Keane v Johnson & Johnson Vision Care [Ireland] (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff seeks damages for personal injury sustained on 10 September 2018 at the Defendant's factory in The City. The Plaintiff intervened to rescue a colleague whose hand was trapped in a heavy machine, resulting in injuries to the Plaintiff's right little finger, right shoulder, and subsequent PTSD. The Plaintiff alleges these injuries have incapacitated him from work with significant vocational consequences. The Defendant admits liability for the accident but disputes the causal link between the accident and the Plaintiff's shoulder condition and incapacity beyond 11 September 2020, arguing that suitable alternative employment was offered but not accepted by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff was employed as a process technician at the Defendant's factory and was on track for promotion prior to the accident. The accident involved the Plaintiff exerting significant force with his right shoulder while supporting a heavy machine component to free his colleague's trapped hand. The Plaintiff initially suffered a fractured right little finger requiring surgery and later developed right shoulder symptoms, which were documented only after a delay. He also developed severe PTSD related to the trauma and ongoing pain.

The Plaintiff's injuries have caused ongoing physical limitations and psychological distress, severely affecting his family life and ability to work. Despite attempts to identify alternative roles within the Defendant's company, the Plaintiff was never formally offered suitable alternative employment. The Plaintiff transitioned to social welfare support and is currently enrolled in an IT course aimed at re-skilling for less physically demanding work.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff's right shoulder condition is causally related to the accident of 10 September 2018.
2. Whether the Plaintiff's incapacity to work beyond 11 September 2020 is attributable to the accident or to the Plaintiff's failure to accept suitable alternative employment offered by the Defendant.
3. The appropriate assessment and quantification of general and special damages, including loss of earnings and pension rights, arising from the Plaintiff's injuries.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• The Defendant admits liability for the accident but denies that the Plaintiff's shoulder condition is causally connected to the accident due to the significant delay in symptom onset.
• Early medical records do not document shoulder complaints; the first shoulder pain was reported more than two years after the accident.
• The Plaintiff's physical activities in 2020, including strenuous cycling, undermine claims of a significant shoulder injury during that period.
• Expert evidence suggests that acute shoulder injuries would manifest symptoms immediately or shortly after trauma, which was not the case.
• The Defendant contends that suitable alternative employment was offered but not accepted by the Plaintiff, who failed to mitigate his loss.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff asserts that the shoulder symptoms were caused by the accident, with delayed onset explained by prolonged immobilisation and reduced use of the limb.
• The Plaintiff had no prior shoulder symptoms before the accident, supporting causation.
• Medical experts support the view that the accident was a necessary link in the causation of the shoulder condition.
• The Plaintiff was never formally offered suitable alternative employment after November 2020, and any failure to mitigate does not absolve the Defendant of liability.
• The Plaintiff's PTSD is a severe psychiatric injury directly linked to the trauma of the accident, significantly impacting his capacity to work.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully weighed the evidence regarding causation of the Plaintiff's shoulder condition. Despite the delay in documented shoulder symptoms, the court found the Plaintiff's explanation—that immobilisation masked symptoms—to be credible and supported by expert medical opinion. The Plaintiff's lack of prior shoulder complaints established a baseline, and the mechanism of injury involving significant force on the right shoulder during the rescue was consistent with the type of trauma that could cause the shoulder pathology identified on MRI.

The court rejected the Defendant's argument that the shoulder condition was unrelated due to delayed symptom onset and the Plaintiff's physical activity in 2020, finding that the Plaintiff's symptoms evolved gradually and that the medical team initially struggled to diagnose the shoulder injury. Expert opinions from Professor Moran, Professor Harmon, and the Plaintiff's GP supported causation and the progressive nature of the injury.

Regarding the Plaintiff's incapacity to work and loss of earnings, the court accepted the evidence that the Plaintiff was never formally cleared to return to his previous role and was not offered suitable alternative employment after November 2020. The Plaintiff's psychological injuries, particularly PTSD, were found to be severe and materially affecting his ability to work, requiring a supportive and low-stress environment for any potential return to employment.

In assessing damages, the court applied the Book of Quantum 2016 for physical injuries and the 2021 Personal Injuries Guidelines for psychiatric injury, using a structured approach to avoid overcompensation by adjusting the aggregate award for general damages. The court also considered actuarial evidence and expert rehabilitation assessments in quantifying future loss of earnings, applying appropriate deductions for uncertainties as guided by precedent.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision is IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFF, awarding damages totalling €944,074.46. This sum includes:

• €135,000 for general damages for physical and psychiatric injuries;
• €154,605 for loss of earnings and pension rights to date;
• €24,567.96 for miscellaneous special damages to date;
• €408,943.50 for future loss of earnings;
• €141,780 for future loss of pension rights;
• €67,320 for future loss of employer-paid health insurance;
• €11,858 for future pain management procedures.

The court's ruling confirms the causal link between the accident and the Plaintiff's shoulder condition and PTSD, rejecting the Defendant's arguments to the contrary. The decision underscores the importance of considering delayed symptom onset in injury cases where immobilisation may mask early symptoms. The Defendant's failure to offer suitable alternative employment post-2020 was also a critical factor in awarding loss of earnings damages. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles to the facts.