Twomey -v- Crean & Anor, [2005]IEHC 27 (2005)

Docket Number:1999 9631P
Party Name:Twomey, Crean & Anor
Judge:Peart J.

[2005] IEHC 27THE HIGH COURT Record Number: 1999 No. 9631PBetween:Martin TwomeyPlaintiff AndKeith Crean and Michael O'DonoghueDefendantsJudgment of Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered on the 10th day of February 2005:The Court has been informed by Counsel for the plaintiff that judgment in default of appearance has been obtained against the first named defendant, Keith Crean. While the order obtained against that defendant has not been produced as yet, I am happy to accept that what I am told is the case. The case before me proceeded only as against the second named defendant, except so far as the Court is required to assess damages as against the first defendant, for the purposes of the judgment which was obtained in default of appearance.The facts of the case are simple enough regardless of which of the parties is giving the correct account of how this accident happened and as a result of which the plaintiff, a pillion passenger on the motor cycle being driven by the first named defendant sustained a very significant leg injury.The plaintiff says that on the 8th May 1998 at about 10.10pm he was travelling as a pillion passenger on a motor bike being driven by the first named defendant, along Harbour Road, when the second named defendant, who he says was parked on the left hand side of the road (the same side of the road on which the plaintiff was travelling)without any prior warning made a u-turn manoeuvre which caused the motorcycle to hit the car broadside on the driver's side of the car, and in particular into the driver's door. He states also that the first named defendant had put on his right indicator in order to pass this supposedly parked car. He says that the headlight of the motorcycle was definitely on.The plaintiff has stated that the impact occurred on Harbour Road, opposite a Statoil Filling Station which is just beyond a right turn into a road referred to as Hollyville. The suggestion made, which is denied by the second named defendant, is that he was doing a u-turn in order to double back, as it were, in order to turn into Hollyville.The plaintiff and the first named defendant were thrown from the motorcycle and ended up, in the case of the plaintiff, about 30-40 feet beyond the car. He could not say whether he ended up on the left or the right hand side of the road.The plaintiff has sworn that the defendant's car was parked, or more accurately I suppose pulled over to the left hand kerb at the side of the road with its left indicator on...

To continue reading