The High Court has awarded a Garda €220,000 for pain and suffering and diminished future employment opportunity after finding that an assault substantially worsened his back condition and caused lasting psychological injuries. The court did not set out the final total compensation: pecuniary losses remained to be calculated, and the form of the final order was to be discussed with counsel.
The Garda was kicked in the back by an arrested man as he tried to get into a patrol car on 23 August 2008, according to the judgment. The Minister accepted that the assailant acted maliciously and that the Garda suffered injury and pecuniary loss. The extent and cause of the injuries and losses were disputed. The judgment records that €125,000 had been paid pending the court’s decision, strictly without prejudice to the disputed issues.
The Minister argued that the kick caused soft tissue injuries and a temporary flare-up of a pre-existing degenerative back condition, while later symptoms and losses were mainly due to that condition. The Garda argued that the assault caused the substantial ongoing harm. The judge found that he already had a vulnerable back, with a history of a 1998 road crash, spinal surgery in 2002 and a slip-and-fall accident in 2004. Before the assault, however, he had returned to full policing duties and was carrying them out when he was kicked.
The court found the assault aggravated and accelerated the degeneration in his lower back, leaving it continuously symptomatic and resulting in severe chronic pain. It also found that the assault substantially caused a chronic pain syndrome, depressive and adjustment disorders, sleep disturbance and urinary urgency. The court treated his neck and hip conditions as unrelated to the assault and excluded their effects from compensation.
The court assessed pain and suffering at €100,000 to date and €75,000 for the future. It also allowed €45,000 in enhanced general compensation for the expected effect of his injuries on his ability to work after retirement. The court rejected a claim for total future loss of earnings to age 60, finding it more likely he would have retired in his mid-50s even without the assault. It also rejected an actuarialised claim for earnings after retirement, while allowing pecuniary losses and future medical and travel expenses to the extent they were caused by the assault. Those amounts were not specified in the judgment, which directed that the final order be considered after counsel had reviewed it.