O'Beirne v Hannigan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 26 January 1937
• Date: 26 January 1937
• Court: Supreme Court (Irish Free State)

High Court.

Supreme Court.

O'Beirne v. Hannigan

THOMAS O'BEIRNE

Plaintiff

and

PATRICK J. HANNIGAN

Defendant.

Negligence - Contributory negligence - Action for damages - Collision with unlighted vehicle stationary on highway at night - Lighted vehicle stationary on other side of highway - Plaintiff dazzled by lights of lighted vehicle - Lighted and unlighted vehicles belonging to defendant - Duty to directjury.

Appeal From The Circuit Court.

The plaintiff, Thomas O'Beirne, issued a Civil Bill for damages for negligence against the defendant, Patrick J. Hannigan, the indorsement on the Civil Bill stating that the plaintiff claimed "the sum of £200 15s. 9d. for loss and damage sustained by him by reason of the negligence of the defendant, his agents or servants, in the driving, management and control of two motor lorries, his property, on the 11th day of August, 1934, at Larkhill, in the County of Sligo, when said motor lorries were stationary and practically opposite each other on different sides of the public road, whereby the plaintiff's hackney motor lorry was damaged." Particulars of the damage claimed were set out.

The defendant in his defence traversed the plaintiff's claim, and, alternatively, pleaded contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The defendant brought a cross-action against the plaintiff for damages for negligence in respect of the stationary motor lorry which was damaged, and another action was brought against the plaintiff by Thomas Hannigan, for damages for negligence in respect of the same motor lorry.

The facts of the case have been summarised in the headnote, and are set out in the judgment of Sullivan P.

The Civil Bill was heard by the circuit Court Judge (Judge Moonan) on the 12th day of April, 1935, and he awarded the plaintiff the sum of £180 15s. 9d. damages with costs and expenses, and dismissed the two actions brought by the two Hannigans against the plaintiff.

In the course of his judgment Judge Moonan said:—

"This is another case of vehicles being placed upon the road in such a position that they constitute what is alleged to be a trap. The two vans meet, there is a conversation, and there is an exchange of bread loaves from one van to the other. The injured van is drawn up on its proper side of the road, but, I am satisfied, without anything like an effective rere light to indicate its position there. From that position alone there it would be dangerous, but of course it should be seen by anyone approaching with effective lights. The van on the other side of the road is drawn up some distance away. I cannot accept, considering all the probabilities of the case, the suggestion of Mr. P. J. Hannigan that it was drawn up 45 feet away. I believe it was only a few yards further than being exactly opposite the other van. There was a gap, a gap that would be perfectly visible in daylight, and that would be perfectly visible, too, at night perhaps, if there was nothing to distract the attention of an oncomer. But to add to the difficulties, the van facing towards Ballina I am satisfied had its lights blazing on, adding to the difficulty of anyone coming up to these two vehicles parked so near each other. The original Ford van, the one that was injured, there without a light to indicate its position, would be a danger even without a second van. It should be obvious, however, to anyone with effective lights. Mr. O'Beirne was coming with effective lights and he would have found it very difficult to explain, if there were no other element in the case, how he ran into this obstruction on the road. Whoever placed that obstruction on the road was under the duty of taking every precaution to see that it did not cause injury to anyone using the road. No attempt was made to give warning, the rere light was absolutely ineffective for any purpose and the danger was contributed to by the fact that the other van had its lights fully on. Still, was there any excuse for Mr. O'Beirne coming down the road and going into this obstruction? I think he would have seen this van were it not for the distraction caused by the fact that the other van had its lights blazing on, not enough to dazzle him, but enough to distract him and enough to excuse him for not seeing the other van. He was not able to see it until he was clearing the first van on his right. When he did see it he certainly made every effort to avoid the collision, but it was too late. I think that the accident was caused by the negligence in leaving the van unlighted as an obstruction on the road, obscured by the second van with its lights on, and that there was no negligence on the part of Mr. O'Beirne inasmuch as his not seeing the obstruction was due to the way in which Hannigan had left the lights on on his van.

I find, therefore, in Mr. O'Beirne's favour. I dismiss the claims by the two Hannigans. In Mr. O'Beirne's claim the estimate was not really criticised. It is the estimate of a very reputable firm. I allow £160 15s. 9d., the amount of the estimate, and I allow £20 for consequential loss, which is moderate. That is £180 15s. 9d., and I give a decree to Mr. O'Beirne for that amount."

From this decision the defendant appealed to the High Court. The notice of appeal set out the grounds of appeal as follows:—(1), That the learned Circuit Court Judge misdirected himself in law in finding that the defendant was guilty of any negligence; and (2), in not finding that the plaintiff was guilty of negligence; (3), alternatively, that the learned Circuit Court Judge misdirected himself in law in not finding that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence; (4), that on the findings of fact as found by the learned Circuit Court Judge he should have entered judgment for the defendant, and that he misdirected himself in law in entering judgment for the plaintiff; (5), that the...