The High Court has dismissed Kellie Quinlivan’s claim for damages against the Motor Insurers’ Bureau of Ireland over a 2015 crash on a road between Borris-in-Ossory and Rathdowney in County Laois.
Ms Quinlivan was the sole occupant and driver of the car. She was a learner driver and was travelling unaccompanied, which she accepted was unlawful. She claimed that diesel on the road caused her car to skid and hit a bridge, and that the spill resulted from the negligent use of a vehicle by an unidentified driver.
The court found on the balance of probabilities that the crash was not caused by diesel. It accepted Garda Greene’s evidence that he found diesel on the flat top, or apex, of the bridge, but not on the road leading up to it. Photographs taken by the Garda shortly after the crash supported his account. The court preferred this evidence, along with accounts recorded shortly after the incident, to evidence given at trial about six years later.
Ms Quinlivan’s account to the court placed the skid on the approach to the bridge. In a statement to Gardaí 24 days after the crash, however, she said the car lost control around the middle of the bridge. The judge considered the earlier account more likely to be accurate. Engineering evidence for the Bureau put a suitable speed for the wet road at 40 km/h; Ms Quinlivan had said she was travelling at about 50 km/h. The judge also noted that the engineering evidence that the small amount of diesel on her side of the bridge could not have caused the crash was unchallenged.
The judge considered an alternative basis for dismissal: even if diesel had caused the crash, Ms Quinlivan had not provided evidence that the spill was caused by negligence. Applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Rothwell v MIBI, the judge said a spill could occur with or without negligence, and negligence could not be presumed in these circumstances. The court held that the change in the relevant agreement’s wording from “negligent driving” to “negligent use” did not remove the need to prove negligence.
The court therefore dismissed the damages claim on both grounds. It did not make final orders in the judgment. Instead, it asked the parties to try to agree outstanding matters and gave them liberty to return to court one week later, if necessary.