The High Court has ruled that three claims for damages for psychiatric injuries after a fatal road crash were time-barred. The court held that the plaintiffs knew, or ought reasonably to have known, they had suffered significant injuries in the immediate aftermath of the crash; the later diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder did not set a later date of knowledge.
The claims were brought by grandparents Margaret and Edward McCoy, and Patrick Quinn, the long-term partner of the deceased child’s mother who acted in loco parentis to her. Their claims concerned shock and trauma after they came upon the scene of the crash at Ballydonnell, Mullinahone, County Tipperary, on 20 March 2006. Two children died and the deceased child’s brother was seriously injured.
Liability was not in issue. The defendants had pleaded that the claims were barred under the limitation provisions of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991, as amended. The parties agreed that the summonses were prima facie late: by five months for Margaret McCoy, about four months and 22 days for Edward McCoy, and about 12 days for Quinn.
The plaintiffs said they became aware of the significance of their injuries only after consultant psychiatrist Dr James P. Morrison diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder. The court found that each had been aware of a condition arising after the crash, even if they did not know its medical name. It applied the statutory test of when each plaintiff knew, or ought reasonably to have known from observable or ascertainable facts, that the injury was significant. The judge said the test also included knowledge reasonably obtainable with appropriate expert advice.
The court preferred the evidence of consultant psychiatrist Dr Richard Horgan over Dr Morrison’s. It found that the plaintiffs had suffered significant grief reactions, with some post-traumatic stress symptoms. The judge also noted prior psychiatric treatment for depression in the histories of Margaret McCoy and Quinn. He concluded that all three ought reasonably to have known they had suffered significant injuries from the accident.
The court held that the later diagnosis did not establish a later date of knowledge and that the plaintiffs had not shown that the limitation period began on the date of Dr Morrison’s diagnosis. It therefore held all three claims time-barred. The judgment addressed the limitation issue; it did not determine liability, which was not contested.