In Maher v Moriarity & anor [2025] IEHC 20, the High Court concluded that a road traffic accident resulted from equal fault by both drivers, with each party having committed errors of judgment and shown a want of care.
Background
The plaintiff motorcyclist suffered serious injuries following a collision with a van driven by the first defendant in August 2017.
The accident occurred between 10pm and 10:30pm but there was street lighting and ample opportunity for each party to see the other's approach. The plaintiff, who had no memory of the accident, argued that the defendant must have "cut the corner" as he sought to turn while the defendant argued that the plaintiff had failed to stop at a stop sign.
Plaintiff's Injuries
The plaintiff was hospitalised for 5 days and was off work for 2 months. He suffered a fracture to the right 5th metacarpal, a fracture of his left distal radius, a laceration to his lower leg, soft tissue injury and a head injury. He underwent surgery in respect of the wrist fractures and received ongoing analgesia.
After the accident he continued to suffer scarring, difficulty with memory, difficulty finding the words in conversation, sharp pains to his wrist and weakness in his right hand. PTSD, low mood and insomnia symptoms suffered after the accident had improved. Expert evidence was given that he had made a good clinical recovery from all his injuries but continued to suffer an inability to do certain exercises due to pressure on his forearm and wrist and he continued to write things down to counteract memory difficulties.
Liability
The court found that the defendant's evidence was not clear or consistent noting that he was unable to satisfactorily explain why his oral testimony did not match his Garda statement, for example in terms of when he first saw the motorbike and whether the resting place of the van was on account of it being pushed by the motorbike or an evasive manoeuvre to avoid the collision. In light of the expert evidence, the court did not believe either of these explanations were plausible and the most likely scenario was that the defendant was cutting the corner at the junction. The court found that the accident would have been unlikely to have occurred if the defendant had been travelling at a safe speed and keeping a proper look out.
However, the court held that the plaintiff also contributed to the collision. He had no recollection of the accident and his evidence set out his usual practice in terms of his actions at this particular junction. However, while the court accepted that he was very familiar with the junction and that his usual practice was to stop at the stop sign, it noted that if the plaintiff had come to a halt at the stop sign, he should have been able to see the defendant's approaching vehicle.
The court held that the most likely explanation for the collision was that both parties were at fault. If either of them had complied with their responsibilities as road users, the accident would have been avoided.
While there was no evidence that either party was exceeding the speed limit, the court was not convinced that either party was travelling at an appropriate speed for the conditions and for the junction.
As the court was satisfied that both parties were equally at fault, it apportioned lability on a 50/50 basis.
Quantum
The injuries in this case were assessed by reference to the Book of Quantum.
The court, noting inter alia that the accident was traumatic and lead to hospitalisation for 5 days and surgical intervention, made the following awards based on the Book of Quantum:
- €60,000 for the head injury;
- €60,000 for the left wrist injury; and
- €25,000 for the right-hand fracture.
Taking an aggregated approach, the court reduced the total award for these injuries to €140,000.
In terms of injuries not covered by the Book of Quantum, the court awarded:
- €7,500 for scarring and soft tissue injuries; and
- €45,00 for psychological issues (poor mental health, PTSD, insomnia etc.)
No loss of earnings claim was advanced but the court considered it appropriate to award €40,000 for loss of opportunity, noting that the plaintiff was off work for two months, changed employment and lives with the ongoing consequences of the accident which does impact his work, including the risk of needing surgery for arthritis in the future.
Conclusion
The aggregate award of €232,500, along with the agreed special damages of €11,823, was reduced by 50% on account of the contributory negligence finding.
In terms of a counterclaim for the writing off of the van and associated costs, the agreed sum was also reduced by 50%.
Originally published 14 March 2025
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
