The High Court found that two men unlawfully beat a man who had fled an affray in Tuam, striking him with weapons and causing a serious fracture to his right kneecap. The court assessed his general damages at €65,000, but said the award must be reduced to reflect his share of responsibility and the acts of a concurrent wrongdoer. The final form of the orders remained to be discussed with counsel.
In a judgment delivered on 21 December 2016, Mr Justice Bernard Barton found that the plaintiff and a friend initiated the affray outside a car in the Shambles area. The judge rejected the plaintiff’s account that the defendants and another man launched an unprovoked attack. He found that the other man, who was Charlene Nohilly’s boyfriend, struck the plaintiff during the initial confrontation, after the plaintiff and his friend approached the car and called on him to get out.
The judge found that the plaintiff then ran from the Shambles into nearby Vicar Street. By then, he said, the plaintiff was unarmed and no longer a threat. The defendants, a father and son who had driven into Tuam after calls for help from the daughter and sister, struck him there with weapons. The court rejected their evidence that they were unarmed and found their actions amounted to assault and battery, rather than self-defence or defence of another.
Medical and Garda evidence supported the finding that the plaintiff’s displaced kneecap fracture was caused by a blow or blows in Vicar Street. The judge found the earlier blows by the other man did not cause that fracture, so the defendants and that man were not concurrent wrongdoers in respect of it. For the plaintiff’s other injuries, the court found the defendants and the other man were concurrent wrongdoers and apportioned responsibility equally between them. Because the plaintiff’s claim against the other man had become statute-barred, the law required the plaintiff to be treated as responsible for that man’s acts for the purposes of these proceedings.
The court declined to bar the claim under the doctrine of ex turpi causa. It instead treated the plaintiff’s deliberate role in starting the affray as contributory negligence and attributed 40% of the fault to him. It assessed €15,000 for soft-tissue injuries and €50,000 for the kneecap injury, including €15,000 for future pain and suffering, totalling €65,000 before the reductions. It excluded effects attributable to later knee injuries from the assessment.