The Court of Appeal reduced the damages awarded to Sarah Quinn in a personal injury action from €219,750 to €184,750, allowing the defendants’ appeal to the extent set out in its judgment. It replaced the High Court’s general damages award with €175,000 and left the €9,750 special damages award unchanged.
The appeal concerned damages, not the underlying accident. Quinn was injured in a road traffic collision on 2 July 2013 while travelling as a front seat passenger. The High Court had awarded €210,000 in general damages, plus €9,750 in special damages, and costs.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had not adequately explained how he assessed the separate injuries or why he deducted €100,000 from an initial €310,000 general damages figure. It also held that a separate €50,000 award for the “horrendous” nature of the accident could not stand as compensation distinct from the injuries. The appeal court said it could not presume the original general damages figure was correct and undertook its own review of the evidence.
The court considered injuries to Quinn’s bowel and right wrist, her psychological injuries, and the permanent scar from abdominal surgery. It accepted the colorectal surgeon’s opinion that her ongoing abdominal symptoms may be related to adhesions and that she may face future bowel obstruction and treatment. It placed the bowel injury at the upper end of the Book of Quantum’s severe and permanent conditions band. The wrist injury was also assessed within a severe to permanent conditions band, with account taken of possible future deterioration and surgery. The court found that her psychological injuries had been significant but that she had largely recovered by the end of 2016, with possible lingering anxiety.
The €175,000 general damages award comprises €135,000 for pain and suffering to the date of judgment and €40,000 for pain and suffering into the future. The court said the assessment reflected the combined injuries and the medical and other evidence. It also noted that the High Court’s award was not grossly disproportionate under the applicable test, despite the errors in its reasoning and methodology.
The court invited the parties to make submissions on appeal costs within 21 days. Its judgment did not make a final costs order.