Reilly v Mangan
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Twomey |
| Judgment Date | 21 February 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IEHC 91 |
| Docket Number | [2017 No. 6057 P] |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 21 February 2019 |
[2019] IEHC 91
THE HIGH COURT
PERSONAL INJURIES
Twomey J.
[2017 No. 6057 P]
Personal injuries – Liability – Credibility – Plaintiff seeking damages – Whether the appellant could apportion blame to the defendant
Facts: The plaintiff, Mr Reilly, brought a claim for personal injuries against the defendant, Mr Mangan, a taxi driver. The incident occurred when Mr Reilly was in Mullingar, County Westmeath on a Sunday morning, the 15th March, 2015. At approximately 1 am, Mr Reilly was drunk and willingly engaged in reckless and unlawful behaviour, namely a fight with a group of men in the middle of a main street in Mullingar which was busy with traffic at the time. During the melee he fell or was knocked to the ground in the middle of the busy street right beside the back wheel of a taxi which was momentarily stopped at a red light on that street. Mr Reilly ended up lying so close to the back wheel of the taxi that, when the light turned green and the taxi driver pulled away from the melee, the wheel rolled over Mr Reilly’s ankle. Mr Reilly’s ankle was fractured and he required surgery.
Held by the High Court (Twomey J) that the question for it was whether Mr Reilly, who was engaged in behaviour which put his own safety and the safety of others at risk, was to blame for the injury to his ankle that resulted from his activities on that night, or whether he could apportion some or all of the blame to the taxi driver, Mr Mangan.
Twomey J held that Mr Reilly was wholly responsible for the fracture to his ankle and that no legal liability attached to Mr Mangan for that injury.
Relief refused.
This case involves a claim for personal injuries by the plaintiff (“Mr. Reilly”) of Dalton Park, Mullingar, County Westmeath against a taxi driver, the defendant (“Mr. Mangan”). The incident occurred when Mr. Reilly, who was accompanied by his partner, Elaine Farrell, and his niece, Ciara Maxwell, was in Mullingar late on a Saturday night/Sunday morning, the 14th/15th March, 2015.
At approximately 1 am on the Sunday morning Mr. Reilly was drunk and willingly engaged in reckless and unlawful behaviour, namely a fight with a group of men in the middle of a main street in Mullingar which was busy with traffic at the time.
During the melee he fell or was knocked to the ground in the middle of the busy street right beside the back wheel of a taxi which was momentarily stopped at a red light on that street.
Mr. Reilly ended up lying so close to the back wheel of the taxi that, when the light turned green and the taxi driver pulled away from the melee, the wheel rolled over Mr. Reilly's ankle. Mr. Reilly's ankle was fractured and he required surgery.
The question for this Court is whether Mr. Reilly, who was engaged in behaviour which put his own safety and the safety of others at risk, is to blame for the injury to his ankle that resulted from his activities on that night, or whether he can apportion some or all of the blame to the taxi driver, Mr. Mangan.
For the reasons set out below, this Court concludes that Mr. Reilly is wholly responsible for the fracture to his ankle and no legal liability attaches to Mr. Mangan for this injury.
The credibility of a plaintiff in a personal injuries claim is relevant because the Court first must be convinced that the accident happened as alleged and secondly, that the damage inflicted is as serious as alleged by the plaintiff. In this case, this Court has serious reservations about the credibility of the plaintiff for a number of reasons.
In particular, Mr. Reilly made a statement to Gardaí (the “Statement”) on 23rd April, 2015 in which he stated that the accident occurred in a manner which is wholly inconsistent with his version of events to this Court now (which is, as previously set out, that he was involved in a fight in the middle of the street, at which his partner Elaine Hanley was present, and during that fight he ended up on the ground close to the back of the taxi).
In contrast to his evidence given to this Court, in his statement to the Gardaí, he states:
“I noticed a taxi going by and Elaine [his partner] was in the back of it. She waved out at us. […] I think I saw a taxi stopped outside John Daly's Pub […] The taxi was in the inside lane at the lights to go straight down the town. I approached the taxi. I was on my own. I assume the lights were green. I presumed that I was talking to the taxi driver and when the lights went green I assume he clipped me. I think the back wheel of the taxi went over my leg”
However, after giving this statement, Mr. Reilly became aware of the fact that there was CCTV footage, which contradicted this version of events and which showed that he was involved in a fight in the middle of the street during which he ended up on the ground close to the back of the taxi. To quote Mr. Reilly's own engineer in his Expert Report on the incident, for which purpose he received the Statement:
“the account given by Mr. Reilly differs substantially from what can be seen on the CCTV footage.”
After Mr. Reilly made the Statement and after he became aware of the existence of CCTV footage which completely contradicted the version of events in the Statement, Mr. Reilly changed his recollection of the events to the version of events which he gave to this Court in his oral evidence and which is consistent with the CCTV footage.
However, this Court cannot simply ignore the existence of the Statement, which is a complete fabrication. The Statement needs to be put in context. It begins with the following confirmation from Mr. Reilly:
“I hereby declare that this statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence I would be liable to prosecution if I state in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.”
Despite this confirmation by Mr. Reilly that he would be liable to prosecution for any false statements, not only was the statement false, but in it, Mr. Reilly was making a very grave allegation against Mr. Mangan. This is because in it Mr. Reilly implies that he was innocently speaking to Mr. Mangan and then Mr. Mangan for no apparent reason drove off rolling over his leg, a very serious allegation against any person, let alone a person who earns his livelihood as a taxi driver, which, if true, could lead to Mr. Mangan being found guilty of a criminal offence, being imprisoned and/or the loss of his livelihood.
Were it not for the excellent and painstaking detective work of Garda Eileen Murphy in searching for and analysing CCTV footage, this is where the matter might have rested. As is clear from the CCTV footage, it was a complete fabrication by Mr. Reilly to say that he ever talked to the taxi driver.
Most significantly of all, there is no reference in the Statement to the fight or the fact that Mr. Reilly was prone on the ground at the back of the taxi, which is his evidence now to this Court. Clearly there is a significant difference between a claim for personal injuries by a plaintiff where he was talking to the taxi driver and the taxi driver drove away and ‘ he clipped’ the plaintiff, and a claim where a plaintiff was lying prone on the ground drunk after participating in a melee near the back wheel of the taxi.
Not only that, but the CCTV footage shows that Elaine Farrell was with Mr. Reilly for the entire incident. Therefore, the reference in Mr. Reilly's Statement to Elaine Farrell getting a taxi and waving to him in advance of the incident is not simply a case of Mr. Reilly forgetting that Ms. Farrell was with him. Rather it is the creation by Mr. Reilly of a completely false set of facts, presumably to add authenticity to his false claim against Mr. Mangan, which could have led to the prosecution of Mr. Mangan for a criminal offence.
All of these false statements by Mr. Reilly, which suggested that Mr. Mangan was guilty of a criminal offence, strengthened Mr. Reilly's claim for damages for personal injuries for in excess of €60,000, (which includes a claim of €8,567 for out of pocket expenses, but not for loss of earnings as it seems Mr. Reilly was not working at the time of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial