Damages awarded for injuries suffered in road traffic accident

Personal injuries – assessment of damages – liability admitted – road traffic accident – front passenger in car - bad candidate for involvement in an RTA, as she had had serious surgery to her neck and skull some weeks prior to the accident – defendant argued that it was a “low impact collision” – plaintiff’s case is that her neck was in an extremely vulnerable condition, having regard to the fact that she had undergone extensive surgery involving the back of her neck and the base of her skull some 11 weeks earlier – accordingly the trauma to the soft tissues of her neck and shoulders was considerably worse than would otherwise have been the case, had she been in a healthy state at the time of the accident – extensive treatment from a pain specialist - extensive physiotherapy and acupuncture treatment – PTSD and psychiatric injuries - defendant did not accept that the plaintiff has been injured to the extent which she claims – such a minor collision is inconsistent with exacerbation claimed – argued that the Plaintiff is hysterical in nature – pain and suffering caused by psychological factors - further pain intervention is not necessary - nature of chronic pain and whether a defendant, who was liable for an RTA which caused exacerbation of pain in the acute stage, can be held liable for chronic pain which ensued in the years thereafter - alleged that the plaintiff had fraudulently sworn an affidavit of verification in respect of her loss of earnings claim, when she knew that it was false and misleading in a material respect – background facts – accident – plaintiff’s evidence in relation to her injuries - medical evidence - application made by the Defendant that the Court should dismiss the plaintiff’s action on the basis that she had sworn an affidavit of verification in respect of her claim for loss of earnings, which affidavit she knew was false or misleading in a material respect and that she knew it to be false or misleading when swearing the affidavit - Supplemental Particulars of Loss - second day of the hearing plaintiff served a notice of further Supplemental Particulars of Loss setting out various figures which would be applicable if the plaintiff made a graduated return to work over the next two years – defendant argued that as the plaintiff never formally withdrawn her claim to future loss of earnings at its high water mark of €1.1m, and where the evidence led on behalf of the plaintiff at the trial was to the effect that the plaintiff should be able to make a phased return to work over the next two years, the affidavit of verification was false – credibility - have to find that the plaintiff knew it to be false or misleading when swearing the affidavit - entirely permissible and commonplace for plaintiffs to put forward a range of figures for future loss of earnings based on various contingencies - Court satisfied that there was no basis for that application - purely indicative values and would be dependent on the medical evidence to be given at the trial of the action - no attempt by the plaintiff to make a claim to a level of damages for future loss of earnings to which she was not entitled – no basis for the assertion that this plaintiff has attempted to mislead either the defendant or the Court by swearing the affidavit – found that but for the road traffic accident, that in all probability the plaintiff would have made a full recovery from the surgery within approximately six months from the date of surgery and that she would have returned to work at that stage – condition deteriorated significantly as a result of the accident - one cannot extrapolate from the photographs of the car damage that there was not a significant impact between the vehicles – no engineering evidence called – Court accepts the plaintiff’s evidence of the accident which was indicative of the fact that the impact was significant – Court preferred the plaintiff’s medical evidence – Court satisfied that the Plaintiff’s condition deteriorated significantly in the days and weeks following the accident – back and knee pain consistent with a soft tissue injury to the spine caused by the road traffic accident – headaches caused by accident - plaintiff’s condition was significantly exacerbated by the road traffic accident - deterioration and the onset of new symptoms were caused as a result of the accident, notwithstanding that there may have been a relatively minor impact between the vehicles – plaintiff is a genuine and well-motivated patient - satisfied that she has experienced the pain and disablement as described by her in her evidence and as described by the various medical witnesses – Court does not think that the plaintiff is deliberately catastrophizing either her injuries, or her symptoms of pain - Court is satisfied that the plaintiff did not attempt to exaggerate her level of disability – chronic pain due to the accident - such chronic pain arose due to the fact that the plaintiff had that inherent psychological susceptibility at the time that she had her accident - personal injury was a foreseeable consequence of the accident - assessment of damages - prognosis is somewhat uncertain – on the balance of probabilities plaintiff will make a reasonable recovery from her symptoms of pain, so as to enable her to return to work and lead a relatively normal life in the next two years - general damages to date in the sum of €96,000 – future pain and suffering assessed at €50,000 - € 17,648.98 for medical and other expenses to date – agreed that net loss of earnings per annum would amount to €33, 315.96 - period from January, 2017 to date, being three years and two months therefore awarded €105,480.54 - future loss of earnings assessed at €33,315.96 – total damages assessed at €302,445.48 –