The High Court dismissed Katie Martin’s claim against Monaghan County Council and Martin O’Hara over a 2013 head-on collision, finding that her car probably crossed into the truck’s lane and that the defendants could not be held liable for the crash.
In a judgment delivered on 14 February 2019, Ms Justice Bronagh O’Hanlon dealt with liability and causation. The court did not assess damages. It said the plaintiff’s claim for personal injuries, loss and damage would be dismissed on the issue of liability.
The collision happened between 1.30pm and 1.45pm on 30 October 2013 on the R180 between Ballybay and Carrickmacross, in the townland of Peast, County Monaghan. Martin was driving a Hyundai Accent towards Carrickmacross. O’Hara was driving a Scania tipper truck in the opposite direction while transporting stone for road-drain construction.
The court said the dispute centred on the truck’s position just before impact. Scene evidence recorded fresh gouge marks and headlight glass in the truck’s lane, and a Garda scene plan placed the impact there. Martin argued that she had crossed the centre line to avoid the truck, which she said had moved into her lane. The defendants’ engineers disputed that account. Martin could not remember the events leading up to the collision.
On the balance of probabilities, the judge found that the truck had not been on the wrong side of the road and had not otherwise been driven dangerously or negligently before the crash. She found that Martin’s car probably crossed into the truck’s lane, without an apparent reason. The judge said the available forensic evidence supported that conclusion.
The truck was overloaded: its gross weight with its load was 29,230kg, against a stated maximum of 26,000kg. Post-collision tests also recorded braking efficiency below the specified minimums. The defendants questioned the tests’ reliability because they were carried out after the truck had been damaged, including damage to its suspension. The judgment noted that the brakes were still capable of stopping the truck and that a driver could overcome defects in them.
The judge said the truck’s overloading and possible brake defects could amount to negligence, but the evidence did not establish on the balance of probabilities that either caused the collision. She found that Martin’s crossing of the continuous white line was the effective cause and amounted to negligence or want of care. The court therefore dismissed the claim against both defendants on liability.