Judgment: 2021-12-09 · Court archive

Court of Appeal cuts road crash award and finds plaintiff one-third contributorily negligent

The court allowed an appeal against a High Court judgment that had held a lorry driver fully liable, reduced damages for pain and suffering, and added an award for loss of opportunity.

Court of Appeal · [2021] IECA 329

Who, what, where, when and why

Who

See the report below for the parties involved.

What

The court allowed an appeal against a High Court judgment that had held a lorry driver fully liable, reduced damages for pain and suffering, and added an award for loss of opportunity.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Road from Cahirciveen to Killorglin on the Ring of Kerry
  • Cahirciveen
  • Killorglin
  • Ring of Kerry
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court of Appeal has allowed a lorry driver’s appeal over a 2014 road crash, finding that the injured motorist was one-third responsible because he did not brake and veered onto the wrong side of the road. It set aside the High Court’s order and substituted a net decree of €83,979 for the plaintiff.

The Court of Appeal has allowed a lorry driver’s appeal over a 2014 road crash, finding that the injured motorist was one-third responsible because he did not brake and veered onto the wrong side of the road. It set aside the High Court’s order and substituted a net decree of €83,979 for the plaintiff.

The High Court had found the defendant 100% liable and awarded €155,000 for pain and suffering, plus agreed special damages of €5,968. The appeal challenged both liability and the amount of damages.

The crash happened in darkness on the road from Cahirciveen to Killorglin on the Ring of Kerry. The plaintiff said the lorry’s lights blinded and disorientated him. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s finding that the lorry’s full headlights and roof lights were on, and that the lorry was partly across the centre line. It said the lorry driver’s failure to dip the lights was the primary cause of the collision.

But the appeal court said the trial judge had not adequately addressed evidence that the plaintiff had enough distance to stop. The court noted that the plaintiff’s own account was that he had braked, but the trial judge’s findings on the vehicles’ speeds and the collision’s location meant he had not slowed down and had crossed onto the wrong side. The appeal judgment found that failing to brake was significant negligence, compounded by the unexplained veer. It assessed the plaintiff’s contribution at one-third.

The appeal court also reduced general damages for pain and suffering from €155,000 to €95,000: €60,000 for suffering to date and €35,000 for the future. It considered the original award disproportionate compared with the maximum applicable at the time and awards in comparable cases. The plaintiff had suffered a complex left kneecap fracture and a right collarbone fracture, underwent several procedures, and gave up his ambition to work as an electrician. The court separately assessed €25,000 for loss of opportunity, a claim raised at trial for which the High Court had made no award.

Adding the €120,000 in general damages to the agreed €5,968 special damages, then applying the one-third deduction, produced the net decree of €83,979. The court invited written submissions on costs; the judgment did not determine costs.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review