Dunne v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: BLAYNEY J.
• Judgment Date: 01 July 1993
• Neutral Citation: 1993 WJSC-SC 1960
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: (300/304/90)
• Date: 01 July 1993

1993 WJSC-SC 1960

THE SUPREME COURT

Finlay C.J.

O'Flaherty J.

Blayney J.

(300/304/90)

DUNNE v. HONEYWELL CONTROL SYSTEMS LTD

BETWEEN/

EDWARD DUNNE

Plaintiff/Respondent

and

HONEYWELL CONTROL SYSTEMS LIMITED

First-named Defendant

and

VIRGINIA MILK PRODUCTS LIMITED

Second-named Defendant/

Appellant

Citations:

COURTS ACT 1988

FOLEY V THERMOCENT PRODUCTS LTD 1956 90 ILTR 92

MCGRATH V BOURNE IR 10 CL 160

REDDY V BATES 1983 IR 141

Words & Phrases:

CF

Subject Headings:

DAMAGES: assessment

BLAYNEY J.

[NEM DISS]

1 This is an appeal by the second-named defendant, Virginia Milk Products Limited (to which I shall refer as the appellant) against an award of £128,669.87 damages for personal injuries. Initially the appeal was in respect of both liability and quantum but at the hearing the appeal against liability was not pursued, and the appeal against quantum was confined to the general damages awarded, namely, £125,000, made up of £50,000 in respect of general damages to the date of the hearing in June 1990, and £75,000 in respect of general damages for the future.

2 The plaintiff is aged 38, having been born on the 2nd December, 1954, and is employed by the first-named defendant, Honeywell Control Systems Limited, as an electrical technician. On the 26th March, 1987, in the course of his employment, he went to the appellant's premises at Virginia, Co. Cavan, to deal with a problem they were having with part of their plant. The access to the place where he had to carry out the work was by a fixed metal ladder about ten feet ten inches in height. After he had completed his work, he went to descend the ladder but lost his hold and fell to the ground below. In falling he struck the heel of his left foot on a pipe and sustained a severe fracture of his left heel bone.

3 The plaintiff was brought to the hospital in Navan and kept there for eight days. His heel was swollen and extremely painful. After five days, when the swelling had subsided, his left leg was put in plaster of Paris. He was discharged home on crutches.

4 At home the plaintiff continued to have a lot of pain and he was referred by his general practitioner, Dr. Michael O'Doherty, to Mr. Richard O'Connell, the orthopaedic surgeon in Wexford. Mr. O'Connell first examined the plaintiff on the 17th April, 1987 and his evidence was that the plaintiff's fracture included two major joints and was a very painful condition because there was a lot of bleeding. With a view to establishing early mobility, Mr. O'Connell took off the plaster of Paris and prescribed physiotherapy.

5 The plaintiff returned to work on the 1st September, 1987 but his heel continued to be painful. He had pain everyday and when he got home in the evening he used to have to use a walking stick. His foot used to swell a lot. It would be all right in the morning, but would swell at the end of the day. In addition, the toes of his left foot began to claw, and the ball and sole of the foot became hypersensitive.

6 In May, 1988 the plaintiff was referred to Professor Bouchier-Hayes as he had developed a condition called reflex sympathetic dystrophy which is also known as causalgia. Professor Bouchier-Hayes found that the plaintiff had significant clawing of his toes and hypersensitivity in the foot. With a view to relieving the hypersensitivity, and the pain of which the plaintiff continued to complain, Professor Bouchier-Hayes performed a lumbar sympathectomy on the 14th August, 1988. The plaintiff was in hospital for twelve days and was out of work for a total of six weeks. The operation was a success. It gave the plaintiff immediate relief.

7 The operation was not intended to and did not deal with the clawing of the toes. This was rectified by another operation, this time performed by Mr. O'Connell, on the 17th October, 1989. On this occasion the plaintiff was in hospital for six days.

8 Mr. O'Connell's evidence was that the plaintiff now has a limp which will be permanent but that it is not a bad limp. He also said that it is inevitable that the plaintiff will develop secondary arthritis, probably in about ten to fifteen years, and that this will necessitate an operation known as arthrodesis for the fusion of the affected joints. The effect of the operation would be to fuse three joints but to leave the plaintiff with a painless foot.

9 The plaintiff is married and has three children, now aged 9, 7, and 4 ½ years. The learned trial judge summed up his condition at the date of the trial in June, 1990 as follows:-

"The present condition of the plaintiff is that he is left with a limp though not a bad one. He has not got good movement in his foot, he has a damaged...