The High Court approved a 50/50 liability determination in a settled personal injury action brought by a hotel employee injured while driving a golf buggy across a road in July 2017.
Mr Justice Barr said the proposed apportionment between the plaintiff and her employer, Virginia Park Lodge Limited, had a rational basis in the circumstances described to the court. The action had settled for €50,000 plus Circuit Court costs. The judgment does not state that the court assessed or approved the settlement amount.
The court heard submissions that the plaintiff, then aged 65, had been taking wedding guests from the hotel to a nearby church at her supervisor’s request. After leaving the church grounds to return to the hotel, she was struck by a vehicle driven by the first defendant, Peter Leonardi. The plaintiff could not recall the precise circumstances of the collision, counsel said.
Counsel described evidence expected from an independent witness that the plaintiff drove out of the church car park without checking for traffic, leaving the driver no chance to avoid the impact. The plaintiff’s case against her employer alleged that she had not been trained to drive the buggy, had not driven it outside the hotel grounds before, and that the buggy was neither insured nor permitted on the public road. Counsel also submitted that it had rear brakes only. The judgment records these as allegations and submissions, not findings after a trial.
Counsel said the plaintiff suffered a head injury involving loss of consciousness and soft tissue injuries to her neck and back. The injuries were valued by counsel at about €80,000, with special damages of approximately €20,000. In light of the expected witness evidence, counsel accepted there was a reasonable basis to infer that the plaintiff would probably be found at least 50% contributorily negligent.
The judgment addressed conflicting High Court decisions on whether a court may include agreed terms about liability or loss of earnings in orders made after personal injury cases settle. Mr Justice Barr concluded that such terms may be included where sufficient information establishes a rational and fair basis, and said a judge may refuse terms that do not reflect the evidence.
The court’s determination in this case was made after considering counsel’s submissions about the accident and likely trial evidence. The judgment did not resolve whether a consent order is an “order” for the purposes of section 343R(2) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005. It said that question must be determined in appropriate proceedings to which the Minister is a party.