Curran v Finn

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Neill J.
• Judgment Date: 29 January 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] IEHC 5
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: No. 8625P/1997
• Date: 29 January 2001

CURRAN v. FINN

BETWEEN

MARY CURRAN

PLAINTIFF

AND

JOHN FINN

DEFENDANT

[2001] IEHC 5

No. 8625P/1997

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

Damages

Damages; assessment of damages; personal injuries; plaintiff had fallen on respondent's premises; plaintiff suffering from primary progressive Multiple Sclerosis; whether plaintiff's MS had been aggravated by the prolapsed thorasic disc suffered in fall; whether surgery carried out to relieve cord compression caused by the thorasic disc further aggravated plaintiff's MS; expert evidence that trauma to and surgery on central nervous system in a patient with active MS both carry a substantial risk of aggravating MS;

Held: The fall probably did aggravate MS; decision to carry out surgery was a reasonable and prudent one, its consequences inexorably linked to the fall; duration of exacerbation from thorasic disk and surgery considered to be approx. 10 years from April 1992; total damages awarded £349, 158: £200, 000 general damages, £129, 158 special damages.

Curran v. Finn - High Court: O'Neill J. - 29/01/2001

The plaintiff had suffered a fall in the defendant's shop premises. O'Donavan J found the defendant entirely responsible for the fall and damages were assessed at £100,000. A year before the accident the plaintiff had developed multiple sclerosis. In calculating the appropriate damages O'Donovan J held that the trauma of the accident had not progressed the plaintiff's multiple sclerosis. The plaintiff appealed this aspect of the decision and sought damages on the basis that the accident had progressed her multiple sclerosis. The Supreme Court in a majority decision allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the High Court for an assessment of damages. O'Neill J held that as a matter of probability the fall had caused an aggravation of the plaintiff's multiple sclerosis condition. The plaintiff would be awarded a total of £329,158 in damages.

1 O'Neill J. delivered the 29th day of January, 2001.

2 This matter comes before me pursuant to the Order of the Supreme Court made on the 20th of May 1999, whereby the Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the Plaintiff against the Judgment and Order of O'Donovan J given and made on the 27th day of March 1998 and in lieu thereof directed that the matter be remitted to the High Court for a retrial of all the various issues related to damages (excluding the issue of liability).

3 In the proceedings the Plaintiff seeks damages for personnel injuries which she suffered as a result as a fall in the Defendant's grocery shop at Coburg Street, in the City of Cork, on the 9th of March 1993. It was the Plaintiff's case in the previous trial before O'Donovan J, that this fall was caused by the negligence of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was successful on that issue and that finding was not appealed by the Defendant.

4 Thus my task in the trial before me was merely to assess such damages as the Plaintiff was entitled to arising from the fall in question. The issue of damages was further truncated by the concession of the Defendant that a prolapsed thoracic disc which the Plaintiff suffered was caused by the fall a concession properly made in the light of the fact that the finding of O'Donovan J in this regard was not appealed.

5 The single issue which emerged in the trial was whether or not the Plaintiff's Multiple Sclerosis (hereinafter referred to as MS) was aggravated or exacerbated by the fall. This broke down into two sub-issues, namely did the prolapsed thoracic disc lead to an aggravation of the MS and/or did the surgery carried out in January of 1994, to relieve cord compression caused by the thoracic disc, further aggravate the Plaintiff's MS.

6 The issues thus raised centre around the question of whether or not trauma and in particular, trauma to the central nervous system can aggravated Multiple Sclerosis and specifically whether in the Plaintiff's case, this did occur.

7 Before delving into these issues, the Plaintiff's health background needs to be set out. Apart from the precise status of the Plaintiff's health between April of 1992 and March of 1993, there was little or no controversy as to the essential events in the Plaintiff's health.

8 The Plaintiff was born on the 27th of December 1955. She married in 1980 and had three children. She gave up work in or about 1982, on the birth of her eldest son and thereafter she did not work outside the home. Until 1992/1993 she was a fit active lady, who enjoyed gardening, swimming and long walks and was actively involved in her local community in Blarney, in a variety of different pursuits.

