The Court of Appeal has dismissed Dunnes Stores’ appeal against damages awarded to Pamela Phoenix for injuries from a workplace accident, leaving the High Court award in place.
In a judgment delivered on 21 March 2018, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan said the sums were probably at the upper range of what was appropriate, but the court could not interfere under the principles governing an appeal. The award comprised €75,000 for pain and suffering to date, €30,000 for future pain and suffering, and agreed special damages of €929, for a total of €105,929.
Dunnes Stores had conceded liability. Its appeal argued that the damages were excessive and disproportionate. The case arose from an accident on 18 September 2006, when Ms Phoenix, then a 26-year-old university student working part-time for the retailer, slipped while manoeuvring a pallet truck in a cold room. She fell on her back and bottom and was taken to hospital. X-rays showed no bone damage, and she was discharged after a few hours.
The judgment records that Ms Phoenix continued to suffer chronic lower-back pain and depression. She could not manage her Dunnes Stores work and later lost a lighter sales assistant job because standing aggravated her pain. The court also noted that her injuries affected her education and prevented her from pursuing a planned master’s course. She later worked in Canada, but remained affected by the accident.
Dunnes Stores argued that a miscarriage in October 2008, followed by more acute depression, broke the chain of causation for that worsening of her condition. Justice Hogan said he did not need to decide the point: even if the argument were accepted, the award was not so disproportionate that the appeal court should set it aside.
The court compared Ms Phoenix’s case with earlier personal-injury decisions, including Nolan v Wirenski and Cronin v Stevenson. It described her injury as a routine soft-tissue injury in some respects, but distinguished it by the decade of persistent pain, depression, and substantial effects on her quality of life. It acknowledged that each case differs and that the High Court award was generous by comparison with Cronin.
The appeal concerned the amount of damages, not liability. The Court of Appeal dismissed it, so the High Court award remained undisturbed.