The Court of Appeal has set aside a High Court finding that Bill Tuohy was partly responsible for a 2012 collision with Samantha Ahearne at a junction in Clonmel, and dismissed Ahearne’s proceedings for damages.
In a judgment delivered on 29 November 2017, Mr Justice Michael Peart said there was no proper evidential basis for finding Tuohy negligent. The court allowed his appeal and set aside the High Court order. It did not address his separate appeals over damages and costs because they were unnecessary in light of that conclusion.
Ahearne had been driving from Glenconnor Road onto Western Road on 4 October 2012 when Tuohy’s vehicle struck the rear side of her car. She said she saw his car approaching from the right but considered it far enough away to move into the junction. Tuohy said she pulled out in front of him when he was close to the junction, and that he could not avoid the collision despite braking.
The High Court found Tuohy negligent, but also found Ahearne significantly contributorily negligent, assigning one third of liability to Tuohy and two thirds to Ahearne. It assessed damages at €61,360 before apportionment and entered judgment against Tuohy for €20,453. The court also made a differential costs order and awarded costs on the Circuit Court scale.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal examined the trial judge’s reasons for finding Tuohy negligent. The High Court judge had accepted that Tuohy was within the 50 km/h speed limit, but concluded he was probably driving too fast and had not paid enough attention to likely movements on the road. The judge also treated a traffic island and signs near the junction as a traffic-calming measure requiring Tuohy to moderate his driving.
The Court of Appeal said there was no evidence establishing that the island and signs were a traffic-calming measure imposing an extra obligation to slow down. It also found no evidential basis for the conclusions that Tuohy was driving too fast or was not paying enough attention. The trial judge had not made findings about how far away Tuohy was when Ahearne began moving, or whether she took four seconds to reach the point of impact—details the engineers’ speed calculations depended on.
Peart said the supported findings that the speed limit was 50 km/h and Tuohy had not exceeded it could not, without more, sustain a finding of negligence. The appeal was allowed and the proceedings dismissed.