The High Court awarded Cheng Zhang €256,039.30 in damages for injuries from a 2011 road traffic accident, after applying the liability apportionment set in an earlier judgment. The court assessed her damages at a full value of €465,526 and found the driver liable for 45% of that sum.
The damages judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Barr on 17 July 2018, followed a separate ruling on liability on 2 December 2016. That ruling found liability in Zhang’s favour to the degree of 55%, with 45% contributory negligence because she crossed while the pedestrian light was red against her. The present judgment dealt with assessment of damages.
The court found that the collision caused a rupture of the ACL and partial rupture of the MCL in Zhang’s left knee, and a sacroiliac joint disruption. It also found that she developed severe irritable bowel syndrome as a direct result of the accident, and fibromyalgia likely caused by a combination of the accident and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Accepting the evidence of treating psychiatrist Dr Margaret Fitzgerald, the judge found that Zhang suffered extensive and extreme mental health issues triggered by the accident, with PTSD, secondary depression and anxiety features. Her prognosis remained guarded. The court nevertheless concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that she would eventually return to work: it assessed her as unfit for any work for five more years, followed by two years earning half her pre-accident earnings.
The damages included €95,000 for general damages to date and €75,000 for future general damages. The court also allowed past and future loss of earnings, medical and travel expenses, future prescription costs, and €30,000 for loss of opportunity to qualify as an accountant and earn more. It did not reduce damages because Zhang had not sought psychiatric treatment in Ireland for a period, finding her explanation and lack of insight understandable in the circumstances.
Zhang also sought aggravated damages over questions asked during cross-examination, including whether she would be better off returning to China and how she spent her disability allowance. The judge refused the application, finding the questions were not offensive or abusive and that the defendant’s legal team had acted fairly and properly.