9 The history of her ill health begins in March/April of 1992. At that time the Plaintiff attended her GP Doctor Cotter with a number of complaints. Doctor Cotter referred her to Doctor Callaghan a consultant neurologist, who saw her in early April of 1992. At this time the Plaintiff was complaining of unpleasant sensations in her back, in her thighs on both sides, of a cold sensation her lower limbs on both sides and a sensation of weakness in her left lower limb. Doctor Callaghan carried out a full neurological examination and found her an extremely difficult case to evaluate. At that time he thought it was unlikely that she had demyelinating disease, and he felt that her symptoms were of a muscular type aggravated by anxiety. Because the Plaintiff was anxious to have her symptoms clarified, Doctor Callaghan admitted her to hospital for investigation.

10 On the 13th of April 1992 the Plaintiff was admitted to Cork Regional Hospital and on admission she was examined by a Doctor Beausang, who was an intern at the time and was doing his two months of neurology. Doctor Beausang took a detailed history from the Plaintiff and carried out an extensive examination of her and his notes of the history and of the examination extend over four pages. In the history that he took from her, he noted the following:-

"Following birth of second child, developed LBP seven years ago, with pain, radiating into (RLL/this resolved with bed rest. Paraesthesia / "hot feeling" of lower back radiating down both lower limbs to toes by 6/52. Cold sensation from knees down. Dragging (L) LL when walking plus subjective weakness, stiffness of lower limbs".

11 He also noted the following:

12 "Subjective weakness of left upper limb".

13 Doctor Beausang carried out a detailed neurological examination and in a diagram he illustrates areas of diminished sensation, these being on the outer side of the right thigh and in both limbs below the knee. On an examination of the movements of her lumbar sacral spine, he found some diminution in extension and some diminution in slight lateral flexion to the left. He also found the following:

14 "gait unsteady on left" and Planters Equivocal"

15 He carried out a very full physical examination of the Plaintiff and apart from the forgoing found no other abnormality.

16 Thus as between the examination carried out by Doctor Callaghan a few days earlier and that carried out by Doctor Beausang on the 13th of April 1992, Doctor Beausang noted in the history which he took a complaint of "dragging" of the left leg, and "gait unsteady on left", and "supsective weakness of left upper limb", whereas in this regard Doctor Callaghan had noted a complaint of "weakness of the left lower limb". Doctor Beausang also found diminished sensation to pin prick in both limbs particularly below the knee, whereas Doctor Callaghan could not detect any sensory loss in the lower limbs. And finally Doctor Beuasang had found some restriction of movement of the lumber sacral spine, whereas Doctor Callaghan could not detect any restriction of movement in her lumber spine, and Doctor Beausong found the ldquo;plantars equivocal" whereas Doctor Callaghan did not make any such finding.

17 While in hospital the Plaintiff had a range of tests carried out on her including a CT scan of her lumber spine and x-rays of her lumber spine and various biochemical investigations. The results of all of these tests were normal.

18 Doctor Callaghan's opinion after all of this was that she remained a very difficult case to evaluate and he was of the view that there might have been a significant functional component contributing to the symptoms.

19 While the Plaintiff had been in hospital she had some physiotherapy which involved the application of weights to her legs. Following this her symptoms had disimpproved and she had difficulty in walking. These symptoms did not clear up for about three weeks.

20 At about that time the Plaintiff was discovered to have an ovarian cyst. This was removed in the Mercy Hospital in Cork, soon after Easter of that year. No significance has been attached by any of the experts who gave evidence to this complaint or procedure in the context the of Plaintiff's MS.

21 Events moved on from here to the Plaintiff's accident on the 9th of March 1993. In this accident the Plaintiff while leaving the Defendant's shop, holding a child by one hand and shopping in another hand, slipped and fell backwards. She attended a General Practitioner, a Doctor O'Riordan on the evening of her fall and on the following day the 10th of March, attended Doctor John O'Riordan also a General Practitioner. Doctor John O'Riordan gave evidence. On the 10th of March 1993, the Plaintiff complained to Doctor John O'Riordan of back discomfort, right elbow discomfort and a mild headache. Doctor O'Riordan described her as being very shaken and upset. He did not document any complaint of numbness or hot sensations on this occasion, but he mentioned that she had complained of pins and needles around her back area, rather than lower down. Doctor O'Riordan examined her lower back and found she a full range of movement of her lumber spine. He was unable to find any particular abnormality in her back or lower limbs. He prescribed for her non-steroidal...