The High Court has awarded more than €170,000 to a Co Cork woman whose knee was struck by a van while she stood in a parking bay in an effort to hold the space for her husband’s car.
Josephine Higgins (68) had sought an award of €1.75 million to compensate for an alleged loss of earnings arising from the injuries sustained in the incident on Main Street, Carrigtwohill, Co Cork, on February 13th, 2020.
While Judge Micheál P O’Higgins agreed van driver Richard Coleman was at fault for injuries suffered by Higgins, the judge described the claim for lost earnings as “wholly unreasonable, excessive and unrealistic”.
Higgins, who owns a substantial property portfolio with her husband, had based the claim on various grounds, including lost opportunities to increase income by buying new properties, the loss of rental receipts and the potential cost of a third-party property management agency.
In a judgment published this week, the judge found that the claim was not supported by evidence, and instead awarded €60,000 for four years of lost earnings since the accident. The judge proposed an order for a total award to Higgins of €170,564.
Higgins, who has two adult sons with significant care needs, said in evidence that her and her husband’s motivation in managing and renting the properties stemmed from their desire to secure funds for future care needs.
In the incident giving rise to the claim for damages, Higgins was standing on the roadway on Carrigtwohill’s Main Street, holding a parking space for her husband, John Higgins.
It was Higgins’s evidence that Coleman told her to move so he could park his van. She said she could not do so, as she was waiting for her husband.
Higgins said the van hit her left knee, causing her leg to buckle slightly – although she was not knocked to the ground.
[ High Court appoints provisional liquidators to EuroGiant discount storesOpens in new window ]
Higgins said her husband saw the collision and accused Coleman of assaulting her.
In his evidence, Coleman said that as he pulled into the parking spot on Main Street, he heard someone he did not know shout, “You can’t park there, that’s our parking spot.” He said the person, Higgins, was standing on the footpath.
When Coleman finished parking and got out of the van, Higgins accused him of assaulting her with his van, the defendant said. He said he denied this, and told her to “stop”.
The judge said that on the balance of probabilities, the van did strike Higgins. He said he was satisfied Coleman “misjudged the situation, failed to keep a proper look-out and inadvertently struck [Higgins] who was standing on the roadway close to the footpath”.
Considering the medical evidence, O’Higgins said the collision was minor in nature, but resulted in significant personal injuries to Higgins.
The judge said the most serious injury suffered was a psychiatric adjustment disorder, a state of distress and emotional disturbance arising from a significant life change or the consequence of a stressful life event.
In Higgins’s case, this manifested in depressed moods, anxiety and anger, and a sense of misery, anger and withdrawal.
The judge also found Higgins to be suffering from ongoing physical pain arising from the injury.
The judge said Higgins’s claim for loss of earnings was the “most problematic aspect” of her overall claim.
Her claim for €1.75 million in lost earnings was advanced by means of an accountant’s report.
The judge said this report contained too many admitted flaws, with the basis for calculation of losses “shaky and unexplained”. The judge said he should attach “virtually no weight” to the evidence.
However, he said it would be disproportionate to exclude the entire claim for lost earnings.
The judge said he accepted Higgins’s evidence that before her injuries she operated as a “one-woman band” in her management and maintenance of various rental properties. Her ability to fulfil this role was impacted by the injuries, the judge accepted. This, among other factors, led to a loss of earnings.
“While the excessive claim for loss of earnings was deeply unimpressive and did not reflect at all well on [Higgins] or her husband, I am prepared to accept that their zeal and determination to provide a nest-egg for their children operated to cloud their judgment and contributed to them putting forward a wholly unrealistic claim,” he said.