Personal injuries – Road traffic accident – Apportionment of liability – Appellant seeking damages – Whether trial judge erred in law in concluding that the primary obligation rested with the appellant to avoid the road traffic collision 

Facts: The plaintiff/appellant, Ms Moore, appealed to the Court of Appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court (Fullam J) of 20th October 2015 made in a personal injuries action brought in respect of injuries sustained by her in the course of a road traffic accident on 2nd May 2013. Her appeal concerned the apportionment of liability found by the trial judge, i.e. 85% as against her and 15% against the defendant/respondent, Advanced Tyre Company Ltd, and also his award of general damages in the sum of €60,000. Ms Moore submitted that the trial judge erred in law in concluding that the primary obligation rested with her to avoid the collision. As to quantum, Ms Dillon submitted that the trial judge erred in law in that he did not award any general damages in respect of pain and suffering into the future, notwithstanding his apparent acceptance of the evidence that Ms Moore required further surgery to remove the wires in her elbow in order that she might regain full extension of the joint. Ms Dillon asked the Court of Appeal to set aside the award of damages made by the trial judge and to replace it with an award of damages to reflect the extent of likely future pain and suffering ignoring any considerations based on her obligations to mitigate her loss. 
Held by Irvine J that she was satisfied that the trial judge erred in law in the manner of his approach to the issue of contributory negligence. On the basis of the facts found by the High Court judge she was satisfied that his apportionment of liability as to 85% negligence on the part of the plaintiff and 15% negligence on the part of the defendant was disproportionate to the point that his finding must be set aside. She proposed that liability should be apportioned such that the respondent should be found 60% liable in respect of Ms Moore’s injuries. As to general damages Irvine J was not satisfied that Ms Moore has discharged the burden of proof to demonstrate that the award of €60,000 in respect of general damages should be set aside in favour of any greater sum. Irvine J held that she would allow the appeal insofar as the liability issue was concerned. Appeal allowed. 
Moore, Patricia v Advanced Tyre Company Ltd t/a Advanced Pit Stop
31/1/2017 No. 2015/563 [2017] IECA 10