Personal Injuries
Injuries Board report shows average public liability award to injured persons was €22,865
The Injuries Board has reported that during the two year period from January 2007 to December 2008 it made 2,859 awards in public liability claims cases. The Board awarded compensation totalling €65,400,000. The average award was €22,885. This compares with an average award of €20,792 to PL claimants in 2007.
In a report issued recently- A Review of Public Liability Awards 2007 & 2008 – the Injuries Board gave details of:
- awards
- location of accidents
- causes of accidents
- type of injury suffered.
The average award was €22,865.
Most awards were for less than €38,000, the upper limit of awards the Circuit Court can make.
While only 0.5% of awards were for over €100,000, that in fact means that 14 awards of €100,000 or more were made by the Board.
Over 350 awards (12.5%) of between €38,000 and €100,000 were made.
Thirty-two percent of awards (914) of between €20,000 and €38,000 were made. Fifty-five percent (1,572) of all awards were for less that €20,000.
Over a quarter of all awards (27%) were made against local authorities in relation to accidents in public places under the control of local authorities.
Nearly a quarter of all awards (24%) were made in respect of accidents in retail and shopping outlets. The other locations of accidents were:
- hotels, pubs, clubs, restaurants (19%)
- leisure facilities (13%)
- transport/utilities (6%)
- education and health establishments (4%)
The remaining 6% of accidents occurred in a variety of locations, including construction sites and car parks.
A remarkable 67% of the accidents were caused by slips, trips and falls.
The other causes of accidents were flying/falling objects (11%),
-injury caused by machinery (5%), cuts (3%),
-burns/scalds, assaults and animals (each 2%),
-one percent each for poisoning and reaction.
-the remaining 6% were attributed to other causes.
The review shows that many accident victims sustain at least two types of injury. The most common injuries suffered are sprains (40%), bruising (32%), fractures (29%), lacerations/cuts (25%) and injuries classified as superficial (10%).
Four percent of awards were for psychological disorders, with crush, intracranial, dislocation and burns each accounting for 2% of injuries.
Seven percent of injuries are classified in the other category.
Given that many of those injured suffer from one or more of the types of injuries listed, the total adds up to 155%.
The review reports that 70% of awards were made to women and while people of all ages suffer accidents, half of all awards went to people aged over 45.
The report provides a valuable insight for workplace owners, drivers and local authorities as to where there focus should be in an effort to prevent such accidents.
Paul Tracey solicitors has specialised in the provision of assistance to injured parties for over 20 years,it’s principal welcomed the publication of the report of the injuries board data which was hitherto unavailable from the court services
Paul Tracey
7th August 2009
Road Accident compensation award reduced against drunk driver!
A significant Road Accident compensation award was reduced against drunk driver today where the injured party was aware of the consumption of alcohol by the driver .
The Supreme Court has ruled a young man who travelled in a car driven by another man whom he knew had several alcoholic drinks is 35 per cent liable for serious injuries suffered in a subsequent accident, not 15 per cent as found by a judge in the original High Court hearing.
On that basis, the three judge court today reduced to a €1.3 million damages award by High Court Judge Ray Moran to €890,000 arising from the accident in Co Tipperary 10 years ago.
The court dismissed arguments by the car driver’s legal team that the High Court should have dismissed Mr Moran’s entire case against the driver after it found as a fact Mr Moran got into a car with a driver whom he knew had been drinking.
The case arose from an accident on the night of April 23rd/24th 1999 when Mr Moran, Ashbrook Heights, Nenagh, Co Tipperary, was travelling as a front seat passenger in a car driven by Mr Fogarty, Sapwell, Ballingarry, Co Tipperary. Both men were drinking earlier in a bar in Nenagh and they and a woman friend all left the bar at closing time and travelled together in the car driven by Mr Fogarty.
On their homeward journey, the car collided with a wall and Mr Moran suffered head and other injuries as a result of which, it was claimed, he was physically unable to continue his apprenticeship as a block layer. It was also claimed he would have difficulty looking after himself into the future arising from his injuries.
Mr Moran later took High Court proceedings against Mr Fogarty and was awarded € 1.3 million damages, reduced to €1.1 million as a result of that court’s finding of 15 per cent contributory negligence by Mr Moran in getting into a car with a driver whom he knew had been drinking.
Mr Fogarty appealed against the award on several grounds, including that Mr Moran was not entitled to damages as the cause of his injuries was the accident and he would not have suffered those had he refused to travel with a driver whom he knew was intoxicated.
In a reserved judgment today, Mr Justice Joseph Finnegan, with whom the Chief Justice, Mr Justice John Murray and Ms Justice Susan Denham agreed, ruled the greater blameworthiness in the case must lie with the driver..
It was Mr Fogarty’s decision to drive to the bar in Nenagh and to drive home, notwithstanding the consumption of alcohol, the judge said. It was Mr Fogarty who had control of the car and its driving and it was he who represented a danger not just to
Mr Moran but other road users and the public in general. The accident was entitely attributable to Mr Fogarty’s driving.
consumed alcohol. They had also spent from about 8.30pm to at least 1am in the bar together and, in each other’s presence, drank between six and nine alcoholic drinks over that time.
Mr Moran knew, or certainly ought to have known, Mr Fogarty’s ability to drive was impaired by drink and, quite clearly, he ought not to have driven, the judge said.
Given all the circumstances, the judge said the aportionment of 15 per cent fault to Mr Moran represented “a significant disroportion” between the respective blameworthiness of the two. The court would set aside the 15 per cent finding and replace it with one of 35 per cent for Mr Moran and 65 per cent for Mr Fogarty.
The case shows the balancing a court must take into account when dealing with drunk driving cases. Clearly people who are injured at the hands of drunk drivers are entitled to compensation for their injuries. Those however who consent to travel with drivers whom they know to be drunk have to have regard for the risk they are undertaking when they do so.
The case does not set a precedent for all such cases as clearly the circumstances of each case must be taken into account.
Paul Tracey
21/07/2009
