The Court of Appeal reduced the damages awarded to a chef injured when a gas oven exploded at a Wexford SuperValu, substituting €60,000 in general damages and adding €3,181.90 in agreed special damages. The resulting decree is €63,181.90, replacing the High Court’s €90,000 general damages award and its order for special damages.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Noonan on 20 September 2023, concerned an appeal by John Pettit Wexford Unlimited Company and C&M Delaney Limited against the High Court assessment. The parties had agreed the medical reports and special damages, so the plaintiff was the only witness to give oral evidence at the assessment.
The plaintiff was burned on her face, neck, ear and left hand and arm when the oven exploded as she went to turn it on at about 9am on 12 January 2020. She later described anxiety, sleep problems, flashbacks, depression and excessive alcohol use, and said she had attempted suicide. She was absent from work for about nine months. Medical evidence recorded that by March 2022 she no longer met the criteria for PTSD, her alcohol use disorder and depressive disorder had resolved, and her psychological symptoms were expected to resolve. Her burns had healed, leaving some scarring and sensitivity on her forearm.
The High Court assessed €45,000 for PTSD, €20,000 for alcohol-related and depressive difficulties, and €25,000 for burns and scarring. The defendants argued that the psychiatric award wrongly treated overlapping conditions separately and that the overall award was excessive. At the appeal hearing, the plaintiff’s counsel accepted that PTSD should have been classified as moderate, rather than serious.
The Court of Appeal found that the evidence did not support a serious PTSD classification, which requires likely significant disability for the foreseeable future. It said there was no evidential basis for adding a separate psychiatric sum, and that the combined psychiatric award was disproportionate. Taking account of PTSD, depression and alcohol abuse, the court assessed psychiatric damages at €35,000, the top of the moderate category.
The court left the €25,000 award for scarring undisturbed. Although the High Court judge had not identified the specific guideline or explained the calculation, the award fell within the guideline range and the judge had viewed the scar. The appeal judgment does not state a revised costs order: it gave the parties 21 days to make written submissions on costs.