The High Court dismissed a man’s personal injury claim against a coach company and a motorist after finding that his own actions caused a collision on the N6 motorway in 2007.
In a judgment delivered on 2 December 2011, Ms Justice Irvine found no actionable negligence by either defendant. She said the plaintiff was solely responsible for entering the fast lane, where he was struck by a car while trying to reach the hard shoulder. The judgment records no damages award or other order beyond the dismissal of the claims.
The plaintiff had travelled to Tullamore with members of St Kevin’s Football Club. On the return journey, the coach driver stopped on the motorway hard shoulder after passengers asked to use the toilet, which was locked. The plaintiff said he got off to relieve himself, helped his young son back onto the coach, then got off again. He claimed the coach left without him despite his efforts to stop it.
He said he set off along the motorway towards Dublin, hoping to catch the coach or find an emergency phone. He was struck as he ran towards the hard shoulder. He suffered fractures to his pelvis and sacrum and a serious cut to his elbow, spent two weeks in hospital and used crutches for 16 weeks, the judgment recounts. He alleged negligence by the coach company and by the car’s driver, including that she had failed to keep a proper lookout.
The judge found the coach had not been hired with a toilet facility. She accepted the driver’s evidence that the toilet had not been prepared for use and had been locked. Although stopping on the hard shoulder breached the Rules of the Road and may have breached public service vehicle regulations, the judge found the driver’s decision reasonable in the circumstances. She also found he had no duty to count passengers back onto the coach.
The judge said the plaintiff was responsible for ensuring the coach did not leave without him. She found he was negligent in moving onto the motorway’s fast lane, and that this alone put him in the path of traffic.
The second defendant was driving at 90 to 100 kilometres per hour with dipped headlights. The judge accepted that oncoming traffic made dipped lights reasonable. She was not satisfied the driver could have stopped in time, even if she had been travelling more slowly or using full beam. The court therefore found no actionable negligence by her either.
The judgment also records the judge’s doubts about the plaintiff’s account of his alcohol consumption and his earnings claim. These were among the matters considered in assessing his evidence; the court’s liability conclusion rested on its findings about the collision and the parties’ conduct.