Judgment: 2022-10-20 · Court archive

High Court awards €30,000 after accepting Waterford pavement fall caused wrist injury

The court found that Jason McCarthy tripped on a pavement lip in 2015 and injured his left wrist. It assessed damages at €35,000, then made a consent order for €30,000 and costs.

High Court · [2022] IEHC 650

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Jason McCarthy (Plaintiff)
  • Waterford City Council (Defendant)
  • Tony O’Connor (Judge)
  • James Delaney
What

The court found that Jason McCarthy tripped on a pavement lip in 2015 and injured his left wrist. It assessed damages at €35,000, then made a consent order for €30,000 and costs.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Waterford
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 17 October 2022; 2 February 2015

    The judge assessed general damages at €21,000 for the period from 2 February 2015 to 17 October 2022, including the operation, and €14,000 for future pain, suffering and restriction in the non-dominant hand with scarring: €35,000 in total.

  • 1 February 2015

    The High Court accepted that Jason McCarthy tripped over a pavement lip outside his father-in-law’s dwelling in a fall on 1 February 2015, causing a fracture to his left wrist. Waterford City Council accepted liability after the court found the fall and injury had occurred as described.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court accepted that Jason McCarthy tripped over a pavement lip outside his father-in-law’s dwelling in a fall on 1 February 2015, causing a fracture to his left wrist. Waterford City Council accepted liability after the court found the fall and injury had occurred as described.

The High Court accepted that Jason McCarthy tripped over a pavement lip outside his father-in-law’s dwelling in a fall on 1 February 2015, causing a fracture to his left wrist. Waterford City Council accepted liability after the court found the fall and injury had occurred as described.

Mr Justice Tony O’Connor delivered judgment at Waterford Courthouse on 20 October 2022. The case had opened on 17 October. The judge said the evidence of Mr McCarthy, his wife and his father-in-law, James Delaney, satisfied him that the fall happened. Mr Delaney saw Mr McCarthy immediately afterwards, but did not witness the trip itself.

The council accepted that the pavement lip resulted from poor compaction beneath the surface and that visual inspection would have identified it, allowing repairs. The judge considered challenges to the timing and circumstances of the fall, including an inaccurate date in the personal injuries paperwork and questions about the plaintiff’s account. He found those matters did not undermine the witnesses’ evidence enough to disbelieve them.

The central issue was whether the fall caused the wrist injury. Hospital records from the morning after the fall did not record a complaint about the left wrist, and the judge noted that Mr McCarthy’s recollection of his pain, treatment and medical visits was patchy. However, he found on the balance of probabilities that the fall caused the injury. The court considered medical evidence describing a scaphoid fracture, surgery with a bone graft in 2016, continuing pain and reduced movement. The judgment also noted that the fracture appeared to have united, that the plaintiff had little recollection of the injury’s effects, and that it did not significantly affect his current day-to-day interests.

The judge assessed general damages at €21,000 for the period from 2 February 2015 to 17 October 2022, including the operation, and €14,000 for future pain, suffering and restriction in the non-dominant hand with scarring: €35,000 in total.

After judgment, the court recorded that counsel had agreed a final order on all issues. By consent, it ordered the council to pay Mr McCarthy €30,000, together with costs on the Circuit Court scale, including reserved and discovery costs, to be adjudicated if the parties could not agree. The order was therefore for €30,000 plus costs, rather than the €35,000 damages assessment.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review