July-19-2016 in Healthcare Law, Litigation & Dispute Resolution
We outline Cronin v Stevenson [2016] IECA 186 (Court of Appeal, Edwards J, 22 June 2016), a successful appeal against a High Court award for damages in a personal injuries action.
By order dated 17 April 2015, the High Court (Cross J) awarded the plaintiff a total sum for damages of €200,000 comprised of €100,000 for pain and suffering to date, €80,000 for pain and suffering into the future, and an agreed sum of €20,000 for special damages. The plaintiff’s claim arose from injuries suffered by her as a result a road traffic accident that occurred on 5 December 2007. The plaintiff pleaded her injuries comprised of severe soft tissue injuries to her cervical, left shoulder and lower back including lumbosacral and coccyx areas. The trial judge accepted the plaintiff’s evidence and that of her medical reports that her pain and suffering was ongoing.
The defendants contended that following legal principles laid down in Rossiter v Dun Laoghaire and Rathdown County Council [2001] 3 IR 578, the award was excessive and disproportionate to the actual injuries sustained, and that the Court of Appeal should interfere to set aside the trial judge’s award. The defendants relied on their own medical expert’s opinion that there was no organic basis for the plaintiff’s complaints and that the pain at clinical examination was disproportionate to the objective findings. The defendants also referred the Court of Appeal to the Book of Quantum in relation to soft tissue injuries.
Edwards J adopted the same approach as that of Irvine J in Nolan v Wirenski [2016] IECA 56 (unreported, Court of Appeal, Irvine J, 25 February 2016) where she considered the jurisdiction of an appellate court to overturn an award of damages stating that the court “enjoys jurisdiction to overturn an award of damages if it is satisfied that no reasonable proportion exists between the sum awarded by the trial judge and what the appellate court itself considers appropriate in respect of the injuries concerned” having regard to the fact that the appellate court does not have the benefit of seeing and hearing witnesses in the same manner as the trial judge in the first instance. Edwards J noted that both in Nolan and the present case medical evidence was not given viva voce.
Edwards J did not interfere with Cross J’s assessment of the credibility of the plaintiff and accepted that she has suffered significantly as a result of her injuries. However, he was of the view that the defendants were right to point to the book of quantum, stating: “It is clear from the indicative figures provided by the Book of Quantum, even if updated by a crude 50%, that the trial judge’s award of €180,000 in respect of pain and suffering (€100,000 to date and €80,000 into the future) is difficult to justify.”
Edwards J. also adopted the approach taken in Nolan and Shannon v O’Sullivan [2016]IECAin examining the award of damages by reference to where the plaintiff’s injuries fall to be located on the range that comes before the courts for assessment between minor and very severe. It was noted that damages for very severe or catastrophic injuries were likely to fall somewhere in the region of €450,000.
Having regard to all the evidence, Edwards J concluded that the damages awarded by the High Court in this case were disproportionate and excessive when considered against the spectrum of damages awarded by the courts in cases of personal injuries. Edwards J set aside the order of the High Court and replaced it with an award of €125,000 being €75,000 for pain and suffering to date, €30,000 for pain and suffering into the future to which was added the agreed special damages of €20,000.
Back to Full News