The Court of Appeal has changed the apportionment of liability in Patricia Moore’s personal injuries case, finding Advanced Tyre Company Limited, trading as Advanced Pit Stop, 60% liable for injuries she suffered in a 2013 collision. The court left unchanged the High Court’s €60,000 award of general damages.
Ms Moore was cycling past the company’s garage in Swords, County Dublin, on 2 May 2013, while roadworks had reduced the adjacent road to one lane. The High Court accepted her evidence that she was cycling on the footpath and found that company employee Mr Mahon had seen her approaching but drove out across the footpath without looking to his right. Ms Moore fell while taking evasive action and suffered a serious fracture to her left elbow.
The High Court had apportioned liability 85% to Ms Moore and 15% to the company. It considered that she should not have cycled on the footpath, should have stopped when she saw the car emerging, and was travelling too quickly. Ms Moore appealed that apportionment and the €60,000 general damages award.
The Court of Appeal said the High Court had erred in placing primary responsibility on Ms Moore. It held that a driver crossing a public footpath must take reasonable care to avoid injuring people who may be using it. The court also found that the driver’s duty under Regulation 8 to yield to people using the footpath applied even though Ms Moore was cycling there in breach of Regulation 13.
The appeal court nevertheless found Ms Moore partly responsible. It said she knew the area, had seen the car preparing to emerge, and should have stopped or tried to stop unless she was satisfied the driver had seen her and intended to give way. The court said her decision to swerve around the car, rather than try to stop, contributed to the accident. It set aside the High Court’s apportionment as disproportionate and substituted liability of 60% against the company and 40% against Ms Moore. It said the roadworks did not justify her decision to cycle on the footpath, as she could have walked her bicycle along that section or taken another route.
On damages, the Court of Appeal found the €60,000 award was within the range that could reasonably be made for her injuries. The fracture required surgery, and she continued to have restricted elbow movement at trial. The court considered that the award allowed for a modest degree of future pain and suffering, including the possibility of further surgery. It therefore refused to set the damages award aside.
The appeal was allowed on liability only. The Court of Appeal did not increase the general damages award.