The Court of Appeal has increased the damages payable to a woman injured in a 2011 Dublin road collision to €372,420.80 after raising the driver’s share of responsibility from 55% to 80%. It left the High Court’s assessment of damages under the individual headings undisturbed and dismissed the driver’s cross-appeal.
The collision happened at about 5pm on 17 April 2011 at the junction of Upper Merrion Street and Merrion Row. The woman was crossing the road when the driver turned left into Upper Merrion Street and struck her. The High Court had found the driver 55% responsible and the woman 45% responsible, then awarded damages of €265,039.30 on that apportioned basis.
On appeal, the woman argued that the driver had gone through a red light and that she should bear no responsibility. The Court of Appeal reviewed CCTV footage and rejected the red-light claim. It upheld the finding that the pedestrian signal was red as she crossed and said the trial judge’s findings on that point were supported by evidence. The court also concluded the footage did not show the driver breaking a red light.
The court said the driver had failed to keep a proper lookout, while the woman had contributed to the accident by crossing against the pedestrian signal. It considered the driver’s negligence substantially greater and changed the apportionment to 80% against him and 20% against her. It did not disturb the High Court’s general damages award of €170,000 or its findings on past and future earnings and loss of opportunity.
The driver’s cross-appeal challenged the earnings awards and the €30,000 allowed for loss of opportunity. The Court of Appeal found the trial judge’s assessment was supported by credible evidence. It declined to consider the driver’s argument that social welfare payments should be deducted because that point had not been argued in the High Court.
The court calculated total damages under all headings at €465,526 and, applying the revised liability split, substituted judgment for €372,420.80. It allowed the woman’s appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal. On costs, the judgment stated the court’s provisional view that she was entitled to reasonable expenses for the appeal and High Court costs to be assessed by reference to the new award. Either party could file written submissions on an alternative costs order within 14 days, with 14 days for a reply.