Judgment: 2006-06-21 · Court archive

Supreme Court raises damages award after finding lower court undervalued eye injury

The Court increased James Kenny’s award to €164,480, including €40,000 for limited future earnings loss, while upholding the rejection of an actuarial calculation.

The Supreme Court · [2006] IESC 37

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • James Kenny (Plaintiff)
  • John Cowley (Defendant)
What

The Court increased James Kenny’s award to €164,480, including €40,000 for limited future earnings loss, while upholding the rejection of an actuarial calculation.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Rathlee
  • Easkey
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court also awarded €40,000 for future loss of earnings. It upheld the High Court’s decision that there was no basis for an actuarial calculation. The evidence showed Kenny had not worked consistently for several years before the accident, had received social welfare payments, and had done occasional engine repair work. Although he had taken initial steps towards setting up a business, the Court said there was no evidence that it had been established.

The Supreme Court allowed James Kenny’s appeal over damages for injuries suffered when his car struck cattle on a road at Rathlee, Easkey, in County Sligo. It replaced a High Court award of €94,480 with a total award of €164,480.

In a judgment delivered on 21 June 2006, the Court said the High Court’s €90,000 award for general damages was inadequate. It assessed general damages at €120,000, citing serious damage to Kenny’s right eye, his reliance on an already impaired left eye, constant double vision, soft tissue injuries to his back and neck, and depression.

The collision occurred on the evening of 10 April 2000. Kenny’s car struck cattle owned by John Cowley that had strayed onto and blocked the highway. Liability was not in dispute in the appeal. Special damages of €4,480 had been agreed and remained unchanged.

The Court also awarded €40,000 for future loss of earnings. It upheld the High Court’s decision that there was no basis for an actuarial calculation. The evidence showed Kenny had not worked consistently for several years before the accident, had received social welfare payments, and had done occasional engine repair work. Although he had taken initial steps towards setting up a business, the Court said there was no evidence that it had been established.

An assessor’s report had produced a projected figure of €573,300 based on the earnings of a trained mechanic. The Court said Kenny was not a trained mechanic and that figure did not reflect his circumstances. It also rejected the High Court’s concern that Kenny had sought to hoodwink the court, finding no collusion, fraud or deliberate exaggeration by him. The judgment said the excessive figure arose from evidence prepared partly on incorrect information.

The Supreme Court said the High Court costs issue should be addressed alongside the costs of the appeal after delivery of judgment. The judgment’s conclusion allowed the appeal and substituted the total award; it did not state a determination of costs in the text provided.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review