High Court of Ireland Decisions

1. The collision in this case occurred at about 7.15 am on the 6th of May, 1997 at the Glenview roundabout on the Tallaght bypass dual carriageway.

2. The Plaintiff gave evidence that she was travelling to work accompanied by a colleague, Mr. Horner who was occupying the front passenger seat of her Seat motor car.

3. The first named Defendant, who was the driver on the occasion of the second named Defendant’s Volvo goods vehicle did not give evidence. Counsel explained that his absence was due to illness.

4. This roundabout has only two exits when entered from the direction of Dublin, and these exits are clearly sign posted. According to the evidence of Mr. Michael A. Griffin MRIAI, Architect, called on behalf of the Defendants, and which I accept, there is a large sign some 55 to 60 meters from the entrance to the roundabout, the rear of which may be seen in photographs “6” and “8” produced in evidence by agreement of the parties and prepared by Mr. Griffin.

5. The Plaintiff gave evidence that she intended to leave the roundabout by the first exit, which in effect meant travelling straight ahead. Garda Scannell gave evidence that on being summoned to the scene of the collision he ascertained that the first named Defendant wished to proceed in the direction of Tallaght which meant leaving the roundabout by the second exit and involved a turn to the right. The Plaintiff gave evidence that after the M.50., junction she was driving in the outside or left lane of the dual carriageway behind the Volvo goods vehicle. Mr. Griffin gave evidence that the approximate dimensions of this vehicle, which is known as a, “rigid”, are 10 feet in width and 24 feet in length. She noticed that the goods vehicle carried a Northern Ireland registration. She gave evidence that she was convinced by the hesitant manner with frequent braking in which the goods vehicle was being driven that the driver was going to bring the vehicle to a halt and she therefore decided to overtake. She gave evidence that she signalled right and moved into the inside or right lane of the dual carriageway.

6. This evidence was not challenged in any way nor was it put to the Plaintiff in cross examination that having overtaken the goods vehicle she could safely and ought to have resumed a position in the left or outside lane of the dual carriageway. The Plaintiff gave evidence that the goods vehicle did not in fact stop and that both vehicles entered and continued through the roundabout at about 15 to 20 mph, the Plaintiff’s vehicle being positioned nearest the centre of the roundabout, which is not marked in traffic lanes and is not marked with traffic indications or directions.

7. The Plaintiff gave evidence that while on the roundabout she signalled her intention of driving straight ahead in the Blessington - Baltinglass direction, by using the left indicator of her car. It became apparent during the cross examination of Garda Scannell, who was called as a witness on behalf of the Defendants, that post collision the first named Defendant insisted that while he had indicated right the Plaintiff did not indicate at all. Mr. Horner the front seat passenger in the Plaintiff’s car was unable to say whether the Plaintiff indicated but was emphatic that, “there was no warning from the lorry”.

8. It was the Plaintiff’s evidence that as the driver of the goods vehicle gave no signal of any sort she assumed that he was intending to drive straight ahead as she did. Having regard solely to the provisions of the Rules of the Road in relation to Roundabouts, the driver of the goods vehicle was not under any duty to signal left until he had passed this first exit. However, in my judgment this does not end the matter.

9. I accept the Plaintiff’s evidence that she signalled her intention of driving straight ahead. I accept the evidence of the Plaintiff and Mr. Horner as to the post impact position of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, that is, that most of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was off the roundabout in the inside or right hand lane of the dual carriageway. Garda Scannell recalled that every part of the goods vehicle remained on the roundabout and that it had gone past the point where it could have turned left into the left or outside lane of the dual carriageway but that it was not blocking the entrance to the inside or right lane of the dual carriageway nearest the median. The Plaintiff, Mr. Horner and Garda Scannell all agreed that the only damage to the Plaintiff’s vehicle was behind the left rear passenger door. Garda Scannell volunteered that the rough sketch in his notebook was made a year or more after the collision and accordingly this was not put in evidence.

10. From the post accident position of the Plaintiff’s vehicle I consider that the Court may reasonably infer that prior to the impact the Plaintiff had taken up a position on the roundabout which, all indication apart, must have clearly signalled to the driver of the goods vehicle her intention of driving straight ahead into the first exit.

11. If the first named Defendant saw the Plaintiff’s indication left, as he ought to have done had he been keeping a proper lookout, and also observed the position of her car, he must have realised that if he drove across the first exit a collision with the Plaintiff’s car was almost inevitable. I accept the evidence of the Plaintiff and of Mr. Horner that the first named Defendant did not indicate right, sound the horn of his vehicle or even flash the headlights of the vehicle or give any indication whatsoever of his intention to continue across the first exit. In my judgment, “conditions dictated”, the phrase used in the Rules of the Road, that the Plaintiff was entitled to be in the position she was on the roundabout and to follow the course which she intended and signalled.

