The High Court has rejected a contribution claim against a bus driver and Gallogly Transport Limited over a collision that left a 14-year-old girl with very serious head injuries. The claim was brought by the first and second defendants after the girl’s action against them had settled for €2,223,660, with court approval.
The collision happened shortly before 2am on 17 April 2004, outside the home of one of the girl’s friends at Carrickavogher, Aughavas, County Leitrim. The girl and two friends had travelled home from a disco on a bus driven by the third defendant. After they got off, the bus began moving away. The girl was struck by a car driven by the first defendant as she crossed the road. Because of her injuries, she could not give evidence.
The first and second defendants alleged that the bus driver and transport company were negligent. They argued, among other things, that the bus should have pulled into the house’s forecourt, that the driver should have warned the girls about crossing, and that he should have waited until they had crossed before moving off.
Justice O’Neill considered conflicting evidence about how far the bus had travelled when the collision occurred. He preferred the evidence of a passenger and one of the girls that the bus and car had passed about 60 metres from the impact point. He found that the first defendant should have switched back to full headlights after passing the bus, and that his alcohol consumption likely slowed his visual recovery in the darkness. The judge said the first defendant had failed to see the girl who crossed ahead of the plaintiff.
The judge found that stopping the bus where it did was as safe as could be achieved in the circumstances. Pulling into the forecourt and then rejoining the road would have created a serious hazard for traffic from Carrigallen and a significant hazard for traffic from Mohill. He also found that the driver had no duty to give the teenagers road-safety instructions after they had left the bus. Keeping the bus in place until they crossed could itself have obscured their view of traffic and made them less visible to approaching drivers.
The court concluded that neither the driver nor the transport company was negligent. The first and second defendants were therefore not entitled to a contribution from them towards their liability to the plaintiff. The ruling determined that contribution claim; the plaintiff’s action against the first and second defendants had already been settled.