The Supreme Court has dismissed Bus Éireann’s appeal against a €40,000 damages award to a woman injured when a bus braked suddenly in Limerick.
The appeal concerned the High Court’s decision that the passenger’s personal injuries action should not be dismissed under section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004. That section requires dismissal in specified circumstances where a plaintiff knowingly gives or adduces materially false or misleading evidence, unless dismissal would cause injustice.
The accident happened on 13 November 2004 near the junction of Hartstonge Street and O’Connell Street. The bus driver braked heavily to avoid a car that pulled out in front of the bus, and the passenger fell, injuring her face, chest, left thumb and lower left leg. Liability was not contested.
At the High Court hearing in Limerick in May 2006, the dispute focused on the nature and extent of the injuries and their effects. The passenger’s claim for future care, which had supported a special damages claim of €177,000, was withdrawn at the end of her evidence. The High Court awarded €25,000 for pain and suffering to the date of judgment and €15,000 for future pain and suffering, and ordered Bus Éireann to pay the action’s costs, subject to specified exclusions.
Bus Éireann argued that the claim should have been dismissed because of allegedly false or misleading evidence and a verifying affidavit. The High Court found the passenger generally truthful and concluded that inaccuracies were not knowingly false or misleading. It also found that her belief that the accident had reduced her independence was genuine, while recognising that age and pre-existing osteoarthritis affected her mobility.
In the Supreme Court judgment delivered by Chief Justice Denham on 2 December 2011, the court said Bus Éireann carried the burden of proving its section 26 arguments on the balance of probabilities. It upheld the trial judge’s factual findings and said the affidavit claim was not established: the care reports were not admitted into evidence and neither author testified. The future-care claim had also been withdrawn.
The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court order. It did not make a new damages award.