184 / 196
UNREPORTED IRISH CASES
TOTAL AWARD OF £18,695 DISMISSED
ON APPEAL
The plaintiff, a small farmer of 62 years, was injured
in an accident in May 1968. Before the accident, the
plaintiff was a man of drive and determination. He
worked a 45 acre farm with the assistance of his wife
and his son of 24; in 1968, the income from the farm
was £1,700.
At the time of the accident, he was unconscious
when admitted to hospital; there were fractures of the
cheek bone and collar bone, and a suspected fracture of
the skull. He remained unconscious for three weeks,
and was discharged on 1st August. He was then sub-
normal and his memory had gone, he had lost all
interest in things. It was stated he had permanent
brain damage, with no possibility of improvement. He
has been aggressive and difficult to control and spends
much time in bed.
The jury and Mr. Justice Henchy awarded him
damages under the following heads :
(1) Loss of income and out of pocket
expenses to date
250
(2) Pain and suffering to date
8.000
(3) Loss of income in future
5,445
(4) Pain and suffering in future
5,000
Total £18,695
To gauge the loss of income, it must be ascertained
what expense the plaintiff will have to sustain in order
to maintain the profitability of the farm. There does
not seem to be any case of injuries comparable to the
plaintiff's injuries that has come before the Court. In
the circumstances, the Supreme Court (O'Dalaigh, C.
J., Walsh and Fitzgerald, J.J.) dismissed the appeal).
[Collins v. Tournafulla Co-operative Ltd.; Supreme
Court; Unreported; 19th October 1971.]
AWARD OF GENERAL DAMAGES OF £5,975
REVERSED ON APPEAL
The plaintiff, a farmer's wife, was injured in a motor
car collision in December 1967. In May 1970, when
she was 47 years of age, she was awarded £5,975
general damages by Mr. Justice Murnaghan and a
jury. The plaintiff's injuries consisted of two fractures,
lacerations, concussion, shock and bruising of the
chest and arms. As a result of the injuries, she limped
and found it hard to walk, and complained of insomnia
and dizziness. The plaintiff's doctor admitted that she
had full movement of the hip, knee and foot, although
she stated she was virtually immobilised. Undoubtedly,
on the evidence she has to curtail her activities and
there is still evidence of concussion. But the jury is not
entitled to proceed on the basis that the plaintiff is
right and the Doctor is wrong, if her own Doctor
does not support a serious permanent incapacity. The
award does not bear any relationship to the injuries
proved to have been sustained. Accordingly the Supreme
Couit (Budd and Fitzgerald, J.J.; O'Dalaigh, C.J.,
dissenting) upset the jury's award, and ordered a new
trial.
[Mary Bourke v. James Bourke; Supreme Court;
unreported; 27 July 1971.]
AWARD OF £7,000 FOR FUTUDE LOSS UPHELD
As a result of an accident, the plaintiff was rendered
permanently unemployable. He is only able for seden-
tary work, and there would be no such job available.
The jury were therefore entitled to take the view that
future gainful employment for the plaintiff was im-
probable, and to assess £7,000 for future loss. Accor-
dingly the Supreme Court (O'Dalaigh, C.J., Walsh and
Fitzgerald, J.J.) dismissed the appeal from the decision
of O'Keeffe, P. and a jury.
[Aherne v. Thompson and Quinlan; Supreme
Court; unreported; 26th October 1971.]
RACING BOARD LOSES APPEAL IN
DIRECTOR'S JACKPOT TRANSACTION
An appeal by the Racing Board against a Circuit
Court decision awarding a Dublin company director,
Joseph Duff, Queen's Park, Monkstown, £407.90
arising out of a winning Jackpot stake placed on the
totalisator at the Curragh races on September 12th,
1970, was dismissed, with costs, by Mr. Justice
Pringle in the High Court, Dublin, yesterday. In a
reserved judgment, the Circuit Court finding of Judge
Deale was upheld.
Mr. Duff had claimed that the Racing Board caused
to be issued on that date multiple event totalisator
tickets, including
inter alia
, Jackpot All Combination
tickets in respect of a multiple event involving the third,
fourth, fifth and sixth races.
These were further expressed to be sold subject
inter
alia
to the rules governing multiple event pools or
jackpots and provided spaces for (a) selection by re-
ference to its number on the official racecard of one or
more horses running in each of the races designated;
(b) a space for the expression of the number purchased
by, and representing the selection of, the purchaser in
respect of each of the races; (c) a space for the ex-
pression of the total number of units purchased, by
reference to the matters set out in the preceeding two
sub-paragraphs; (d) a receipt for the amount of cash
paid in respect of the total units purchased, to be
signed by the authorised totalisator officer.
Mr. Duff claimed that, pursuant to the rules, he
purchased a Jackpot Combination ticket comprising 28
units, as follows : for the third race, horses 6 and 9,
each horse selected once, making two selections; for
the fourth race, all seven runners, each horse selected
once, making seven selections; for the fifth race, horse
4, selected once, making one selection; for the sixth
race, horse 1, selected twice, making two selections.
He paid £7 in respect of the 28 units at 5 /- each
and got a counterfoil and receipt. Horses selected by
him won the third, fourth, and fifth races and the horse
selected twice won the sixth race.
Racing Board's Denial
Mr. Duff claimed that, having successfully forecast
the winning horses in each of the races, and being
entitled to be paid the amount distributable in respect
of two successful units in accordance with the rules,
presented his receipt and counterfoil, but the Board,
186