12. I agree with Counsel for the Defendants that in the circumstances and having regard to the Rules of the Road the goods vehicle was not occupying an incorrect position on the roundabout in continuing to travel in the outside or left notional lane. However, in my judgment this did not give the goods vehicle right of way over the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The collision, on the evidence, occurred entirely in the mouth of the inside or right lane of the exit dual carriageway. The Plaintiff’s vehicle had almost completed its turn into this lane prior to the collision. At any point after the two vehicles had entered the roundabout travelling more or less in parallel, the goods vehicle would have had to turn across the path of the car if it intended to travel in the direction of Tallaght so long as the car was continuing straight ahead. In all the circumstances, the first named Defendant was obliged to be very aware of the presence and position of the Plaintiff’s car and to have slowed down or even stopped in response to the Plaintiff’s signal and permitted her to pass safely in front of his vehicle and continue into the exit from the roundabout. In my judgment, having regard to the evidence, and on the balance of probabilities the sole cause of this collision was a lack of due care and attention on the part of the first named Defendant. I am satisfied that speed was not a factor which contributed to this collision. I find that the first named Defendant and through him the second named Defendant guilty of negligence and breach of duty as pleaded at subparagraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the endorsement of claim. In my judgment the Plaintiff was not guilty of negligence or of contributory negligence.

13. Special damage has been agreed between the parties in the sum of £8,350.00, there being no claim by the Plaintiff for loss of earnings.

14. The evidence of the Plaintiff was that as a result of the impact her body spun anticlockwise in her seat so that her back came to rest against the driver’s door with her legs parallel to the instrument console. Garda Scannell gave evidence that when he and his colleague arrived at the scene of the collision at approximately 7.30 am the Plaintiff, while not seeming to be physically injured was, “shocked and shook up a lot”.

15. The Plaintiff gave evidence that immediately after the impact she experienced a sharp burning sort of sensation far down in her back, particularly on the right hand side. She recalled that she attended her usual General Medical Practitioner, Dr. Patanne Harte on the date of the accident, was prescribed various tablets for pain and inflammation and advised to take bed rest. Her evidence to this Court is that she was particularly upset because she was to sit important examinations as part of a Degree Course in Personnel Management in the following week. She did sit those examinations but performed poorly, she said, as a consequence of the trauma and her evidence was that this was subsequently acknowledged by the College.

16. The following medical reports were admitted into evidence:-

17. Dr. Patanne Harte 11th June 1997.

18. Mr. Peter Keogh, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, 13th January 1998:

19. Dr. Brendan O’Brien, Orthopaedic Physician 16th June 1999: 27th September 2000.

20. In addition, oral evidence was given to the Court by Dr. O’Brien as part of the Plaintiff’s case.

21. Dr. Harte reports that she saw the Plaintiff a couple of hours after the collision. The Plaintiff was then very distressed and tearful and on examination was very tender in the lower lumbar area. On examination one week later, Dr. Harte found the Plaintiff to be tender in the lower lumbo-sacral area particularly on the right side, but also in the lower dorsal area on the right side. She found the Plaintiff to have a markedly reduced range of movements in her lumbo-sacral spine in all directions. The Plaintiff complained of moderate to severe pain in these areas and stated that she was having difficulty in sleeping and in carrying out her ordinary daily chores. Dr. Harte arranged for x-rays of the Plaintiff’s pelvis and lumbo-sacral spine and this was done on the 15th May 1997. No bony abnormality was found.

22. Dr. Harte examined the Plaintiff on the 10th of June 1997. She found a significant increase in the range of movements of the Plaintiff’s lumbo-sacral spine, but with continuing reduction of movement in all directions. She found the Plaintiff to be much less tender in the lower lumbo-sacral area and in the right sacro-iliac area.

23. On the 10th of June 1997 the Plaintiff complained for the first time to Dr. Harte of pain in her neck and left shoulder. On examination Dr. Harte found diffuse tenderness in the left trapezius muscle and a reduction in movement of the cervical spine in all directions. Dr. Harte concluded that the Plaintiff, while not clinically depressed, was, “feeling a little down”.

24. Dr. Harte’s prognosis was that the Plaintiff had suffered moderately severe soft tissue injuries to her lower back and neck. At five weeks post accident, Dr. Harte was satisfied that the Plaintiff’s condition had improved significantly as evidenced by the increased range of movement and reduction in tenderness. She felt that the Plaintiff would make a complete recovery without long term sequelae in the course of the following four to six months.

25. The Plaintiff had an estimated twenty sessions of physiotherapy and an estimated nine sessions of hydrotherapy lasting approximately 1 hour per session.

