opportunity.
The man was injured in July 2011 when a lift carrying him and family members from an underground car park at the Killarney Plaza Hotel failed to dock, dropped and then crashed three floors. He suffered fractures to his back, left ankle and right heel, as well as knee injuries and psychological trauma. He was unable to return to work for about eight months and took about two years to resume full-time work.
The Court of Appeal acknowledged the severity of the injuries and the pain, trauma and disruption in the years after the accident. It also noted that he made a substantial recovery, returned to a successful career and was living a normal life with some continuing pain and limitations. The court considered that future surgery was virtually certain for his right knee, while a left knee procedure was possible but a total replacement was not probable.
The judgment explained that awards for multiple injuries must reflect their combined effect while remaining proportionate to awards for other injuries and to the maximum for the most serious cases. It said individual injury figures should not simply be added together. The court concluded that €300,000 for pain and suffering was disproportionate and set that award at €200,000: €125,000 for suffering to date and €75,000 for the future.
It also reduced the loss-of-opportunity award from €75,000 to €50,000. The court accepted that the accident had prevented him competing for promotion for a period and had limited his later employment choices, including travel-intensive work. It rejected the argument that this award should cover earnings lost during future knee surgery, saying there was no evidence he would lose pay while off work.
The appeal was allowed to that extent. The court directed the parties to file written submissions on costs within six weeks; it did not determine costs in this judgment.