The High Court has ruled that nine passengers and a driver did not prove that an unidentified vehicle struck the minibus in which they were travelling in Monaghan in 2008. The decision concerned liability only in nine appeals arising from the same alleged incident.
The claims followed an evening journey on 9 August 2008, when the group was travelling from Northern Ireland towards Dundalk. They said the minibus was jolted from behind as it turned at Snips Bridge, near Drumgoole and Silverstream. Two passengers said they saw a green car leave, but neither could identify its type or registration. The driver was untraced.
The passengers reported soft-tissue injuries, and doctors found clinical signs consistent with whiplash. The court said that evidence of injury did not by itself establish that the injuries were caused by a collision with an unidentified vehicle.
The judge considered conflicting accounts about glass on the road and damage to the minibus’s rear step. Two gardaí who attended said they saw no debris or road marks. The court also noted that most of the group did not inspect the minibus after returning to a nearby home, and that accounts of the alleged impact and its cause were uncertain.
Engineering experts gave competing evidence about whether the damage could have resulted from a collision. The judge rejected the plaintiffs’ expert’s explanation as relying on too many assumptions, and considered the defendant’s expert evidence more credible. The judgment said the engineering evidence provided little support for the likelihood of a collision.
The court applied the civil standard of proof, placing the burden on the plaintiffs to establish their claims. It found that the evidence was too slight and unconvincing to show that an untraced vehicle had struck the minibus.
The High Court allowed the Motor Insurers’ Bureau of Ireland’s appeals in seven cases, in which the plaintiffs had succeeded in the Circuit Court. It dismissed appeals by Paul Campbell and Kevin Kernaghan, whose claims had been dismissed there. The judgment addressed liability in all nine appeals; it does not set out decisions on the amount of damages.