Judge Slams ‘Unrealistic’ €1.7m Claim as Woman Awarded €170k

High Court Awards Over €170,000 to Woman Struck in Parking Space Row

A woman who was struck by a van while attempting to save a parking space for her husband on a busy street in County Cork has been awarded €170,564 in damages by the High Court. However, the presiding judge delivered a sharp rebuke of her subsequent claim for over €1.75 million in lost earnings, labelling aspects of it “uncomfortable and off-putting” and ultimately finding it was not evidentially sustained.

The case, heard before Mr Justice Micheál P. O’Higgins, centred on an incident that occurred on Main Street, Carrigtwohill, on 13 February 2020. The plaintiff, Josephine Higgins, a property manager who ran a portfolio of rental properties with her husband, was standing in a vacant parking bay. She was awaiting her husband’s arrival with a delivery of furniture for one of their nearby properties and intended to hold the space for him.

The court heard that the first defendant, Richard Coleman, pulled up in his van approximately a foot away from Ms Higgins and requested that she move. A dispute ensued, during which Ms Higgins explained she was waiting for her husband’s vehicle. The plaintiff alleged that while her back was turned, watching for her husband, Mr Coleman “went for” her, with the van striking her on the left knee. The impact caused her knee to buckle, though she was not knocked to the ground.

Mr Coleman presented a starkly different account. He denied that his vehicle ever made contact with Ms Higgins, claiming she had been standing on the footpath and had subjected him to verbal abuse. It was also established in court that at the time of the incident, Mr Coleman was not insured to drive the van, having stated that he had only recently purchased the vehicle and had not yet completed the transfer of his insurance policy. This necessitated the involvement of the Motor Insurers’ Bureau of Ireland as a second defendant in the proceedings.

After considering the evidence from both sides, Mr Justice O’Higgins concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the defendant’s version of events was not credible. He found that Mr Coleman’s vehicle had indeed struck the plaintiff. The judge determined, however, that the collision was not malicious but rather the result of a misjudgement. He ruled that Mr Coleman had failed to keep a proper lookout and had inadvertently struck Ms Higgins, who was standing on the roadway as she claimed.

A Life in a Downward Spiral

While the physical impact of the collision was relatively minor, the court heard extensive evidence on its profound psychological and emotional consequences for Ms Higgins. Medical experts testified that she had undergone a “radical personality change” following the incident. She was diagnosed with a psychiatric adjustment disorder, a condition characterised by significant subjective distress and emotional disturbance that interfered with her daily life and activities.

The court was told that this psychiatric injury had severely hampered her ability to concentrate, which in turn crippled her capacity to manage the property portfolio that formed her livelihood. Her interpersonal relationships were also seriously affected. Mr Justice O’Higgins acknowledged the severity of this impact, remarking in his judgment: “the plaintiff unfortunately became overwhelmed by the combination of her psychiatric and physical injuries and that this, combined with her life circumstances, resulted in a major spiral downwards in her life.”

The judge was satisfied that the psychiatric injury was the most serious consequence of the accident, alongside a related lumbar back complaint. However, he was not convinced that all of the plaintiff’s alleged physical ailments were attributable to the 2020 incident. Claims for injuries to her neck, shoulder, and Achilles tendon were dismissed by the court as not being causally linked to the collision.

An ‘Unrealistic’ Claim for Losses

The most contentious part of the case revolved around the plaintiff’s claim for loss of earnings. The court was presented with a figure of €1.752 million, a sum that included not only purported loss of income but also the loss of capital appreciation on several rental properties that Ms Higgins and her husband had been forced to sell, allegedly as a result of her inability to manage them.

Mr Justice O’Higgins described this aspect of the claim as “the most problematic” and subjected it to intense scrutiny. He identified significant issues with the methodology employed by the plaintiff’s expert accountant, noting that the expert had, in several key respects, simply taken instructions from the plaintiff “at face value without carrying out even basic verification checks”.

The judge expressed even greater concern over the fact that an earlier report, which had advanced a loss of earnings claim of €1.4 million, had been withdrawn and replaced by the higher figure. This escalation of the claim clearly troubled the court. “It is an uncomfortable and off-putting aspect of the case that the plaintiff and her husband appeared to be desirous of wringing every last ounce out of each heading of loss to maximise her claim for loss of earnings,” Mr Justice O’Higgins stated in his damning assessment.

Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff had failed to mitigate her loss. It is a fundamental principle in law that a claimant must take reasonable steps to minimise the financial impact of their injuries. The court heard that Ms Higgins had “steadfastly refused” to consider hiring a property management agent or an independent contractor to perform the duties she was no longer able to carry out. This refusal, the judge concluded, undermined her claim for extensive future losses.

Given the “unrealistic claim advanced for future losses and the uncertain claim for past losses,” the judge decided to “treat the matter conservatively out of fairness to the defendant.” Instead of the millions sought, the court awarded a total of €60,000 for past loss of earnings, calculated at a rate of €15,000 per annum for the four years following the accident. This figure also factored in the judge’s finding that some of her incapacity was due to injuries not caused by the defendant.

Calculating Damages in an Inflationary Climate

In assessing the damages for the injuries themselves, Mr Justice O’Higgins referenced the Personal Injuries Guidelines, which provide a framework for such awards. He noted that while a review committee had recently recommended a 16.7 per cent increase to these valuations to account for inflation, the proposed amendments had not yet been given the force of law.

Despite this, the judge indicated a reluctance to ignore the economic reality. “It would not be unreasonable for the court to take into account, in a general sense, the inflation that has occurred,” he reasoned, adding that the court should not “close its eyes to the important development” that the body responsible for the guidelines had itself deemed them out of date.

The court identified the psychiatric injury as the “headline injury,” awarding €75,000 under this heading. The judge acknowledged that the injury was ongoing, had seriously impacted her quality of life, work, and relationships for nearly five years. However, he stopped short of placing it in the highest “severe” category, noting that Ms Higgins was still “able to get by” and did not require psychotropic medications. Her prognosis, while unclear, was not considered to be at the most severe end of the spectrum.

For the back and related injuries, the court placed them in the “moderate” category with a value of €33,000. This amount was then discounted by one-third to reflect the overlap with the primary psychiatric injury, resulting in an uplift of €22,000 being added to the total award for general damages. The judge explained that in assigning values towards the top of the relevant ranges, he had taken the effects of inflation into account “in a very general sense”.

Finally, a sum of €13,564 was allowed for special damages, covering specific out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the plaintiff. The final award, therefore, totalled €170,564. In concluding his judgment, Mr Justice O’Higgins expressed a compassionate hope for the plaintiff’s future. “It is to be hoped that with the conclusion of stress from this litigation and hopefully the abatement of her physical symptoms over time, that the plaintiff will in due course manage to turn a corner.”