The High Court dismissed Bridget Flynn’s personal injury case against Bus Átha Cliath, finding that the driver acted correctly when he braked sharply to avoid a child who ran into the road.
In a judgment delivered on 11 October 2012, Mr Justice Charleton said the evidence showed the driver faced a potential fatal or serious accident if he had not reacted quickly. The court concluded that nothing could have been done to avoid Ms Flynn’s accident in the circumstances.
Ms Flynn was travelling upstairs on a number 38A bus from O’Connell Street towards Blanchardstown on 5 October. As the bus approached Corduff Sports Centre, she stood to get off and was reaching for a rail when the bus braked. She was thrown backwards and could not get up. The other passengers were asked to leave the bus, and an ambulance brought her to James Connolly Memorial Hospital. She was discharged about six hours later with bruising to her legs.
Her main complaint was that the accident aggravated a dormant back condition arising from degenerative change. She told the court she had serious problems for a year or two, took two weeks off work as a cleaner at the National Museum, and later retired. At the time of the judgment, she said she was relatively well and had recovered to about three-quarters of her earlier pain-free condition.
Liability was contested. The judgment records the plaintiff’s argument that the driver should have anticipated the child’s movement and slowed further, given light traffic and a long view ahead. The driver, Eoghan O’Friel, testified that a boy rushed into the road about 30 metres ahead. He sounded the horn and braked at the same time. The child returned to the footpath. Video from cameras on the bus corroborated the driver’s account, the judge said.
The court held that the driver had duties to passengers and other road users, and that children in the area called for heightened caution. But the judge found there had been no reason to anticipate the child’s sudden movement. Once it happened, the driver had to act to avoid injury. The court said emergency decisions do not allow time for detached reflection and found the driver met the required standard of care.
The judgment also criticised the volume of expert evidence in the case, saying most of the expert testimony did not involve expertise and was inadmissible opinion or comment. The judge said trial judges could control repetitive evidence and noted that unnecessary experts could add cost and delay. Those comments did not alter the decision: the claim was dismissed.