Judgment: 2022-11-30 · Court archive

High Court awards €64,104 over worker’s permanent finger injury

The court assessed damages after the employer failed to appear, accepting the worker’s evidence about lasting pain and restricted movement in his left index finger.

High Court · [2022] IEHC 665

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Joe Curran Commercials Ltd (Defendant)
What

The court assessed damages after the employer failed to appear, accepting the worker’s evidence about lasting pain and restricted movement in his left index finger.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Dundalk
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The court also accepted that the injury had left him unfit for his pre-accident work as a spray painter for one year. He told the court he had not worked since the accident, but limited his lost earnings claim to that first year because he and his wife later decided he would stay home to care for their children while she worked full time.

The High Court awarded a worker €64,104 in damages for a permanent injury to his left index finger, after assessing damages in the employer’s absence.

The injury happened on 16 October 2019 while the plaintiff was carrying out sandblasting work for Joe Curran Commercials Ltd. He was holding a pipe when its supporting bracket broke and the pipe moved, leaving his hand in the path of the sandblasting machine. The blast caused a deep laceration that cut into the extensor tendon of his index finger.

The plaintiff’s case was that he had not been trained to use the machine and had not been given protective gloves. The judgment records these as his claims; it does not make findings on them.

He underwent surgery to repair the tendon the day after the accident and wore a splint until December 2019. He later completed eight to 10 physiotherapy sessions. Medical evidence described continuing stiffness and pain, particularly in cold weather, and reduced flexion in the finger. At a review in July 2022, the medical consultant found an approximately 66% loss of flexion and considered further improvement unlikely.

The court said the plaintiff’s evidence matched the complaints he had made to the consultant and that he had not exaggerated his pain or disability. It accepted that his restricted movement and function would be permanent. The plaintiff was right-hand dominant.

The court also accepted that the injury had left him unfit for his pre-accident work as a spray painter for one year. He told the court he had not worked since the accident, but limited his lost earnings claim to that first year because he and his wife later decided he would stay home to care for their children while she worked full time.

The plaintiff began proceedings in March 2021. After the company failed to enter an appearance, the High Court entered judgment against it in default on 29 November 2021. The company also did not appear at the hearing in Dundalk on 28 November 2022. Having regard to the earlier order and proof that notice of the hearing had been served, the court proceeded to assess damages.

The court awarded €25,000 for pain and suffering to date and €22,500 for future pain and suffering and disablement. It allowed €1,680 for medical and travel expenses and €14,924 for lost earnings, net of deductible social welfare benefits. The total award was €64,104.

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