Doe vs Roe

This case concerned a personal injuries quantum appeal brought by the defendants against the judgment and order of the High Court.

TLDR:

• Defendants appealed against the High Court's assessment of damages in a personal injuries case.
• The plaintiff was a 15-year-old girl injured in a car accident.
• The High Court awarded significant damages, which the defendants argued were excessive and disproportionate.
• The Court of Appeal adjusted the damages in accordance with the Personal Injuries Guidelines.

On 20th March, 2019, the plaintiff, a 15-year-old schoolgirl, was an unrestrained rear seat passenger in the defendants' car. The driver, the first defendant, lost control of the car while negotiating a bend at excessive speed, causing the car to collide with a tree and roll into a field. The plaintiff suffered multiple injuries and the case proceeded as an assessment of damages in the High Court, where the trial judge found the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 15%.

The plaintiff's evidence detailed the chaos and fear she experienced during the accident, her subsequent injuries, and the psychological impact. She suffered from neck and back pain, tinnitus, dental injuries, and psychological issues, including an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression.

The medical evidence was agreed upon and included reports from various specialists, including an orthopaedic surgeon, a dental surgeon, a psychiatrist, and others. The High Court judge identified the psychiatric injury as the dominant injury and awarded damages accordingly, with an uplift to account for other injuries.

The defendants appealed, arguing that the general damages were excessive and disproportionate, and that the judge did not provide adequate reasons for the uplift. The Court of Appeal reviewed the assessment process, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the Personal Injuries Guidelines and ensuring proportionality in the overall award.

The Court of Appeal adjusted the damages, assigning specific values to each injury and applying a discount for overlap. The final award was reduced to €50,287.70 after accounting for contributory negligence.

The judgment provides important guidance on the assessment of damages in personal injuries cases, particularly in relation to multiple injuries and the application of the Personal Injuries Guidelines.

Legal representatives: Mr. John Smith for the plaintiff, Ms. Jane Doe (instructed by Doe & Co.) for the defendants.

Judicial Panel: Mr. Justice Noonan, Binchy J., Meenan J.

Case Citation Reference: [2024] IECA 456