Byrne v Houlihan and Another

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 June 1966
• Date: 01 June 1966
• Court: Supreme Court

Supreme Court.

Byrne v. Houlihan

PATRICK J. BYRNE

Plaintiff

and

IGNATIUS M. HOULIHAN and LOUIS De COURCY,Defendants (1)

Negligence - Fatal accident - Damages - Death of wife intestate - Wife's estate passing to husband - Children dependants losing reasonable expectation of monetary benefits from mother - Such children also gaining expectation of similar benefits from father - Father marrying again - Gain to be taken into account in assessing children's damages - Fatal Injuries Act, 1956 (No. 3 of 1956), s. 4, sub.ss 1 and 22.

Appeal from the High Court.

On the 15th January, 1958, the plaintiff's wife, Bridget Byrne, sustained personal injuries while attending an auction at Carmody's Hotel, Ennis, County Clare, which injuries caused her death. The plaintiff, Patrick J. Byrne, was 55

years old at the date of his wife's death. He was the manager of the National Bank in Kilrush. He issued and served a plenary summons on the defendants, Ignatius M. Houlihan and Louis de Courcy, claiming damages on behalf of himself and the other dependants of his deceased wife, pursuant to the Fatal Injuries Act, 1956. The plaintiff's action was tried before a judge and jury and inter alia damages were awarded to the plaintiff's five sons. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court on the ground, inter alia, that the damages awarded to the plaintiff's sons were excessive. The facts have been summarised in the head-note and are stated fully in the judgment of Kingsmill Moore J., post.

As a result of an accident the plaintiff's wife sustained injuries which caused her death. The defendants admitted liability for negligence and the plaintiff, as personal representative of his deceased wife, claimed damages under the Fatal Injuries Act, 1956, on behalf of himself and the other dependants of the deceased. The wife's estate consisted of 1,376 shares in a private company and their value at the date of her death was agreed to have been approximately £9,000. These shares had paid a dividend of £550 per annum, free of tax. As the deceased died intestate, her husband, the plaintiff, became entitled to her entire estate3. The jury made awards to the five sons of the deceased, aged respectively, at the date of their mother's death, 21, 19¹/₂, 16, 13¹/₂ and 8 years. To the first and second son the jury awarded £500 each; to the third son £1,800; to the fourth son £3,500 and to the fifth son £700. The sum of £200 was awarded to the plaintiff under s. 4, sub-s. 2, of the Act for"funeral and other expenses." The funeral expenses amounted to £121. Evidence was adduced that the plaintiff, in consequence of his wife's death, had to incur greater expense for domestic help and for some private tuition for his children and the sum of £79, over and above the funeral expenses, would appear to have been awarded in recompense for these expenses.

The trial Judge (Walsh J.) instructed the jury that, in assessing the damages payable to the dependants of the deceased, they should not take into account any expectations the children might have had of receiving monetary benefits from their father, noting that in the meantime their father had re-married.

The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds, inter alia,that the sums awarded to the several dependants and to the plaintiff were grossly excessive; that the trial Judge misdirected the jury in telling them that they were to ignore the benefits which the children of the deceased might reasonably expect from the plaintiff out of the property which the plaintiff inherited on the death intestate of his wife, and in directing them that the benefit obtained by the plaintiff by reason of the death of the deceased was not to be used to reduce the amount of the funeral and other expenses arising by reason of the death of the deceased.

Held by the Supreme Court ( Ó Dálaigh C.J., Kingsmill Moore and Haugh ó dálaighJJ.) 1, that the trial Judge was in error in directing the jury to leave any expectation which the children had in benefiting from their father, the plaintiff, out of account;

2, That the sum of £79 could not be awarded under s. 4, sub-s. 2, of the Act. The sum of £200 awarded for "funeral and other expenses," should be reduced to £121.

Cur. adv. vult.

Ó Dálaigh ó dálaigh C.J. :—

I have had an opportunity of reading the judgment which Mr. Justice Kingsmill Moore is about to deliver and I concur in it.

Kingsmill Moore J. :—

This action was brought by the plaintiff, as personal representative of his dead wife, claiming damages under the provisions of the Fatal Injuries Act, 1956, on behalf of himself and the other dependants of his wife who was killed as a result of the negligence of the defendants. That the death was caused by the "wrongful act, neglect, or default" of the defendants was not, and is not, challenged. The grounds of the appeal are that the damages awarded to the several dependants were grossly excessive and that the learned Judge

misdirected the jury as to matters which should be taken into account in arriving at the amount of their award.

The action was brought on behalf of ten alleged dependants. It is only necessary to mention those in respect of whom the jury made awards, namely, the five sons of the deceased, aged, respectively, at the date of their mother's death, 21, 19¹/₂, 16, 13¹/₂ and 8.

To them the jury awarded damages as follows: to the first and second sons, £500, each; to the third son, £1,800; to the fourth son, £3,500; and to the fifth son, £700.

The deceased woman was aged 50 when she died and her husband, the plaintiff, was then aged 55. He was a bank manager, earning, at that date, between his salary, a rank allowance and insurance commissions, about £1,250 per year, a sum which has since increased to about £1,375. In addition, he had a free house, fuel and light. His wife owned 1,376 shares in a private company and their value at the date is agreed to have been about £9,000. They paid a very handsome dividend of £550 per year, free of tax, and continue to pay this amount. As his wife died intestate, these valuable shares passed in their entirety to her husband, the plaintiff, and the children got nothing.

The contention put forward on behalf of the children is that, having regard to the normal social conventions, traditions and mores which prevail in an Irish family in the upper middle class range, the children had a reasonable expectation of sharing in the income of their mother's property during her life and of succeeding eventually to the capital under her will, an expectation of which they have been deprived by her sudden death intestate. The probability of sharing in such benefits was to some degree enhanced by evidence that the deceased had talked of her intention of transferring property to her children before her death so as to avoid death...