The Gazette 1977

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