The High Court has struck out a negligence claim brought by Liam O hAonghusa over injuries he alleges he suffered when his motorised wheelchair toppled on Milltown Bridge, Dublin, but allowed his claim under the Liability for Defective Products Act 1991 to proceed to a hearing.
In a judgment delivered on 19 July 2011, Mr Justice Hogan ruled that the negligence action was statute-barred. The relevant defendants had pleaded the limitation defence. The court said the claim could not succeed at hearing and dismissed it at this stage.
Mr O hAonghusa’s pleadings allege that a tube in the wheelchair’s front right tyre gave out in September 2004 as he travelled on Milltown Bridge, Clonskeagh, causing the chair to topple and leaving him with severe personal injuries. He said the wheelchair had been purchased from, supplied by or manufactured by the relevant defendants.
He applied to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board in September 2007. PIAB issued an authorisation on 28 January 2008, and proceedings began on 11 July 2008. The judgment explains that time spent in the PIAB process is disregarded for limitation purposes, but found the negligence claim had already become time-barred on 30 March 2007 under the applicable two-year period.
The defendants argued that a later amendment had also reduced the limitation period for claims under the 1991 Act to two years. Mr Justice Hogan rejected that interpretation. He held that the Act’s three-year period remained in force; a deeming provision applied date-of-knowledge rules but did not amend that primary limitation period.
The judge did not decide whether the 1991 Act claim itself was time-barred. The pleadings put the accident in September 2004, while an affidavit said the injuries were received “in and around August 2004” and first identified by a doctor on or about 7 September 2004. The judge said this disputed factual issue required oral evidence at trial, including evidence relevant to when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the damage, defect and producer’s identity.
The claim under the 1991 Act was therefore permitted to proceed to hearing. The ruling was not a final decision on the limitation defence: the defendants may still seek to establish at trial that the claim is out of time.