The High Court has dismissed a fatal injury claim brought after a 2013 collision near Raheenaskeagh, Co Wexford, finding that the evidence did not establish wrongdoing by the defendant.
Mr Justice Coffey delivered judgment on 26 April 2022 in a claim brought by Caroline O’Brien for the benefit of the deceased’s statutory dependants, including her son Jason. The action followed the death of Cara Leah O’Brien, aged 23, on 3 October 2013. She had been driving a Honda Integra that collided with a Saab Convertible driven by Oliver Nuzum.
The collision happened on the middle straight section of an S bend. Both impacts occurred on the Saab’s side of the road, and the Honda was rotating sideways before impact. The defendant was seriously injured and had no reliable memory of the incident. There were no other witnesses to the collision.
The plaintiff advanced two explanations for liability. Her engineer suggested it was possible that the defendant had crossed onto the wrong side of the road, creating an emergency that caused the deceased to take evasive action. The judge rejected that account as unsupported by circumstantial evidence and less probable than the Garda collision investigator’s explanation that the deceased lost control while negotiating the bend.
The judge found on the balance of probabilities that the deceased entered the bend above the 80km/h speed limit, having overtaken another driver shortly before the crash. He said that speed could have contributed to her losing control. The court’s finding addressed the available evidence; there were no witnesses who could describe how the collision unfolded.
The plaintiff also argued that the defendant should have taken evasive action. The judge found no reliable evidence showing when the defendant first saw the Honda, where he was at that point, or how much time he had to react. He concluded that the approaching car’s sideways rotation created a sudden and life-threatening emergency, with no clear escape route that the defendant could reasonably have identified in the time available. The court therefore found it would be unfair to find him at fault for failing to avoid the collision.
The plaintiff had also amended her case to allege that the defendant was using his mobile phone and distracted at the time. The judge found that the collision probably occurred at about 10:02, after the defendant’s outgoing call ended at 09:58:52. He concluded that the defendant was not using or distracted by his phone at the time; the court did not need to determine whether a hands-free kit was in the car or how it worked.
The judge dismissed the claim, concluding that the evidence fell short of establishing that the defendant caused or contributed to the death. The judgment does not award the damages sought.