McHugh v Ferol (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This case involves a personal injuries claim arising from a road traffic accident on a dark and narrow country road where the Plaintiff was driving to an evening memorial mass. The Plaintiff’s vehicle was involved in a violent head-on collision with the Defendant’s vehicle, which was on the incorrect side of the road. The collision caused severe damage to the Plaintiff’s vehicle and resulted in multiple injuries to the Plaintiff, most significantly to her right foot. The Plaintiff, a nearly 65-year-old married woman and qualified Montessori teacher, was working as a full-time carer for her elderly mother at the time of the accident. The proceedings have reached the stage of assessment of damages, with special damages agreed at €13,000. The issue for the Court is the appropriate award for general damages for pain and suffering both past and future.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What is the appropriate category and amount of general damages to be awarded for the Plaintiff’s dominant injury to her right foot under the Personal Injuries Guidelines?
2. How should the Court assess and calculate an uplift to general damages to fairly and justly compensate the Plaintiff for additional pain and suffering arising from her multiple, lesser injuries?
3. Whether the uplift for additional injuries can exceed the award for the dominant injury under the Personal Injuries Guidelines?

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• The Defendant submits that the Plaintiff’s right foot injury falls into Category D (Moderate foot injuries) under the Personal Injuries Guidelines, with a compensation range of €20,000 to €45,000.
• Regarding the uplift for additional injuries, the Defendant argues that any uplift can never exceed the award given for the dominant injury.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff contends that her right foot injury properly falls into Category C (Serious foot injuries), with a compensation range of €38,000 to €75,000, and that damages should be fixed at the upper end of this range.
• On the uplift, the Plaintiff argues that in cases of multiple severe injuries, the uplift might exceed the damages awarded for the dominant injury, and that the Court should categorize each additional injury according to the Guidelines and then discount for temporal overlap to arrive at a fair and proportionate uplift.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first identified the Plaintiff’s right foot injury as the dominant injury, characterized by complex intra-articular fractures resulting in permanent deformity, post-traumatic arthritis, and chronic pain unlikely to improve. The Court found the injury to fall within Category C (Serious foot injuries) of the Personal Injuries Guidelines, which covers injuries causing continuing pain and risk of future surgery, and fixed damages at €60,000 towards the upper end of the category’s range.

Regarding the Plaintiff’s multiple lesser injuries—PTSD, neck injury, lower back and hip injuries, and dental damage—the Court acknowledged the difficulty in assessing damages for multiple injuries due to temporal overlap and the risk of overcompensation. The Court adopted the approach suggested by the Plaintiff’s counsel, categorizing each lesser injury according to the Guidelines and then applying a discount to account for overlap, to arrive at a fair and proportionate uplift of €32,500 for these additional injuries.

The Court rejected the Defendant’s submission that the uplift cannot exceed the dominant injury award, explaining that the Guidelines do not impose such a restriction and that in appropriate cases the uplift may exceed the dominant injury award to ensure just compensation. The Court illustrated this with a hypothetical example of a claimant with multiple severe injuries where an uplift exceeding the dominant injury award would be appropriate.

Consequently, the Court combined the dominant injury award and the uplift for additional injuries to reach a total general damages figure of €92,500. Adding agreed special damages of €13,000, the total award was fixed at €105,500.

Holding and Implications

The Court awarded damages in the sum of €105,500 to the Plaintiff, comprising €92,500 for general damages (including €60,000 for the dominant right foot injury and €32,500 uplift for additional injuries) and €13,000 for special damages.

This decision clarifies that under the Personal Injuries Guidelines, the Court may award an uplift for additional injuries that exceeds the damages awarded for the dominant injury, provided that the uplift is reasonably calculated by categorizing each injury and discounting for temporal overlap. The ruling emphasizes transparency and proportionality in assessing damages for multiple injuries but does not establish new precedent beyond the application of existing Guidelines and accepted principles.