High Court of Ireland Decisions

1. The Plaintiff's car crashed into the back of a bus travelling South on Wyatville Road, Ballybock, County Dublin. The bus driver was attempting a right U-turn on a dual carriageway with a left junction. There were traffic lights at that junction. The road markings, on both the inner and the outer lane indicated straight ahead. Some 250 feet before the junction the arrows on the inner lane indicated, in addition to an arrow straight ahead, an arrow to the filter lane on the left of the inner lane towards the left junction. All of the arrows appear to have measured between 30 and 40 feet. It was a fine summer's evening, the 3rd May 1995.

2. The first named Defendant was the owner of the bus and the second named Defendant the driver of the bus.

3. The Plaintiff claims that the bus swung across the carriageway and into the path of the Plaintiff's vehicle which was then travelling in the outer lane.

4. The Defendants deny that claim and say that the damage and injuries were cause solely by the negligence of the Plaintiff or, alternatively, that the Plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in the circumstances by driving too fast, by failing to have regard for the position of the bus, failing to pay attention to the indicator lights, failing to comply with the speed limit, attempting to overtake without first ascertaining that it was safe to do so and other grounds of negligence.

5. The Plaintiff was familiar with the road. He said he was familiar with the practice of buses turning right at the previous junction to Church View Road.

6. He said he became aware of the bus while he was at the previous traffic light which was about 1,000 feet from the T-junction. He said that the bus was on the inside lane and two thirds of the way down weaved into the middle occupying both lanes and then reverted to the left hand lane. It then went to the outside lane. Half way down the Plaintiff assumed that the bus was going to continue and assumed that it would not stop.

7. The Plaintiff said that he was travelling at between 55 and 60 mph and that there was no indication of the speed limit. He said he panicked when he saw the bus going broadside, slammed on his brakes and geared down. He turned to veer through on the inside lane but traffic would not yield and there was not enough time. He said he did not remember an indicator while he tried to manoeuvre to the inside of the bus his left wheel caused a skid and he ended up under the rear of the bus.

8. On cross examination he agreed that if he had been going slower no accident would have occurred. He also admitted that his panic may have clouded his memory of whether there was an indicator light flashing on the bus. It would not have made any difference and would not have effected his judgement as, at that point, it would have been too late.

9. Under cross-examination the Plaintiff further agreed that, at the District Court hearing, he had stated that his view had been impaired by harsh sunlight. He said he had not appreciated the danger at that point. The bus was behaving erratically. He expected that the bus would continue straight and he continued on at speed, before breaking sharply leaving a skid mark some 60 feet from the junction.

10. The Plaintiff accepted that he now knew that the speed limit was 40 mph. Mr Peter Varian was travelling at 35 mph on the inner lane. He saw the indicator on the bus. It was blinking to the right and going slower than his 35 mph. Mr Varian said that he could hear, through the open roof of his car, a hard accelerating noise of the Plaintiff's car two to three lengths behind him. He said the Plaintiff's car shot past him and accelerated to pass the bus on its outside. He believed that the Plaintiff was travelling twice as fast as he was. At the last minute the Plaintiff's car tried to go on the inside and swung very slightly left with smoke coming from its tyres before hitting the back of the bus on its left hand side.

11. There was a dispute between the expert evidence regarding the speed and manner of impact. What is certain is that the car driven by the Plaintiff was a write-off and that the Plaintiff suffered severe injuries.

12. The issue before the Court is best summed up in the concise submissions of Mr Sean Ryan S.C. for the Defendants. While the Defendants' vehicle was the causa sine qua non the causa causans, i.e. the causing factor, was the Plaintiff's. Mr Alan Mahon S.C., for the Plaintiff, conceded that speed was a factor. There was some degree of negligence. It would be a travesty to condone the conduct of the bus driver, to free the Defendants of blame. There were no hand signals, no hazard lights. There was a dispute as to where the Plaintiff was on the road which could have been clarified had the bus driver looked in his mirror. Mr Varian's evidence as to speed was only an estimate. The Plaintiff had given evidence of gearing down.

13. The Plaintiff gave evidence very fairly. He admitted driving well in excess of the speed limit. While the road is straight, and a dual carriageway with good visibility it does pass through a residential area. The Plaintiff admits that he panicked and tried to pass the slow moving bus on its inside lane but there was not enough time to do that. It is clear from the detailed evidence of the impact and from the photographs exhibited that the bus was not presenting broadside to the Plaintiff in any degree. The Plaintiff admitted that his panic may have clouded his judgement regarding the indicator. He admits, quite fairly, that it would not have made a difference, would not have effected his judgement; at that point it would have been too late. He expected the bus would continue straight and he continued on at speed.

14. No evidence was given by the Plaintiff as to the traffic lights. The second named Defendant gave evidence that while he had intended to execute a U-turn, he realised that there would not be enough room to do so and decided to continue straight. While one cannot condone any road user seeking to execute a right turn where the road markings clearly indicated straight on nor approve indecisiveness, yet this was not the cause of the accident. If the bus had to stop because of the traffic lights, or because somebody or animal was attempting to cross the road then the same objective circumstances would have presented themselves to the Plaintiff.

15. The Supreme Court unanimously held that although the jury was answering an agreed question in apportioning blame to the bus driver, there was no evidence to support such a conclusion and in the circumstances the Court would set aside that finding and apportion total blame on the car driver.

16. In this case the bus driver was attempting to execute a right hand turn which was counter indicated by the traffic arrows. There is, accordingly, evidence to support some minor degree of blame on the part of the Defendants.

17. Having considered all the facts in the light of the provisions of the Civil Liability Act I would find the Plaintiff 90% at fault and the Defendants 10% at fault.

18. The Plaintiff has made a remarkable recovery from very serious injuries. He does not claim any loss of earnings. He sustained a compound fracture of his right upper tibia and multiple facial lacerations. He required a skin grafting to his upper tibia. He is left with residual scarring on the face and upper pretibial area.

19. He will suffer with osteoarthritis of the left knee and may require a knee replacement.

20. Following a short adjournment the parties agreed the quantum of damage on the basis of the above.