O'Reilly v Evans
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1957 |
| Date | 01 January 1957 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
Negligence - Contributory negligence - Stationary unlighted vehicle on highway at night - Plaintiff, on motor-assisted bicycle, colliding with unlighted vehicle - Fatal Accidents Act, 1846 (9 & 10 Vict., c. 93), s. 2.
Appeal from the High Court.
The plaintiff, Rose O'Reilly, sued the defendant, Ursula M. Evans, for damages in respect of the death of her husband, John C. O'Reilly, from injuries he received when he collided with a stationary unlighted motor car, the property of the defendant. The plaintiff brought the action as a dependant of John C. O'Reilly, deceased, on her own behalf and on behalf of her infant son, John Patrick O'Reilly, pursuant to the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Acts. The jury, having found in favour of the plaintiff, the trial Judge (Dixon J.) entered judgment for her with costs. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds, inter alia, that the finding of the jury that the said John C. O'Reilly, deceased, had not been negligent was against the evidence and unsupported by evidence and was perverse. The facts are summarised in the headnote and appear fully from the judgments.
A motor car, black in colour, belonging to the defendant, was drawn up, unlighted, on the road leading from Midleton to Cork on the 27th September, 1954, at about 10.30 p.m. The night was dark. The motor car was facing towards Cork and its left side was about 2 feet out from the left-hand edge of the road, which at this place is some 25 to 26 feet wide. There were hedges on both sides of the road, which is nearly straight with a very slight trend to the left as one comes from Midleton. The plaintiff's husband was riding a motor-assisted bicycle along the road from Midleton towards Cork. He was travelling close to his own side of the road at an estimated speed of 7 to 10 m.p.h. His lamp was lighting and was illuminating the road for 7 to 10 feet in front of it. There is a slight bulge in the hedge at one point and the motor car was parked some 22 yards from this bulge. The rider failed to see the motor car in time and, although he swung out in an attempt to avoid it, he collided with the right rear corner of the motor car and fell to the road, fracturing his skull so badly that he died. The plaintiff, the widow of the deceased cyclist, brought an action for damages, on her own behalf and on behalf of her infant son, under the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846, and the jury, having found that the defendant was negligent, that the deceased cyclist was not guilty of negligence and that the plaintiff and her infant son were dependent upon the deceased, assessed damages at £2,050. On appeal by the defendant it was
Held by the Supreme Court (Lavery, Kingsmill Moore, O'Daly and Maguire JJ.; Maguire C.J., dissenting), that the appeal must be allowed.
Per Kingsmill Moore, J.: ". . . drivers on the highway at night must depend on the illumination which they carry themselves, unless there is adequate street lighting."
Cur. adv. vult.
| Maguire C.J. :— |
In this action, which is brought under the Fatal Accidents Act, the plaintiff, as widow of John C. O'Reilly, deceased, claims damages on behalf of herself and her son as dependants of the deceased. The action was tried by Mr. Justice Dixon and a jury. The jury, having found that the defendant was negligent and that the deceased was not guilty of contributory negligence, assessed damages, the amount of which is not questioned. The defendant asks that the verdict and judgment be set aside and that judgment be entered for her or in the alternative that a new trial be ordered on the ground that the finding that the deceased was not guilty of contributory negligence was against the evidence, unsupported by the evidence and perverse.
The accident out of which this action arises occurred at about 10.30 p.m. on the 27th September, 1954. The night was dark. The deceased was riding a motor-assisted bicycle close to his own side of a road which varied in width from 21 feet 6 inches to 26 feet which was its width at the point where the accident took place. He had come round a bend beyond which was the defendant's stationary motor car, dark in colour and unlighted. It is estimated that this...
To continue reading
Request your trial