This case is an appeal which was brought by the Defendants after the High Court made an order which awarded the Plaintiff €250,000 in damages for future loss of earnings. The Plaintiff sought damages in the High Court for personal injuries, loss and damage sustained as a result of a road traffic accident which occurred on the 14th of June 2014. She sustained multiple soft tissue injuries to her neck, back and knee and most significantly, she sustained an injury to her coccyx bone and has subsequently developed a condition known as coccydynia. The Plaintiff was initially treated by her General Practitioner (“GP”) who referred her for x-rays which revealed no abnormalities. However, some days after the accident, she complained of severe coccygeal pain which gave rise to difficulties sleeping, driving and sitting for long periods; so much so that she was prescribed anti-inflammatory, relaxant and pain killing medication and has been out of work since the accident.

On the 24th of March 2015, the Plaintiff met with an orthopaedic surgeon and underwent the first of three procedures under anaesthetic in an attempt to alleviate the ongoing coccygeal pain.  It was accepted by all of the medical advisors at the time of the hearing of the High Court action (three and a half years post-accident) that the Plaintiff remained in constant pain.

Counsel for the Defendant’s submitted that there was clear evidence to demonstrate a hope and expectation that the Plaintiff would eventually return to her pre-accident employment with the school. Counsel for the Defendant believed that the trial judge’s calculations were erroneous and that they are internally inconsistent. Counsel for the Defendants also opined that the trial judge failed to identify the appropriate actuarial calculation when making the award for future losses in light of her own findings that while the Plaintiff will likely continue to suffer ongoing pain and discomfort in the short to medium term, she is likely to return to work at the school, on the balance of probabilities, in the short to medium term. Furthermore, Counsel for the Defendant stated that the trial judge offered no explanation or breakdown of what her headline figure was, or what deduction she applied, therefore it was not possible to ascertain how the final figure was reached, and that as a consequence the trial Judge failed to comply with the obligation to give reasons.

 Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted it was not plausible that the Plaintiff could return to her pre-accident employment at the school. This is based on a number of factors including the plaintiff’s own concern about her ability to engage with parents and students; her ability to cope with the pain from which she generally suffered, regardless of whether she was sitting or standing; and her ability to manage in a busy school environment. The Plaintiff gave evidence that she is in constant pain both when sitting and standing.

In reaching their decision, the Court of Appeal stated that it is important to note that part of the function of an appellate court is to ascertain whether there may have been significant and material error(s) in the way in which the trial judge reached a conclusion as to the facts. The Court concluded that the trial judge did not make it clear whether she was finding that the Plaintiff would, on the balance of probabilities, be able to return to work at the school or not. The evidence on this issue was not clear-cut and a decision on this issue was required to be reached and the basis for that conclusion identified. The Court was not able to reconstruct the possible basis upon which the trial judge arrived at her final figure. Therefore, the Court ordered that this case be remitted to the High Court solely for the purpose of assessing damages for future earnings, and that it should be based upon the evidence already given in the High Court when the case was at trial.
https://www.courts.ie/view/judgments/0e42aae6-7b19-4521-b824-aaf1d49cc57d/682bfc77-072a-49da-970d-60b6b4852df6/2020_IECA_200.pdf/pdf