Fitzgerald v Treacy

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Keane C.J.
• Judgment Date: 08 December 2000
• Neutral Citation: 2001 WJSC-SC 2386
• Docket Number: [S.C. No. 181 of 1999]
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 08 December 2000

2001 WJSC-SC 2386

THE SUPREME COURT

Keane C.J.

Denham J.

Geoghegan J.

181/99

FITZGERALD v. TREACY

BETWEEN:

FITZGERALD

APPLICANT

AND

TREACY

RESPONDENT

Citations:

SINNOTT V QUINSWORTH LTD 1984 ILRM 523

KEALY V MIN FOR HEALTH 1999 2 IR 456

Synopsis:

DAMAGES

Award

Whether excessive - General guideline as to damages - Road traffic - Medical evidence (181/1999 - Supreme Court - 8/12/00)

Fitzgerald v Treacy - [2001] 4 IR 405

Facts: The plaintiff had been injured in a road traffic accident. The plaintiff had been travelling as a pillion passenger on a motorbike when the accident occurred. The plaintiff was awarded £100,000 for pain and suffering in the past and £80,000 for pain and suffering in the future. The plaintiff was awarded over £190,000 in damages in total. The defendant appealed against the award on the ground that it was excessive.

Held by the Supreme Court (Keane CJ delivering judgment; Denham J and Geoghegan J agreeing) in allowing the appeal. The injuries in the case were severe and the plaintiff had a very difficult time for a year and was in a good deal of pain. There was a general guideline for the award of general damages in personal injuries cases. In this instance the plaintiff had been awarded a sum which was close to the maximum sum possible and the award was excessive. The sum awarded for pain and suffering in the past would be reduced to £75,000 and the damages awarded for pain and suffering in the future would be reduced to £50,000.

1 8th day of December, 2000 by Keane C.J.

Keane C.J.

2 This is an appeal from a judgment and order of the High Court (Mr. Justice Smyth) sitting in Cork in July of last year. It arises out of a personal injuries action in which the plaintiff, the young lady in her early twenties at the time, was a pillion passenger on a motorcycle when it was in collision with another vehicle. She was thrown from the motorcycle and suffered a number of serious injuries which necessitated a lengthy and very difficult and painful stay in hospital.

3 There was not issue on liability in the High Court. The action proceeded as an assessment of damages only and having heard the evidence, the learned High Court judge gave a detailed and worthwhile review of the young lady's injuries and of the medical evidence in the case. The special damages in the case were relatively small and were agreed in the sum of £10,000 and the real issue in the case had been as to general damages to which the plaintiff was entitled. The High Court judge estimated that in relation to pain and suffering in the past, he estimated that at £100,000 and as to pain and suffering in the future he estimated that at £80,000 making a total of £180,000 which together which the sum due in respect of special damages, meant that there was a decree in favour of the plaintiff of £190,440.20. An appeal has been brought to this court by the defendants on the ground that the award was sufficiently excessive to require intervention by this court.

4 I have said that the injuries in the case were severe and there is, indeed, no dispute about that. She suffered, what is described as, a burst fracture of the second lumbar vertebrae, a fracture of the medical malleolus of the left ankle, a separation of her public symphysis, together with abrasions on her forehead, nose and face and minor abrasions on both legs. She also developed and extremely painful and unpleasant condition called consideniea, which meant she was in a lot of pain when sitting down in the ordinary position and that was a cause of considerable and understandable distress to her. She was treated in Cork University Hospital and spend about four weeks there before being transferred to St. Mary's Orthopaedic Hospital where she spent two weeks and to add to the discomfort of her stay in hospital, she had to have a catheter for part of the time. Not surprising since she was an active young woman and used to an active life, this and the general trauma of the accident caused her some psychological problems. She saw a psychiatrist initially, but he/she was satisfied that the plaintiff was not in need of any treatment in the psychiatric sense, would she see a psychologist and the psychologist confirmed that her life had indeed been so seriously disrupted by this entire episode that she had some psychological consequences. It is unnecessary, any more that the High Court judge did in his judgment, for me in this judgment to go over all the injuries of the plaintiff and the consequences for her. It is...