The Supreme Court has dismissed Dublin City Council’s appeal against a €350,461.72 High Court damages award to firefighter Derek Curley for injuries sustained in a 1998 fire tender collision. The court upheld the High Court order and did not alter its assessment of damages.
The judgment, delivered by Denham J. on 26 November 2004, concerned an appeal from a High Court assessment made by Gilligan J. on 9 July 2004. The council sought a different assessment or a retrial on damages. It did not challenge the High Court’s primary findings of fact, but disputed the inferences drawn from them, particularly future pain and suffering, loss of earnings, pension and gratuity.
The collision occurred on 16 January 1998, when Mr Curley was a passenger in a fire tender responding to an emergency. The vehicle collided with two parked cars at traffic lights at the junction of the Naas Road and Killeen Road in Clondalkin, Dublin. The case was an assessment of damages, with contributory negligence pleaded.
The High Court accepted medical evidence called by the council that differed from the prognosis offered by Mr Curley’s orthopaedic surgeon. It found that he had suffered a relatively mild whiplash injury, nerve root irritation and psychological effects, with some continuing discomfort possible. The Supreme Court said the trial judge had not found that Mr Curley was lying or exaggerating and was entitled to assess his evidence alongside the conflicting medical evidence.
On employment, the High Court found that Mr Curley was not fit for the full rigours of firefighting but could have continued in lighter duties. It also found fault in his actions, or lack of action, in seeking other duties, as well as fault by the council, and assessed him as 40% contributorily negligent in relation to that factor. The trial judge allowed €25,000 for loss from retirement to trial.
For future earnings, the High Court considered it probable that Mr Curley could have remained employed for a further three years, but would then have been retired on health grounds. It allowed €150,000, reduced by 5% under the Reddy v. Bates principle. It also allowed €47,285 for pension loss and €17,676 for gratuity loss after applying the same 5% reduction.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the High Court’s calculations were not made by a precise actuarial method, but concluded that the choices were open on the evidence. It dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s order, including the total award of €350,461.72 and costs as taxed and ascertained.