Lipinski (A Minor) v Whelan
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Coffey |
| Judgment Date | 01 July 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] IEHC 452 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [Record 2021/5774P] |
[2022] IEHC 452
[Record 2021/5774P]
THE HIGH COURT
Road traffic accident – Personal injuries – Assessment of damages – Plaintiff seeking damages – Whether the effects of the plaintiff’s PTSD were likely to cause significant disability for the foreseeable future such that the injury was classifiable under the Personal Injuries Guidelines as serious PTSD
Facts: The plaintiff, Ms Lipinski, claimed damages arises from a road traffic accident which occurred on the morning of the 10th of December 2019 when the plaintiff was making her way to school at St. Wolstan’s Abbey, Celbridge, County Kildare. It was admitted that as she crossed the road which led to the school, the plaintiff was suddenly and without warning wrongfully hit by a car that was then being driven by the defendant, Ms Whelan, as a result of which she was caused to fall forward on to the grass verge of an adjacent footpath. The personal injury case came before the High Court for assessment of damages only. Special damages were agreed in the sum of €1,200. At issue was the amount the Court should award by way of general damages for the plaintiff’s pain and suffering to date and into the future. Mr Byrne SC for the plaintiff contended that the post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) complained of by the plaintiff in the proceedings was such as to straddle the top end of the damages bracket for moderate PTSD (€10,000-€35,000) and the bottom end of the damages bracket for serious PTSD (€35,000-€80,000) which he submitted would suggest a value between €40,000 and €50,000. Relying on the fact that its effects were such that the PTSD was unlikely to cause significant disability for the foreseeable future, Mr Mohan SC for the defendant contended that the PTSD could not be classified under the Personal Injuries Guidelines as serious PTSD and submitted that the disorder suffered by the plaintiff fell into the bottom end of the damages bracket for moderate PTSD which he submitted would suggest a value of in or about €20,000.
Held by Coffey J that the agreed expert evidence did not warrant a finding that the effects of the plaintiff’s PTSD were likely to cause significant disability for the foreseeable future such that the injury was classifiable under the Guidelines as serious PTSD. Applying the settled jurisprudence of the Superior Courts which applied to the assessment of general damages in personal injuries cases, Coffey J did not consider that he was required to classify the injury differently or to otherwise depart from the Guidelines in assessing its value. He therefore classified the PTSD as moderate PTSD. To take account of its severity in the past and the fact that its past effects had caused educational disadvantage to the plaintiff to date which could adversely affect her performance in the Leaving Certificate Examination and beyond, Coffey J placed the plaintiff’s PTSD at the very top of the applicable damages bracket for moderate PTSD and therefore assigned to it a value of €35,000. To arrive at an overall figure which was proportionate and just and which ensured that the plaintiff was fairly and justly compensated for all her injuries, Coffey J applied a further uplift of €25,000 for the scar and the plaintiff’s other physical injuries.
Coffey J held that there would therefore be judgement for €61,200 being €60,000 for general damages and €1,200 for agreed special damages.
Damages awarded to plaintiff.
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Coffey delivered on the 1 st day of July 2022
. This is a personal injury case which has come before this Court for assessment of damages only. Special damages have been agreed in the sum of €1,200. At issue is the amount this Court should award by way of general damages for the plaintiff's pain and suffering to date and into the future.
. The plaintiff is a minor who was born on the 7 th of September 2005. She has just completed Transition Year and is about to embark on her final two years at school.
. Her claim for damages arises from a road traffic accident which occurred on the morning of the 10 th of December 2019 when the plaintiff was making her way to school at St. Wolstan's Abbey, Celbridge, County Kildare. It is admitted that as she crossed the road which led to the school, the plaintiff was suddenly and without warning wrongfully hit by a car that was then being driven by the defendant as a result of which she was caused to fall forward on to the grass verge of an adjacent footpath.
. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff developed a significant psychological reaction to the trauma of the accident which was subsequently diagnosed as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (‘PTSD’). It is further agreed that as a result of the collision and fall to the ground, the plaintiff also sustained multiple physical injuries of varying gravity, the most significant of which was an abrasion to the upper part of the back of her left thigh which has left her with a visible scar about which she remains sensitive and embarrassed. In addition, she sustained a miscellany of minor injuries all of which settled after a short period including a soft tissue injury to her back, a sprain to her left wrist, a contusion injury to her left ankle and an injury to her left shin which has left her with a minor and barely visible area of discolouration.
. I do not propose to rehearse the evidence and submissions upon which the parties rely which are recorded on the transcript of the very brief hearing of this matter last Friday which is supplemented by a booklet of agreed medical reports.
. It is common case that the Personal Injuries Guidelines which were adopted by the Judicial Council on the 6 th of March 2021 apply to this case (‘the Guidelines’).
. S.99 of the Judicial Council Act 2019 provides:
“(1) The court shall, in assessing damages in a personal injury action—
(a) have regard to the personal injury guidelines (within the meaning of s.2 of the Judicial Council Act 2019), and
(b) where it departs from those guidelines, state the reasons for such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crum v Motor Insurers Bureau Ireland
...by Brett J that the relevant principles to be considered had been set out in the judgment of Coffey J in Lipinski (a minor) v Whelan [2022] IEHC 452, adopted by Murphy J in McHugh v Ferol [2023] IEHC 132, who also considered the relevant principles to be applied in measuring an overall ‘upl......
-
Delaney v The Personal Injuries Board and Others
...a number of cases, and they are a useful indication of how the Guidelines are applied in practice. 64 . In Lipinski (A Minor) v. Whelan [2022] IEHC 452 Coffey J. applied the Guidelines to a plaintiff who had suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (‘PTSD’), which he categorised as “ moderat......
-
Zaganczyk v John Pettit Wexford Unlimited Company and Another
...was disproportionate to a degree that rendered it an error of law. Although in Noonan J’s view the PTSD in Lipinski (a Minor) v Whelan [2022] IEHC 452 was of a more serious order than in this case, nonetheless when factoring in the depression and alcohol abuse, even assuming they were to be......
-
Patrick McDonnell v Upton Foods Ltd
...case law on the matter, the Court would award damages of €89,250. Meehan v. Shawcove Ltd [2022] IECA 208 & Lipinski (A Minor) v. Whelan [2022] IEHC 452 considered. JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Barr delivered extempore on 6 th December, 2022. 1 This action arises out of an RTA which occurred on 3......
-
The Personal Injury Guidelines - An Update
...have considered the operation of such an uplift in practise. Dillon Eustace acted in the High Court action Lipinski (a Minor) v Whelan [2022] IEHC 452, in which the court noted that the Guidelines set out the procedure or roadmap that a trial judge must have regard to when considering the e......