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 in this case, Peter McCourt, is a 50 year old married man who resides with his wife and family at Omeath in the County Louth. He is a haulier by occupation.

2. Peter McCourt comes to Court seeking damages by way of compensation for injuries which he suffered in a traffic accident in which he was involved, through no fault of his own, on the 17th day of March, 1998 at Tuam in the County Galway. On that day, while driving his car to a funeral (wearing his seat belt), Mr. McCourt was rounding a left hand bend when he was confronted by the Defendant’s car which was entirely on its incorrect side of the road; so much so, that Mr. McCourt had no opportunity to take evasive action and a violent collision between the two vehicles ensued. Not surprisingly, the Defendant has admitted liability for the occurrence and Mr. McCourt’s claim herein proceeded as an assessment of damages only. Apparently, the explanation for the Defendant’s bad driving is that he is a U.S. national.

3. As a result of that collision, Mr. McCourt suffered multiple injuries to his head, neck, shoulders, chest, back and both knees. Nevertheless, although he said that, as a result of the incident, he felt rotten and was sore from head to toe. He attended the funeral to which he had been heading at the time of the accident. In this regard, it is relevant to note that, in 1991, the Plaintiff had suffered a fall as a result of which he sustained a crushing injury to his right heel and, as a result of that injury, he had to submit to surgery in the month of September 1995 involving the removal of fragments of bone from his right heel. He, himself, gave evidence that, following that operation, although he experienced some limitation of movement of his right foot, he felt no pain and did not experience any functional disability. However, his surgeon, Mr. Kessopersada, told me that Mr. McCourt had told him that that operation had relieved him of two thirds of the pain which he had been experiencing before it and I think that is probably more accurate. That as it maybe, however, Mr. McCourt told me and I accept that, on the night of his accident, he slept poorly and the next day he experienced widespread pain; so much so, that it was necessary for him to consult his General Practitioner, Dr. Bart Cullen, who prescribed painkilling medication and referred Mr. McCourt to the Louth County Hospital for x-ray examination. Fortunately, no bony injury was manifest on the x-rays and Mr. McCourt was not detained in hospital. However, during the following days, he was very sore, was barely able to walk and totally incapacitated from work. He continued to attend Dr. Cullen on a daily basis for a considerable amount of time and his complaints included severe pain in his chest which, apparently, was attributable to a seat belt injury. In that regard, Dr. Cullen noted that Mr. McCourt manifested muscle spasm and stiffness in his neck and back, spasm in his hands and stiffness and crepitus in both ankles. Moreover, he noted that Mr. McCourt complained of cramps in both legs. I am satisfied that, during that period, the Plaintiff was very incapacitated and suffered a lot of pain. In addition to painkilling medication, Dr. Cullen prescribed physiotherapy which the Plaintiff said and I accept was, in itself, a painful experience; so much so, that, after it, Dr. Cullen found it necessary to give Mr. McCourt injections, which were also a very painful experience, following which the Plaintiff had to go to bed. However, Mr. McCourt conceded that he did get some relief from the physiotherapy, which, initially, involved 9 or 10 sessions. Nevertheless, that relief was only marginal and the Plaintiff continued to experience considerable pain which was widespread and disabling and, because it persisted, Dr. Cullen thought it prudent to refer Mr. McCourt for assessment by an Orthopaedic Surgeon, Mr. Kessopersada, who first saw him on the 9th of July, 1998. Mr. Kessopersada described the Plaintiff’s injuries as follows namely; “soft tissue injuries involving a very severe hyperflection/hyperextension injury to his head, neck, shoulder muscles and low back area”. In addition, he had suffered an impact injury to his right ankle. Mr. Kessopersada also carried out a E.M.G. test which established that, as a result of his accident, the Plaintiff had suffered cervical nerve root irritation and that the trauma to his right foot and ankle had aggravated pre-existing degenerative changes in the sub-talar joint which had resulted from the accident which he suffered in 1991. Moreover, Mr. Kessopersada concluded that the accident had also precipitated premature degenerative changes in the talo-navicular joint of the Plaintiff’s right ankle which were unrelated to the 1991 accident and totally attributable to the accident under review. In that regard Mr. Joseph McGrath FRCSI, an Orthopaedic Surgeon, who examined the Plaintiff on behalf of the defence, took issue with Mr. Kessopersada’s views in that behalf; maintaining that the Plaintiff had suffered no new injury to the talo-navicular joint as a result of the incident which gave rise to this claim. In this regard, given that Mr. Kessopersada’s views were based on a scan of the Plaintiff’s right ankle taken on the 13th of November, 2000 which Mr. McGrath neither saw nor sought a view of, I prefer Mr. Kessopersada’s views in that behalf. Moreover, I am influenced in that conclusion by the fact that Mr. Kessopersada has had the opportunity of examining the Plaintiff’s ankle on 22 occasions over the last 3 years whereas Mr. McGrath only saw him on 2 occasions. In the light of the results of his first examination of the Plaintiff which, in his view, demonstrated that he was suffering from painful restriction of the movement of his neck, shoulders and back which were disabling, Mr. Kessopersada embarked upon a regime of treatment which included painkilling and anti inflammatory medication, hydro therapy, heat treatment and neck exercises. He also prescribed a gel which Mrs. McCourt rubbed on her husband’s neck, back and shoulders. Over the next few years, the Plaintiff was subjected to three/four injections which were very painful but only afforded short term relief.