26. At the request of Dr. Harte the Plaintiff was examined by Mr. Keogh on the 8th of October 1997, or five months post-accident. He found no obvious neurological deficit in her upper or lower limbs. He found that she had a good range of movement in her cervical spine, but that she was tender in the left trapezius muscle. She could flex forward to touch her mid tibial level. He found that she was very tender over the inguinal ligament in her right groin area and had discomfort on rotation of her right hip.

27. Mr. Keogh next examined the Plaintiff on the 13th January 1998. He found that she was significantly symptomatic in the area of her right groin and right hip but that the symptoms arising from the other soft tissue injuries to her neck, shoulders and lumbar spine area had abated to some degree. Ultrasound examination of her right hip on the 9th of March 1998 showed no abnormality. The Plaintiff married her long term friend in February 1998. She returned to work in April 1998 after an absence of 11 months but then only on a three days per week basis. During this absence she was permitted to and did study at home for her Degree.

28. Mr. Keogh examined the Plaintiff on the 21st of April 1998. He found that she was still tender in both groins with some tenderness over the coccyx. He considered that there had been a further improvement in her condition.

29. When Mr. Keogh examined the Plaintiff on the 13th of October 1998, or a year and a half post-accident, he found that her trapezius muscles were no longer tender and that she had a full range of neck and shoulder movements. She had some tenderness over the spinous process in her neck. She remained very tender on palpation in the area of her right groin with some discomfort on internal rotation of her left hip. She remained tender in the region of the L. 5., spinous process and in the coccyx. He considered that her symptoms were continuing to improve but that she had not yet returned to normal. The Plaintiff at this time had resumed full time work.

30. Mr. Keogh’s final consultation with the Plaintiff was on the 8th of June 1999, or two years and one month post-accident. He did not examine her on this occasion. Her principal complaint on this occasion related to her lower back which she claimed was constantly sore. She identified the source of the pain as located in the midline of her lower lumbar spine at the top of the natal cleft. She told Mr. Keogh that she had a Bone Scan of her pelvis on the 16th of March 1999 which showed no abnormality. She had changed employers in October 1998. She complained that menstruation and sexual activity caused her a great deal of pain. Mr. Keogh considered that her symptoms were genuine and a result of the multiple soft tissue injuries received in the road traffic accident. He also felt that she was suffering from reactive mood disturbance. He did not consider that any long term sequelae were to be expected.

31. When he examined the Plaintiff on the 2nd of March 1999 Dr. O’Brien concluded that she was suffering from severe inflammation of the sacro-coccygeal joint and inflammation of both sacro-iliac joints as a result of the trauma sustained in the collision. He decided upon a course of Depo-Medrone injections. He told me that these injections were very painful. The first injection provided the Plaintiff with relief but for three day only. Dr. O’Brien decided to administer a second injection, and advised the Plaintiff to come back in one month. When he next saw the Plaintiff she considered that there had been a 60 per centum improvement in her condition. Dr.O’Brien decided to administer a third injection.

32. The Plaintiff was next seen by Dr. O’Brien on the 22nd of September 1999. On examination he found that she was very tender over the sacro-coccygeal joint and also over both sacro-iliac joints. He decided to re-inject the sacro-coccygeal joint. The Plaintiff told him that she was considering becoming pregnant and he advised her that there was no medical reason why she should not. The Plaintiff gave evidence to this Court that she had been advised by Mr. Keogh in October 1997 that she should defer becoming pregnant for a period of two years.

33. In answer to Counsel for the Defendants the Plaintiff said that she wanted to be fully healthy again before becoming pregnant and accepted that she had achieved this goal at the time she became pregnant in January or February 2000, or two years and eight months post-accident. When Dr. O’Brien saw the Plaintiff on the 22nd of September 2000 she was seven months pregnant. He found that she had some local tenderness over her sacro-coccygeal joint but she told him that whatever discomfort she suffered was short term and intermittent. Dr. O’Brien concluded that the Plaintiff was 90 per centum recovered but with some likelihood of intermittently recurring pain and discomfort. He considered that she might suffer an aggravation of her sacro-coccygeal joint pain post delivery and had advised her obstetrician of the problem. The Plaintiff gave evidence that she had obtained her Degree in Personnel Management doing, “pretty good” in the examinations apart from those immediately following the collision on the 6th of May 1997. The Plaintiff gave evidence that she hoped to be able to resume her pre-accident interest in aerobics post delivery. She said that she continued to suffer a small, “element of pain”, in the coccyx and right hip areas each day when driving. She stated that sometimes she had to drive to and from her employers premises in Antrim and that this caused her pain and discomfort in these regions of her body.

34. Having regard to the above evidence I award the Plaintiff £20,000.00 damages in respect of pain, suffering and loss of amenity to date together with a further sum of £6,500.00 in respect of pain, suffering and loss of amenity in the future. Special damage is agreed in the sum of £8,350.00. The Plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the sum of £34,850.00 together with costs including any reserved costs, to be taxed in default of agreement.