A Court of Appeal judge would allow an appeal in part by finding the plaintiff 20% contributorily negligent, while leaving the High Court’s €160,968 damages award intact before that deduction. Woulfe J. said the resulting net decree would be €128,774.
The judgment, delivered on 9 December 2021, records a difference of opinion among the appeal judges. Woulfe J. agreed with Noonan J. that the plaintiff had not reduced his speed when he and the defendant first saw one another. But he considered that the plaintiff’s failure to brake sooner was mitigated by being confronted with a “wall of light” as he came around a bend. He said the lights would, on the balance of probabilities, have disorientated the plaintiff and slowed his decision-making. Woulfe J. therefore favoured a 20% deduction, rather than the one-third contribution proposed by Noonan J.
Woulfe J. disagreed with Noonan J. on the damages appeal. He assessed that the plaintiff’s general damages would be €140,000: €70,000 for pain and suffering to date, €40,000 for future pain and suffering, and €30,000 for loss of job opportunity. However, he concluded that this assessment was not sufficiently different from the High Court’s award of €155,000 in general damages to justify appellate intervention. He would not interfere with the High Court’s total award of €160,968, but would apply the 20% deduction for contributory negligence.
The plaintiff was 21 at the time of the November 2014 collision. He suffered a serious fracture of the left kneecap and a less serious fracture of the right clavicle. The judgment recounts several knee procedures, continuing pain and stiffness, and medical opinions that symptoms were unlikely to improve further. The plaintiff completed his electrician apprenticeship but said he could not continue in that career because of knee pain. He also could no longer play Gaelic football.
This judgment is Woulfe J.’s separate opinion. It adopts Noonan J.’s account of the facts, evidence and trial findings, but differs on both the proposed contributory-negligence percentage and the appeal concerning damages. The source provided here does not include the other judgments or state the Court of Appeal’s final order; Woulfe J.’s proposed net decree should not be read as the court’s final disposition.