The Court of Appeal reduced the damages awarded to Patricia Walsh after she suffered serious, lasting injuries in a fall at a Tesco supermarket in Kilrush, Co Clare. Liability for the fall was conceded. The court upheld the High Court’s general damages awards and most other heads of loss, but found errors in parts of its calculation of future losses.
The High Court had awarded Ms Walsh €1,439,495. In a judgment delivered on 3 March 2017, Ms Justice Irvine said the award for pain and suffering — €125,000 to the date of trial and €135,000 for the future — was proportionate to the injuries and their lifelong effects.
The judgment recounts that Ms Walsh developed ongoing back pain, bladder problems requiring self-catheterisation, and psychological difficulties after the August 2012 fall. She underwent surgery, rehabilitation and other treatment. The court said she would likely need continuing medical care, and that her injuries had substantially curtailed her work, social and recreational life.
Tesco challenged the assessment of damages across multiple categories. The Court of Appeal rejected most of those arguments, including challenges to the awards for home help and aids and appliances. It also rejected Tesco’s request for a new trial over the order in which witnesses gave evidence, finding no real prejudice had been shown.
The court did, however, order reductions. It removed €20,000 awarded for two years of lost earnings because that sum had also been included in the future earnings claim. It directed a 15 per cent reduction to the future earnings award for the ordinary uncertainties of continued employment, and a further adjustment because the High Court had used a 1 per cent assumed real rate of return for that claim rather than 1.5 per cent.
Future urology costs were cut from €132,750 to €26,550. The court found that the cost of catheter equipment had been counted separately even though it was covered by the Drugs Payment Scheme, for which the High Court had already allowed the monthly charge. It also reduced miscellaneous future expenses by €17,723 to reflect the evidence that a rhizotomy would be needed about every nine months, rather than twice yearly.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal to that limited extent and rejected the remaining grounds. Its judgment’s final table lists a varied total of €1,206,535.50. The conclusion immediately before that table, however, states a total of €1,256,652; the source does not explain the discrepancy.