The High Court has dismissed a claim by a pastry chef seriously injured in a collision with a truck, finding that the truck driver was on his correct side of the road and had swerved towards the verge before impact.
In a judgment delivered ex tempore on 26 October 2023, Ms Justice Egan found that the plaintiff’s car continued straight around a bend and into the path of the defendant’s truck. The court concluded that the defendant had done nothing further to avoid the collision and was not liable.
The crash happened on 17 January 2018 on the Kilkenny Road. The plaintiff said she was driving towards Kilkenny when she met the truck on her side of the road. The defendant, who was delivering drinks to local shops and pubs, said the car crossed into his path as he approached the bend. He said he slowed and steered onto the grass verge, but the car struck his truck.
The plaintiff suffered multiple fractures, including injuries to her arm, jaw, ribs and sternum, as well as a severe elbow dislocation. The judge accepted evidence that she continues to experience pain, scarring and functional limitations that affect her work as a pastry chef.
A witness at the scene told the court that the plaintiff had apparently said she was on the wrong side of the road, though she was unsure why. The judge considered it likely that the plaintiff had made a statement along those lines, but gave it very little weight given the circumstances following a serious crash. Evidence from other witnesses described the plaintiff as being in severe pain and shock.
The court relied particularly on the Garda’s scene sketch, photographs and engineering evidence. A tyre track ran along the grass verge on the truck’s side of the road, and the vehicles’ positions and the spread of debris suggested the impact happened close to where the plaintiff’s car came to rest. The court found little evidence that her car had travelled far along the road after impact. It also accepted that the truck’s shallow-angle tyre track was consistent with a controlled move onto the verge from its own side, rather than a sharp swerve across the road after the collision.
The judge said it was not possible to determine precisely why the plaintiff’s car crossed the road. The court’s task was to decide how the collision occurred, and on the balance of probabilities it accepted the defendant’s account. Because the court was not satisfied that the defendant had committed a wrong, it said apportioning fault under the Civil Liability Act did not arise. The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed.