The Excessive Court docket has dismissed two claims for private accidents involving a minor accident on the premise that the plaintiffs gave “false and inconsistent” proof within the case. A central characteristic of the case associated to one of many plaintiffs being referred to medical consultants by her solicitor, which the courtroom held was “inappropriate”.
Delivering judgment within the case, Mr Justice Michael Twomey outlined every of the inconsistencies within the plaintiffs’ proof, noting that a lot of the declare was undercut by unbiased Garda witnesses or by their very own testimony. Additional, the courtroom outlined that the solicitor’s referral to a medical specialist didn’t have a medical foundation and due to this fact was improper.
Background
The plaintiffs, Ms Cahill and Ms O’Riordan, have been sisters who have been travelling of their automobile in Clonmel. The defendant was driving behind them. The 2 vehicles have been in a line of visitors when the defendant started to maneuver ahead whereas checking visitors coming from his proper. The defendant’s automobile was roughly 1.5 ft behind the plaintiffs’ automobile and the defendant finally ran into the again of the plaintiffs’ automobile.
The events bought out of their vehicles to examine the harm and it appeared that there was none. The events didn’t trade insurance coverage particulars and commenced shifting once more. Nonetheless, the plaintiffs later went to the Gardaí, alleging that the defendant had smelled of alcohol and that he had fled the scene of the accident. A garda inspected the plaintiffs’ car and located no proof of any harm.
The plaintiffs later claimed that there was a large gash on the bumper of the automobile and that this had been brought on by the accident. Ms O’Riordan made an announcement to Gardaí on this respect.
The defendant was interviewed by gardaí concerning the allegations made by the plaintiffs. He accepted that the accident occurred however denied fleeing the scene. He additionally stated that he didn’t drink alcohol.
In a GP’s report, Ms Cahill claimed that there was a big affect from the accident and that her bumper was broken. Ms Cahill additionally described to a advisor that affect was like an “explosion” and that her airbags deployed. Additional, in replies to particulars, Ms Cahill claimed that she didn’t have any earlier related accidents within the final 5 years, which transpired to be incorrect in respect of each bodily and psychological well being points.
One of many essential facets of the case associated to Ms Cahill being referred for medical consultations by her solicitor slightly than by her GP. Ms Cahill was referred to an orthopaedic surgeon and a advisor psychiatrist by her solicitor.
The plaintiffs have been unsuccessful within the Circuit Court docket the place each claims have been dismissed. As such, they every appealed to the Excessive Court docket in a de novo listening to of the matter.
Excessive Court docket
Mr Justice Twomey started by outlining the choice in Dardis v. Poplovka (No. 1) [2017] IEHC 149, through which it was said that it was inappropriate for solicitors to refer their purchasers for medical examination. It was stated that, since a solicitor just isn’t a health care provider, there isn’t any medical foundation for the referral and as an alternative, the referral is made for authorized causes. The courtroom famous that, however the assertion of the regulation in Dardis, the scenario endured in litigation (see Harty v. Nestor [2022] IEHC 108).
It was identified in Harty v Nestor {that a} GP ought to ordinarily refer a plaintiff to a medical advisor as a result of, when solicitors achieve this, the advisor doesn’t have entry to the medical historical past of the plaintiff. Mr Justice Twomey held {that a} solicitor referral impacted on the credibility of the plaintiff as a result of the existence of a solicitor referral was prima facie proof that no medical foundation existed for the referral.
It was additionally famous that medical studies based mostly on solicitor referrals is probably not admissible in private accidents hearings. Order 39 Rule 58(1) supplied that knowledgeable proof is restricted to that which in all fairness required for the willpower of the proceedings. Whereas the courtroom didn’t determine the difficulty, Mr Justice Twomey outlined that it was at the least debatable that knowledgeable proof obtained on foot of a solicitor referral was not fairly required in proceedings.
The courtroom additionally famous that solicitor referrals positioned a pressure on medical assets. Eight medical appointments have been made on this case and the courtroom held that it was as much as practitioners to vary the tradition in the usage of knowledgeable witnesses (Duffy v. McGee [2022] IECA 254). On this regard, the courtroom additionally held that it was inappropriate for the plaintiffs to have interaction engineering consultants for what was a “tip” accident between the automobiles.
Mr Justice Twomey additionally held that there have been “false and inconsistent” claims from the plaintiffs concerning the accident. The courtroom most popular the proof of the defendant and the garda (an unbiased witness) who outlined that there was no harm to the automobile arising from the accident. On the plaintiffs’ personal proof, the defendant didn’t flee the scene which was a false declare to the Gardaí.
It was additionally accepted by Ms Cahill in proof that the airbags didn’t deploy. She blamed her solicitor for not disclosing her earlier harm historical past however she needed to settle for accountability for this within the proceedings, the courtroom held.
General, the plaintiffs’ credibility was considerably undermined by the proof within the case, the courtroom held. As such, the courtroom held that the plaintiffs did not discharge the onus of proof that the accident precipitated the alleged accidents.
Conclusion
The courtroom dismissed each appeals.
Cahill v. Forristal; O’Riordan v. Forristal [2022] IEHC 705
