The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Michael McDaid, Charles McDaid and McDaid Quarries Limited against a €453,000 damages award to David McLaughlin for injuries sustained at a quarry in Donegal.
The appeal challenged the High Court’s refusal to dismiss the claim under section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, and argued that the damages were excessive. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision and left the award in place.
Mr McLaughlin was 17 when, on 26 June 2003, a 55-tonne track excavator ran over his right foot at a quarry at Crislaghkeel, Burnfoot. The High Court found that he was working for McDaid Quarries and that the defendants had failed to provide proper training, supervision and communication. The injury led to the amputation of his toes and the distal half of his foot. He later returned to full-time work using a prosthesis.
The original 2006 statement of claim said a lorry had caused the injury. It was later amended to say a digger was responsible. The Court of Appeal accepted that Mr McLaughlin’s verifying affidavit for the original claim was materially false and misleading, and that section 26(2) was engaged. That provision required dismissal unless dismissal would cause injustice.
The court upheld the High Court judge’s decision that dismissal would be unjust. The High Court had found that Mr McLaughlin was young and vulnerable, and had acted under the influence of the second and third defendants, whom the judgment identified as Michael and Charles McDaid. It found that they had created and promoted the false lorry account to secure insurance cover for their potential liability. The Court of Appeal held that these findings, based substantially on the trial judge’s assessment of witnesses, supported the decision to allow the amended claim to proceed.
The court also rejected the damages challenge. The High Court had awarded €100,000 for pain and suffering to trial, €150,000 for future pain and suffering, €3,000 for past special damages and €200,000 for future aids and appliances. The Court of Appeal found the awards supported by the evidence and proportionate to the severe, permanent injury.
The court dismissed the appeals. Its review was of the High Court decision on the evidence available at that trial; it rejected an application to adjourn for a later criminal investigation, noting that material emerging after the High Court judgment was not admissible on appeal without special leave.