The High Court awarded Phyllis Donovan €95,000 in damages for injuries sustained when a car driven by Ark Gaffney collided head-on with her car on a roundabout on 1 July 2005. Liability was not disputed; the court considered the injuries attributable to the collision and the amount of damages.
In a judgment delivered on 4 December 2009, Mr Justice Michael Peart assessed €75,000 for past pain and suffering and €20,000 for future pain and suffering. The award covered a fractured sternum, neck and soft-tissue back injuries, depression and post-traumatic stress, as well as continuing anxiety about traffic and her inability or unwillingness to drive.
The judge found that Donovan had back pain after the collision and that the crash made pre-existing degenerative changes in her lower back symptomatic earlier than they otherwise would have been. He accepted that her back pain was clinically supported and that she had suffered considerably over a lengthy period. But he preferred the defendants’ experts’ view that the L5/S1 disc prolapse shown on an MRI scan in June 2007 was not caused by the collision. The two-year gap before the prolapse was identified was significant, the judge said, and the evidence indicated it arose from degenerative changes.
The court also found that the collision caused post-traumatic stress and depression. Donovan had improved substantially by February 2008, but her fear of travelling by car remained. The judge accepted it was probable she would not drive again and allowed future damages for continuing anxiety and for back pain brought forward by the injury.
The award excluded the plaintiff’s alcohol abuse and a psychotic episode that led to a two-week hospital stay in July and August 2008. Her psychiatrist could not directly link the episode to the collision, and the judge was not satisfied that a connection had been established on the balance of probabilities.
The judgment addressed video evidence of Donovan gardening shortly after she had told a medical examiner she could not garden. The judge found she had been too categorical, but was not satisfied she deliberately exaggerated her symptoms to mislead the examiner or the court.