O'Leary v O'Connell

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 05 March 1968
• Date: 05 March 1968
• Docket Number: [1965. No. 1844 P.]
• Court: Supreme Court

(S.C.)

O'Leary

and

O'Connell

Interference with award of jury - Damages - Whether excessive - Personal injuries - Need for additional evidence - Whether jury should distinguish heads of damage - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1962, O.58, r. 8.

The plaintiff was walking across a road when he was struck by the defendant's motor-cycle and the plaintiff's leg was broken. The trial judge refused to allow the introduction of evidence of an agreed actuarial calculation of the plaintiff's loss of earnings. The jury found that both parties had been negligent, apparently upon the ground that each party had failed to keep a proper look-out. The jury assessed damages at £5,000 (of which £2,000 could be regarded as general damages) and apportioned 85% of the fault to the defendant and 15% to the plaintiff. It was not clear whether the jury had found that the defendant was driving at an excessive speed, but it was clear that they had not found that the plaintiff would be virtually unemployable in the future. Held by the Supreme Court ( Ó Dálaigh C.J., Haugh and Walsh JJ.), 1, that the jury's apportionment of fault should be allowed to stand as it was not grossly disproportionate in the light of the facts established by the evidence. Donoghue v. BurkeIR [1960] I.R. 314 applied. 2. That the amount of the damages awarded was neither grossly excessive nor grossly inadequate. 3. That the plaintiff should not be given liberty to adduce further evidence. PerWalsh J.: —(a) ". . . it would be of great assistance to this Court, and indeed to the parties, in cases of this nature if the jury were to be instructed to make specific...