The High Court awarded Joanne O’Sullivan €302,445.48 in damages after finding that a road collision in August 2016 significantly worsened her condition while she was recovering from major surgery to her neck and skull. The court left open whether judgment should be entered against all three defendants or only the driver who accepted liability for the crash.
Mr Justice Barr delivered the judgment on 12 March 2020. Liability for the collision had been resolved before the hearing, so the trial concerned damages. The judge found that Ms O’Sullivan’s neck was significantly weakened by surgery in June 2016, but that she had been making good progress before the collision.
The court accepted evidence that her condition deteriorated in the weeks after the crash, with increased neck and shoulder pain and headaches, as well as new thoracic and lower back pain and a right knee injury. The judge preferred the evidence of her treating doctors and physiotherapist, who had seen her repeatedly, to assessments by defence experts who examined her once. He found her ongoing pain and disability were caused by the collision, including where psychological factors may have contributed to chronic pain.
The judge found that, without the crash, Ms O’Sullivan would likely have recovered from surgery and returned to work around January 2017. He accepted that she had been unfit for work since the collision and that her inability to work from January 2017 was due to its effects. The court assessed her future recovery as uncertain but found she would probably make a reasonable recovery with multidisciplinary treatment and return to work within two years.
The award comprised €96,000 for general damages to date, €50,000 for future general damages, €17,648.98 for medical and other expenses, €105,480.54 for past loss of earnings, and €33,315.96 for future loss of earnings. The future earnings figure represented half of the estimated loss on a total incapacity basis over two years.
The court also refused the defendants’ application under section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 to dismiss the action. The defendants argued that an affidavit verifying an earlier claim for future earnings, with figures reaching €1.1 million, was knowingly false or misleading. The judge found the figures were a permissible range based on assumptions about future work capacity and promotions, and that the plaintiff had made clear the claim depended on medical evidence. The court therefore found no basis to dismiss the action under that provision.