174 / 264
GAZETTE
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER
Damages of
£305,000 awarded
On 21 July, 1977, after a three day hearing before
Hamilton J. and a jury in Cork in the case of John
O'Keeffe v. Irish Motor Inns Ltd., a jury awarded the
plaintiff a total of £305,088 which is by far the largest
amount awarded for damages for a personal injuries
action in Ireland. The plaintiff apparently fell over tar
barrells and planks into a pit around the side of the
Hilltop Inn Hotel, Youghal, Co. Cork, while looking for a
lift to take him to Cork City, and broke his spine. The
questions and answers put to the jury were the
following:—
1. Did the Plaintiff fall or trip over barrells and timber at
Defendant's premises? Yes.
2. If so were Defendants negligent in having wuch
obstruction on their premises — and in failing to give
notice of warning thereof by the provisions of
adequate lighting up? Answer: Yes.
3. Was plaintiff negligent in failing to take reasonable
care for his own safety? Answer: No.
4. Apportionment of fault: 100% against defendants.
5. Assess damages under special heads:
(a) Special damages to-date (agreed):
£8,938.00.
(b) Additions to house (agreed):
£6,150.00.
(c) Future loss of earnings:
£57,000.00.
(d) Future cost of providing
domestic services:
£72,800.00.
(e) Future cost of wheelchair, urinary
devices and Laundry:
£3,500.00.
(0 Future cost of transport:
£43,600.00.
Total: £305.088.00.
On 29 July, 1977, the defendants lodged a notice of
appeal to the Supreme Court. Amongst the grounds
advanced were the following:—
1. That the trial Judge was wrong in law in refusing to
accede to defendant Counsel's application to
withdraw the case from the jury.
2. That the trial Judge did not direct the jury properly as
to the duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff and
vice-versa.
3. That the questions to the jury on liability were
inappropriate.
4. That on the evidence the jury could not reasonably
have found the defendant negligent.
5. That the jury's finding that the defendant was
negligent was wholly unreasonable and perverse.
6. That on the evidence the jury could not reasonably
have found that the plaintiff was not negligent.
Accordingly their failure to apportion fault to the
plaintiff was unreasonable.
7. That the finding of the jury that the plaintiff fell or
tripped over barrells was inappropriate and against the
weight of evidence.
8. That the finding of the jury that the defendant was
negligent in having an obstruction on its premises, and
in failing to give notive thereof by adequate lighting,
was against the evidence.
9. That the finding of the jury that the plaintiff was nqt
guilty of contributory negligence was against the
evidence and wholly unreasonable.
10. That the learned trial Judge did not preserve a
balance in his charge in that he placed undue
emphasis upon the damages issue, and that he did
not put the case made by the defendants to the jury
in an adequate manner.
11. That the learned Trial Judge misdirected the jury in
law in so far as he told them that if they found that
the Plaintiff sustained his injury in the outer back
yard of the Defendants premises, they would be
entitled to find the Defendants negligent.
12. That the amount of damages awarded by the jury for
future cost of providing domestic services as well as
the damages for future cost of transport and the
damages for pain and suffering were excessive and
perverse.
13. That the damages were excessive.
The defendants request the Supreme Court either to
enter judgment for them, or to order a new trial.
Bungalow man
wins appeal on
flats
Three judges unanimously agreed in the Lands Valuation
Appeal Court in Edinburgh on March 11, 1977 that the
valuation of a bungalow should be reduced because a
multi-storey block of flats built nearby cut off the view
and destroyed the amenity.
Mr. John Ferguson, of Craigton, Glasgow, who had
conducted his own case, was granted a reduction of £8 on
his gross annual value of £168. Afterwards he was
congratulated by Mr. John Pinkerton, counsel for the
Glasgow assessor, and even by the clerk of court,
of court.
Lord Avonside, who presided, said he had put forward
his case "with praiseworthy clarity".
Afterwards Mr. Ferguson said he was satisfied with the
result. He was not so much concerned with the figures
involved but the principle.
In his case he had complained that he has suffered
serious loss of amenity by the erection of the blocks. One
of them was 75 yards from the end of his back garden.
Lord Avonside said the Court would not usually
interfere in "amenity cases" which were essentially
matters of fact and degree for the committee.
"To my mind", Lord Avonside said, it would be
an affront to all commonsense to find in the
circumstances that an alteration in value had not been
proved. It was accepted that the appellant had shown a
material change of circumstances which adversely
affected his house. It is absurd in my opinion to suggest
that a hypothetical tenant would offer the same rental for
this house that he would for a house nearby not affected
by the presence of mulit-storey flats. Lord Thomson
agreed.
Lord Ross, also agreeing, said a hypotetical tenant
would have paid more rent for a house like this which had
privacy and a view and was not overlooked than he would
for a identical house which had lost its privacy and view
and was overlooked. To contend otherwise would be
unrealistic and contrary to commonsense.
139