4. Since he first attended Mr. Kessopersada, Peter McCourt has attended him 22 times but, while I am not convinced that that number of attendances was actually necessary, it would appear that Mr. Kessopersada’s treatment has proved beneficial, in that, the Plaintiff accepts and Mr. Kessopersada agrees that there has been significant improvement in the condition of his neck, shoulders and back, although Mr. McCourt complains that he still gets some pain which is aggravated by turning his neck and shoulders and that he gets pain in his back if he has to sit or stand for long periods. He also complains of pain in his right foot/ankle, that he walks with a limp and that his foot swells. Furthermore, he says that he has to take painkillers on a daily basis. As I interpret Mr. Kessopersada’s evidence, all of these complaints are real and justified although he (Mr. Kessopersada) expects that, within the next three to five years there will be further improvement in the condition of the Plaintiff’s neck, shoulders and back which will become less symptomatic over that period of time. However, Mr. Kessopersada does not envisage that Mr. McCourt will ever be totally symptom free in any of those areas. On the other hand, he believes that the condition of the Plaintiff’s right ankle will worsen with the passage of time; that it will always be painful, that Mr. McCourt will always walk with a limp and that his awkward gait will cause additional back problems. Indeed, Mr. Kessopersada envisages that Mr. McCourt may have to undergo further surgery in his right ankle involving the insertion of an implant, or an arthrodesis, which will involve 7 to 10 days in hospital, 12 weeks in a plaster of paris cast, a long period on crutches and prolonged physiotherapy.

5. In addition to disagreeing with Mr. Kessopersada’s views on the implications of the injury which the Plaintiff suffered to his right ankle, Mr. McGrath also took issue with him with regard to the ongoing problems of which the Plaintiff complains in his neck and back. In that regard, it is Mr. McGrath’s view, following two examinations of the Plaintiff and in the light of his record of what the Plaintiff said about his injuries that he has made a full recovery from the injuries which he suffered to his neck and back and that he will have no further trouble in those areas. Apart from the fact that I was persuaded by the Plaintiff’s evidence that he still has ongoing problems with his neck and back and that I prefer the views of the treating surgeon to those of Mr. McGrath, I am not convinced that Mr. McGrath’s record of what the Plaintiff is supposed to have said to him is accurate. For example, Mr. McGrath’s records with regard to Mr. McCourt’s previous injury to his right ankle is patently not correct and neither is it true, as Mr. McGrath has recorded, that the Plaintiff had not resumed driving in January of this year. Moreover, I doubt that the Plaintiff told Mr. McGrath that because I am satisfied that Mr. McCourt is too intelligent to tell such a blatant lie. On the other hand, I think that the Plaintiff was somewhat evasive with regard to his evidence about the amount of driving which he has done since his accident. I believe that he has done a little more than he is prepared to admit to. Nevertheless, I think that he suffered significant injuries as a result of his accident, that he has had to put up with a lot of pain, disability and disagreeable treatment for the last three years and that at, what I believe to be a relatively young age of 50 years, he has to look forward to chronic pain in the future and the possibility of further surgery. In those circumstances, in respect of the last three years, I will award the Plaintiff a sum of £15,000 in respect of general damages and, for the future, allowing that he is always going to experience a certain amount of pain and disability and there is the melancholy prospect of further surgery and hospitalisation, I will allow a sum of £50,000. In those circumstances, given that special damages are agreed in the sum of £2,225, I will award the Plaintiff £67,225 and his costs.