Fahy v Pullen
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1968 |
| Date | 01 January 1968 |
Personal injuries -Pain stated to be in right arm - Evidence given of pain also in left arm - Objection by defendant -Discharge of jury - Evidence wrongly excluded -Costs of adjournment.
The plaintiff suffered personal injuries in a motor car accident. Negligence was not in issue and the only question for determination were her injuries and damages. In reply to a request for particulars of injuries such particulars were given which inter alia included a complaint of pain in the plaintiff's right arm. The particulars concluded with these words ". . . suffers and will continue to suffer chronic discomfort and pain". In her evidence the plaintiff stated she had also pain in her left arm. Objection having been taken by the defendant that evidence was ruled inadmissible by the trial Judge and at the request of the defendant he discharged the jury and the costs were given against the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed from that Order to the Supreme Court. Held, that the evidence given by the plaintiff as to the condition of her left arm was admissible and accordingly the jury should not have been discharged and the trial adjourned. Per O'Daly C.J...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Driscoll v Irish Shell and B.P. Ltd and Another
...additional injury as soon as he has formed that intention. (P. W. v. Córas Iompair ÉireannIR [1967] I.R. 137, and Fahy v. PullenDLTR 102 I.L.T.R. 81 considered. 2. The High Court order should have directed the plaintiff to pay to the defendants "the costs of the day." Fahy v. PullenDLTR 1......
-
Wolfe v Wolfe
...674 BELL V PEDERSON 1995 3 IR 511 RSC O.28 r9 AER RIANTA INTERNATIONAL CPT V WALSH WESTERN INTERNATIONAL LTD 1997 2 ILRM 45 FAHY V PULLEN 102 ILTR 81 RSC O.99 r37(33) O'DRISCOLL V IRISH SHELL & BP LTD 1968 IR 215 KIELTHY V ASCON LTD 1970 IR 122 BOURGOINE V TAYLOR 1878 47 LJ CH 542 ASCHERB......
-
HKR Middle East Architects Engineering LLC and Jeremiah Ryan v Barry English
...he will have to amend the underlying pleading.” 15 Important guidance was given by Lavery J. in the Supreme Court in Fahy v. Pullen (1968) 102 I.L.T.R. 81 as to the principles to be applied. In his judgment, Lavery J. said:- “The principles may be stated thus:- 1. Pleadings and particulars ......