The Court of Appeal varied the High Court’s apportionment of liability for a 2012 crash, assigning 80% to Darren Hurney and 20% to John Briggs. It allowed Briggs’s appeal to that extent, while leaving in place the findings that both men were negligent.
Eoghan Gough was a back-seat passenger in a Honda Civic driven by Hurney on the Monivea to Galway road on 14 July 2012. Gough was not wearing a seatbelt and was thrown from the car when it crashed into a stone wall. The parties had agreed that Gough was 25% contributorily negligent; the appeal concerned the division of liability between the two defendants.
Hurney, who was 18, was driving on a provisional licence without a fully licensed driver. He accepted that he had been travelling at 96 kilometres per hour in an 80 kilometre-per-hour zone and overtook Briggs’s van across an unbroken white line. Hurney pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court to careless driving causing harm.
The High Court found that Briggs had not checked his mirrors before turning right into his property and had not indicated. It apportioned liability equally between the two men. On appeal, Briggs argued that those findings lacked an evidential basis and, alternatively, that the apportionment was not properly reasoned.
The Court of Appeal found credible evidence supporting the findings about Briggs’s mirrors and indicators, and declined to interfere with them. It also held that Briggs bore responsibility: he was making a lawful turn in a negligent and unlawful manner, and checking his mirrors and indicating might have prevented the emergency.
However, the appeal court said the High Court had not explained why it chose an equal division. It found Hurney’s conduct more serious, citing his unaccompanied provisional driving, excessive speed, inability to stop in time and prohibited overtaking. The court described speed and overtaking as major causes of the crash and concluded that equal liability was not just and equitable.
Rather than send the case back for a rehearing, the Court of Appeal made its own assessment on the facts found at trial. It substituted an 80:20 division in favour of Briggs and varied the High Court order accordingly.