Snell v Haughton

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judgment Date: 15 July 1971
• Date: 15 July 1971
• Docket Number: [1968. No. 246 P.]

Snell v. Haughton

THOMAS SNELL

Plaintiff

and

GABRIEL, HAUGHTON

Defendant.

[1968. No. 246 P.]

Supreme Court

Negligence - Fault - Apportionment - Pedestrian and motorist - Personal injuries - Damages - Broken leg.

The plaintiff, a farm labourer aged 24 years, was walking along the left margin of an unlighted road in the country on a dark wet night in August, 1966, with his back to the traffic, when he was knocked down and injured by the defendant's motor car which was travelling in the same direction as the plaintiff. The plaintiff could have walked on a footpath on the other side of the road. At the trial of the plaintiff's action in 1969, in which he claimed damages for the negligence of the defendant, the jury found that both parties had been negligent. The jury also apportioned 75% of the fault to the plaintiff and the remaining 25% to the defendant, and they awarded the plaintiff £1,500 as general damages for his pain and suffering to the date of the trial and a further £850 for his future pain and suffering. At the hearing of the plaintiff's appeal, he submitted that the apportionment was unreasonable and that the sum of £850 was inadequate, and the defendant submitted that the latter sum was excessive as the plaintiff had recovered from his injuries at the time of the trial.

Held by the Supreme Court ( Ó Dálaigh ó dálaigh C.J., Walsh, Budd, FitzGerald and McLoughlin JJ.), in disallowing the appeal, 1, that the apportionment of 75% of the fault to the plaintiff, which was based on the jury's assessment of his blameworthiness, was not grossly disproportionate in the light of the facts established by the evidence.

Donoghue v. Burke [1960] I.R. 314 applied.

O'Sullivan v. Dwyer [1971] I.R. 275 mentioned.

2. That, while it was not ungenerous, the sum of £850 was not grossly disproportionate in the light of the facts established by the evidence.

3. That, as the jury had found expressly that the plaintiff had been negligent in one particular respect which was supported by the evidence, the trial was not unsatisfactory because the jury had failed to answer a question based on another suggested act of negligence on his part.

Appeal from the High Court.

The facts have been summarised in the head-note and appear in the judgment of Walsh J., post. The action was tried before Henchy J. and a jury on the 25th and 26th February, 1969. The jury found as follows:—

"1. Was the defendant negligent in failing to keep a proper look out? Answer: Yes.

2. Was the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence

• (a) in walking on to the path of the defendant's car?

Answer: [None]

or

• (b) in walking close to the left-hand margin of the road?

Answer: Yes.

• 3. Assess, on the basis that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence, his damages under the following headings:—

(a) Out-of-pocket expenses to date	Answer:	£1000
(b) Pain and suffering to date	Answer:	£1500
(c) Pain and suffering in the future	Answer:	£ 850
(d) Loss of earnings in the future	Answer:	Nil
		-----------
	Total	£3350

• 4. Apportion the degrees of fault as against

(a) the defendant	Answer: 25 per cent.
(b) the plaintiff	Answer: 75 per cent."

Cur. adv. vult.

Ó Dálaigh ó dálaigh C.J.:—

I have read the judgment...