O'Donnell v Coffey
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Hanna |
| Judgment Date | 07 July 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] IEHC 470 |
| Docket Number | [2013 No. 9757 P.] |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 07 July 2017 |
[2017] IEHC 470
THE HIGH COURT
Hanna J.
[2013 No. 9757 P.]
AND
Tort – Damages & Restitution – Injury on boat – Lawful gratuitous bailment – Liability – Whether the owner was liable for the acts of bailee in absence of evidence
Facts: The plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the defendants for sustaining life threatening injuries while travelling on a boat piloted by the first defendant. The main issue arose as to who should be liable to pay the compensation to the plaintiff. The second defendant (owner of the boat) took no part in the proceedings and it was argued that he was not liable for the acts of the first defendant. The first defendant admitted his liability for piloting the boat negligently in an intoxicated state. The first defendant, however, submitted that the keys of the boat were with the second defendant's son who gave it to the first defendant. The case for the second defendant was based on the fact that he was not vicariously liable for the acts of the first defendant as the first defendant was not acting as his agent, servant or employee.
Mr. Justice Hanna awarded damages to the plaintiff along with the agreed special damages keeping in lieu the pain and suffering that the plaintiff underwent. The Court noted that though there was full recovery, yet the possibility of adverse neurological consequences could not be denied. The Court held that in the absence of clear authority from the principal, (second defendant), the second defendant's son had acted unlawfully by creating a bailment in favour of the first defendant for permitting him to pilot the boat. The Court noted that by placing the boat under the control of the first defendant, the second defendant was acting as an agent or servant of the second defendant with implicit authority and thus, the second defendant, too, was liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. The Court noted that both the defendants were liable for negligence to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff lives in Clonskeagh Co. Dublin. She was born on 20th October, 1995, and is currently in her final year of studies in University College Dublin. At the time of the accident the subject matter of these proceedings she was still at school. She was a good student both in terms of her studies and in sporting activities. She excelled, in particular, at hockey and played at both county and international level in the U18s category.
Her parents owned a cabin cruiser. At the material time, this boat was moored at the marina in Athlone, Co. Westmeath. As is often the case at mooring centres on inland waterways, no less than in coastal areas, a social 'scene' exists and friendships develop between families and individuals, both visiting and local.
Such is the case with the plaintiff who was then aged sixteen years. On the 14th July, 2012, she was at the marina with her parents. That evening, they were invited to join friends on another boat, 'About Time', which was moored nearby, for a social gathering. They made their way there and, when they arrived at that boat and through the evening, a number of other people were present. According to the plaintiff's evidence among them were Ms. Molly Henshaw, Mr. Richard Coffey (the first named defendant), Mr. Robert (also referred to as Rob) Corcoran (the second named defendant's son) and Mr. David Jinx. Others were present some of whom were known to the plaintiff.
Some of the company on board had been invited to an 18th birthday party. This party was to take place at a public house some seven or eight kilometres from the marina on Lough Ree. Plans were made between various intending party goers to make their way to the celebration. Among the craft moored nearby was a rigid inflatable boat (RIB), a Caribe 40 HP Yamaha, a fast and powerful vessel. This was owned by the second named defendant but, that evening, Rob Corcoran had possession of the keys and apparent control of this RIB.
As there was not enough room in the RIB to accommodate all the people who intended to go to the party, a plan was devised whereby some of the guests would travel up river with a view to collecting another RIB belonging to Ms. Molly Henshaw and navigating it back to the marina to collect the balance of the party group.
Robert Corcoran was having a pleasant evening. During its course, he had been drinking alcohol and he decided that he did not wish to pilot the RIB upstream to collect the Henshaw boat. He gave the keys of the Corcoran RIB to the first named defendant. Four people in all made their way to the that RIB. The first named defendant took up the steering and the control. The plaintiff, who was not invited to the party, went along for the 'spin' and sat at the bow of the boat facing back towards Mr. Coffey, Mr. Jinx sat beside Mr. Coffey and Mollie Henshaw sat on the tubed edge of the RIB.
The RIB proceeded a short distance in the direction of the railway bridge. Mr. Coffey, whose negligent pilotage of the RIB is not disputed, in his account of what occurred, claims that he was startled by a mooring buoy ahead of him. He swerved to avoid this obstacle and the boat then collided with a pillar of the railway bridge. Both the first named defendant and Mr. Jinx were propelled out of the boat. Mr. Jinx was carried away by the tide. Mr. Coffey managed to clamber back into the boat. After the collision, the engine was still running and the propeller was churning away. With commendable foresight, Ms. Henshaw quickly moved to put the boat into neutral gear thereby eliminating that particular lethal hazard. Mr. Jinx who was taken away by the current was rescued by another boat user who, fortunately for all concerned, was nearby and who summoned the emergency services.
The plaintiff was 'knocked out' after the initial impact but seemed to come around some moments later. However, the plaintiff then deteriorated and became extremely incoherent and ill. She began slipping in and out of consciousness. She was removed by ambulance to hospital in Ballinasloe. During the journey, paramedic staff together with her no doubt distraught mother continually endeavoured to keep her conscious. She received a serious injury to the right side of her head and was put in a neck brace. She was detained in hospital for a total of nine days. She had suffered either an extradural or subdural hematoma. Fortunately, notwithstanding the seriousness of the injury and the potential life altering consequences which threatened, the expert medical care which the plaintiff received in Portiuncula Hospital including networking with medical staff in Beaumont Hospital in Dublin lead to a full recovery and a return to the active life that the plaintiff had hitherto lead albeit over some time and with some interim consequences.
Oral evidence was given by the plaintiff. She had no recollection of the actual crash. The Court heard from members of An Garda Síochána who attended at the scene. In addition, evidence was given by Hilary O'Donnell, the plaintiff's mother, Molly Henshaw and Eugene Curry, an expert in marine matters.
Liability was conceded by the first named defendant. Mr. Coffey gave evidence but Mr. Brian Corcoran did not, nor was any evidence proffered on his behalf. There was no evidence either way to indicate if Brian Corcoran was at the marina that evening or that he was aware of what was happening.
At the conclusion of the evidence, Mr. Liam Reidy S.C. on behalf of the second named defendant contended that neither on the evidence nor in law had the second named defendant any case to answer. It was submitted that Mr. Brian Corcoran was the owner of the boat and had no proximity to the actions of Mr. Coffey. There was no evidence that he had knowledge that any person was using the RIB other than his son. Mr. Coffey was in possession and command of the RIB subject to a standalone gratuitous bailment which was effected by the second named defendant's son in handing over the use of the RIB to Mr. Coffey. At para. 3(j) of the defence the second named defendant says:
'The first named defendant had control of the boat subject to a stand-alone gratuitous bailment only from the second named defendant and not subject to any relationship or understanding given rise to a relationship of master/servant or principal/agent'.
There is no evidence, Mr. Reidy argued, that the second named defendant ever consented to the piloting of the boat by the first named defendant. Neither was there evidence that he knew that this was happening. Mr. Coffey was not Brian Corcoran's servant or agent. He was not vicariously liable for Mr. Coffey's negligent acts.
Briefly put, Mr. Aongus O'Brolchain S.C. for the plaintiff argued that Mr. Brian Corcoran was liable for the negligent acts of Mr. Richard Coffey in two respects. Firstly, he was liable because of his son's actions (as agent of the second named defendant) in giving possession and command of the RIB to someone who had consumed intoxicating liquor. The defence does not deny consent by Brian Corcoran to Mr. Coffey's control of the RIB. Secondly, in all the circumstances, Mr. Brian Corcoran stood vicariously liable for the clearly negligent acts of Mr. Coffey. Taking the evidence as a whole, Mr. Coffey was acting as servant or agent of Brian Corcoran. Such should be inferred from the evidence and the failure on the part of Brian Corcoran himself to offer evidence.
The personal injury summons recites, at para. 3, that Brian Corcoran, the second named defendant was the owner of the RIB in which the plaintiff was travelling when she was injured. Ownership of the RIB is conceded by that defendant at para. 1(b) of his defence. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial