BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

1. The Plaintiff was the driver of a car owned by her husband at Summerhill South in the city of Cork on 20th January, 1993. The car was stationary and was struck from behind by a motor vehicle, the property of the Defendant. The actual impact was very slight, but it is conceded that there was contact between the cars, and liability is not an issue insofar as the Defendant concedes that he was negligent.

2. The Plaintiff's evidence is that at the time of the impact she saw spots and felt sick. Some short time afterwards, when picking up her children from school, she felt pain coming on in her neck and left shoulder. She continued to be sore for the next few days and on 25th January, 1993, attended her general practitioner, Dr. Mills. Dr. Mills prescribed a course of anti-inflammatory medication and a gel. On 5th February the Plaintiff telephoned Dr. Mills saying she was in a lot of pain and discomfort and during the telephone conversation became extremely upset and very tearful. Dr. Mills advised her to get a soft collar and to have a course of physiotherapy. The Plaintiff attended for physiotherapy and was seen again by Dr. Mills on 19th April, 1993, when she was referred to Mr. McGuinness, the orthopaedic surgeon, for a second opinion. Subsequently, an x-ray was taken of her cervical spine which was normal.

3. In January 1994 the Plaintiff attended a joint consultation between Dr. Mills and Dr. Matthews, who is advising the Defendant. During this visit she became very upset and emotional, to the extent that she was reluctant to allow any form of examination, and appeared to suffer from an irrational fear that she might be caused pain. Both Dr. Mills and Dr. Matthews were of the view that she was suffering from depression, but Dr. Matthews did not relate this depression to the accident.

4. She attended Mr. McGuinness, and also Mr. Curtin, the orthopaedic surgeon advising the Defendant, and I am satisfied from the medical evidence that, notwithstanding the minimal nature of the contact between the vehicles, she did suffer a mild to moderate soft-tissue injury as a result of the accident. This injury ought to have improved more quickly than it did, and as time went on I am also satisfied that her problems were primarily psychological rather than physical. It is very difficult to know how far she was suffering from the effects of the physical injury, and how far the restrictions on her life, which she considered to be the result of the physical injury, were in fact brought about by her psychological condition. I certainly think that by a year or eighteen months after the accident her physical condition, if it could be measured objectively, had greatly improved.

5. Unfortunately, her mental condition deteriorated, and in January 1995 Dr. Mills referred her to Dr. Patrick Murray, a consultant psychiatrist in Cork, who sadly died a few days before the case was heard. However, very properly the Defendant has admitted his report in evidence. He was of the view that she developed a depressive reaction as a result of the injury which distressed her significantly and that because of her personality make-up, she was a poor risk for an injury sustained in a road traffic accident. He was also of the view that the nature of her depression was understandable in a person who had a personality structure such as hers.

6. She was also seen by Dr. Michael Kelliher, a psychiatrist on behalf of the Defendant. His overall view was that it was very difficult to say whether she had sustained a psychological injury, but he accepted that the accident may have contributed to her depressive problems, and that she may have had an underlying depressive condition.

7. As a result of her condition, the Plaintiff has stopped taking part in social or sporting activities such as tennis and water aerobics. She has put on several stone in weight and became irritable and impatient with her family. She developed an irrational fear of pain, as a result of which she cut herself off from activities in which she could probably otherwise have taken part. While she improved as a result of her treatment by Dr. Murray, there is no doubt that her life was changed, and she suffered from fairly severe psychological problems which at times made her life a misery.

8. I also think that in her own evidence she probably exaggerated her condition somewhat, but again I think that at least some of this exaggeration was as a result of her belief that she was much worse than she really is from a physical point of view.

9. It was argued on behalf of the Defendant that he was only liable for injury which was of a type which was reasonably foreseeable, and that it was not foreseeable that any form of psychological injury would occur as a result of a very minor traffic accident such as in this case. The Defendant accepts the principles of the eggshell skull cases, but seek to distinguish this case by saying that, while it could be foreseen that even a minor accident could cause physical damage such as a soft tissue injury, it was not reasonably foreseeable that that in turn would lead to a depressive condition.

10. I do not think I can accept that argument. It seems to me to be totally at odds with the decision of the Supreme Court in Burke -v- John Paul & Company Limited , [1967] I.R. 277, where it was argued, unsuccessfully, that the defendant could not have foreseen that the plaintiff would develop a hernia as a result of the extra strain required to use substandard tools, because a hernia would only arise in a person who had a pre-disposition to it, and the defendant had no knowledge that the plaintiff had such a pre-disposition. Budd J. said at page 285:-

11. I am of the view, on the medical evidence, that the immediate cause of the Plaintiff's depression was the soft tissue injury which she suffered in the accident. Of course the Defendant could not have anticipated that she was a person with a pre-disposition to depression, but he could have reasonably foreseen a soft tissue injury, and that being so, he is liable for damage which flows from that injury, as he has to take the Plaintiff as he finds her.

12. In relation to damages, there is no doubt that the Plaintiff has had to forego many of the things she enjoyed in life over the last five years. I think her inability to enjoy herself is just as real when it is caused by a psychological disorder as it is when caused by a physical disorder, and her inability to cope with comparatively minor physical injuries is very real. I think her quality of life has disimproved considerably and I would award her £40,000 general damages to date. With regard to the future, the best medical view appears to be that her depression should rapidly improve following the final disposal of these proceedings, and that she will probably be able to resume a more or less normal life in the near future. Accordingly, I only propose to award her £7,500 damages for the future. In addition, it has been agreed that the special damages amount to £2,663 so there will be a decree for £50,163.