The Court of Appeal has dismissed a driver’s appeal against a €69,193.82 High Court award to a taxi driver who said he suffered lasting pain after a rear-end collision on Cuffe Street, Dublin, in February 2017.
The defendant accepted that she had driven negligently but disputed that the low-speed impact caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Her appeal challenged the trial judge’s assessment of the engineering and medical evidence and the amount of damages.
The plaintiff’s Mercedes sustained relatively slight damage, estimated at €563.82. The defendant’s Volkswagen Golf suffered more extensive damage and was written off. Experts disagreed about the force of the impact and whether it could have caused injury. The plaintiff’s engineer considered it sufficient to cause injury; a defence collision investigator considered the resulting movement in the Mercedes barely noticeable.
The plaintiff, then 64, reported pain in his shoulder, chest, neck and lower back in the days after the collision. Imaging showed degenerative changes in his spine. His orthopaedic expert said the accident had made a previously asymptomatic spinal condition painful and did not expect improvement. The defence orthopaedic expert considered the continuing symptoms unrelated to the collision. The trial judge preferred the plaintiff’s medical evidence and found him credible, while acknowledging that aspects of his evidence about work and earnings were unsatisfactory.
The High Court awarded €50,000 for pain and suffering to the date of judgment, €15,000 for future pain and suffering, and €4,193.82 in agreed special damages. On appeal, the defendant argued that the collision was too minor to have caused the injuries and that the award was excessive.
The Court of Appeal said the trial judge was entitled to accept the plaintiff’s engineering and medical evidence and had explained why she preferred it. It rejected the argument that the appeal court could substitute its own common-sense view for findings supported by credible evidence. The court also considered the damages against the Book of Quantum and concluded that, although the award could be viewed as generous, it was not so disproportionate as to amount to an error of law.
The appeal was dismissed, leaving the High Court award in place. The Court of Appeal’s provisional view was that the plaintiff should receive his costs. The defendant was given 14 days to seek a brief supplemental hearing on costs; the judgment did not record a final costs order.