The Court of Appeal reduced a damages award to €50,287.70 for a young woman injured in a 2019 car crash, finding the High Court’s general damages award was disproportionate and made without proper regard to the Personal Injuries Guidelines.
In a judgment delivered on 20 June 2024, Mr Justice Noonan, with whom Justices Binchy and Meenan agreed, allowed the defendants’ appeal to the extent that it substituted a new award. The appeal concerned the amount of damages, not liability. The High Court had found the plaintiff 15% contributorily negligent because she was not wearing a seatbelt, and that finding was not appealed.
The plaintiff was 15 and an unrestrained rear passenger when the driver lost control on a bend, struck a tree and rolled the car into a field. She suffered cuts, a head injury, dental damage, back and neck pain, mild tinnitus and psychological symptoms. The Court of Appeal described the psychological injury, diagnosed as an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, as the most significant injury. The medical evidence characterised its effects as mild, with no occupational or recreational impairment, and estimated full recovery within three years of the crash with treatment. The plaintiff had not received mental health treatment by the trial.
The High Court awarded €45,000 for the psychological injury to the trial date and €10,000 for the future, then added €30,000 for other injuries and €10,000 for future effects. With €4,162 in agreed special damages, the total before contributory negligence was €99,162.
The appeal court assessed the psychological injury at €35,000. It valued the spinal soft-tissue injury at €15,000, dental damage at €5,000, tinnitus at €3,000, scarring at €5,000 and the head injury at €2,000. It discounted the €30,000 total for these other injuries by one third to account for overlap, producing general damages of €55,000. Adding special damages gave €59,162 before the 15% reduction for contributory negligence and a net award of €50,287.70.
The court said the High Court award was so disproportionate that it amounted to an error of law. It also found the High Court had not referred to the Guidelines or explained any departure from them. The judgment noted that neither party had referred the trial judge to the Guidelines or relevant authorities. The appeal court directed the defendants to file written submissions on appeal costs within 14 days, with the plaintiff to respond within a further 14 days. It did not determine appeal costs in this judgment.