Personal Injury Quantums......not adding up

goz83

I have enjoyed reading cases on courts.ie for a good few years. I have no interest in becoming a solicitor, or barrister, or Judge :P But I have always found it interesting.

Disclosure: As someone who has suffered a significant back injury, I take a particular interest in the PI cases.

Taking exception to special damages and loss of earnings, I find it astonishing not only to see the vast differences in compensation paid out for what I would consider to be massive over-payments for relatively minor injuries, to small payments for life long, more severe injuries. In many cases, a plaintiff is awarded much more for a minor hand injury, than someone with a bad back injury requiring surgery, or ongoing medication. I try to take into account the factors the Judges have taken into account, but in my non legal mind, the end payments often don't make sense when compared to reasonable, justifiable (imo) compensation.

I am not sure what to make of this phenomenon, but I do think that claims settled outside of court should be made available to the courts and the Injuries Board. It seems the insurance companies don't want this information to be made available, which is what prompted me to dictate this thread.

I would like to see other peoples opinions of some examples and general observations in recent cases I plucked from courts.ie :

Case - Djadenko -v- Dunnes Stores

Settled in 2017

Summary: Young woman drops defective pane of deli counter glass. She injures her shoulder when she reached to grab it and also injured her foot, causing a ligament tear, leading to ongoing pain and psychological issues.

Compensation figures:
€45k suffering to date
€15k suffering into future (disability)
€5,246 special damages
No contributory negligence
Total €60k (excluding special damages)

OP opinion:
I think the compensation was high, but I can't account for the psychological suffering, which is unique to each person. I would put forward that the anxiety had very little to do with the injury she suffered.



Case - Shortall -v- Acton

Settled in 2017

Summary: Young woman suffers injury to elbow and two fingers in RTA in car park. Previous history of whiplash to neck and lower back injury approx about 13 years earlier. Increase of frequency and intensity of pre-existing migraines for a time after the accident. Mention of car being pushed sideways in collision.

Compensation figures:
€45k suffering to date
€30k suffering into future
€900 special damages
No contributory negligence
Total €75k (excluding special damages)

OP opinion:
I think this claim, while a little high, is pretty close to where it was supposed to be. While the woman is not severely disabled, it would be very frustrating if there was any sort of disability to the hand, or arm. This is more significant than a foot injury of the same degree, all else being equal.



Case - Barry -v- Dunnes Stores

Settled in 2013

Summary: Young woman (early 30's) suffered an L4-L5 disc injury while lifting boxes from over stacked trolley. The protrusion may have been pre-accident, but was asymptomatic until the accident. Pain was ongoing right up to the court date, approx 8 years.

Compensation figures:
€45k suffering to date
€0k suffering into future
€?? special damages
30% contributory negligence
Total €31.5k (excluding special damages and loss of earnings)

OP opinion:
I agree with the contributory negligence, but I think that the compensation here was low for someone who had ongoing symptoms years after the accident. I also think the judge made huge assumptions about the loss of earnings section, which I tried to ignore for the purpose of the comparison. The woman may not have had more children if she was still actively working and even if she did, alternative, cheap/free childcare may have been possible if she was still working. I think the judge did a dis-service to the plaintiff in that case.



Case - Doyle -v- Bailey & Anor

Settled in 2017

Summary: Man in mid thirties involved in rear end collision suffers whiplash injury to neck and L4-L5 disc injury. Also pre-existing middle finger injury agitated. History of resolved whiplash injury to neck. Back pain was not mentioned until 3, or 4 months after accident. Surgery done on L4-L5 (microdiscectomy) and pain ongoing 1 year later in back and neck. Loss of hobbies in martial arts and gym membership.

Compensation figures:
€45k suffering to date
€40k suffering into future
€6,881 special damages
no contributory negligence
Total €85k (excluding special damages)

OP opinion:
This one seems about right, if not a bit low. The plaintiff needed surgery and didn't want surgery. His symptoms persisted post surgery. The reason I find this one low is because the surgeon says the plaintiff will have ongoing pain for life and yet, less than the pain and suffering to date was added, but I see this is common place in judgements. It also mentions the loss of a healthy lifestyle and active hobby, but the same compensation was given as the previous example, where no loss of hobbies, or enjoyment is mentioned.

Compare this case with Kelly -v- Lackabeg Ltd T/A The Arc where the plaintiff is awarded €90k for a dislocated thumb and a whiplash injury to her neck and you see where I am coming from with regards to compensation.



Final note. Please don't turn this into a compo culture thread. It is a thread about court decisions with comparisons of injuries suffered by the plaintiffs. All injuries are assumed to be genuine, as ruled by the court. Opinions and observations are otherwise very welcome.

hullaballoo

Moderator: Legal Discussion only. The first person who posts anything that is not legal discussion will be banned for one week.

OP a heads up would have been nice!

Victor

While judgements will give a good account of a case, they leave us without seeing the evidence or how the evidence is presented, although it may give us an idea of how the judge received the evidence. Of course, if it is a jury case, we receive less information again.

Someone made the point in the last few days that any judgement, almost by definition, is going to be imprecise. The judge can only approximate the value of the award based on the evidence and precedent, they don't have a super power to get the exact answer.

All we can hope for is that the award is approximately right. Getting it precise is impossible.

I've not read the cases, but with Djadenko -v- Dunnes Stores, I can imagine someone who has had their leg sliced by a sheet of glass being scared witless of any piece of glass that moves. That said, if you look at the injuries some glaziers have, they do seem to go back time and again.

goz83

Victor wrote: »

While judgements will give a good account of a case, they leave us without seeing the evidence or how the evidence is presented, although it may give us an idea of how the judge received the evidence. Of course, if it is a jury case, we receive less information again.

Someone made the point in the last few days that any judgement, almost by definition, is going to be imprecise. The judge can only approximate the value of the award based on the evidence and precedent, they don't have a super power to get the exact answer.

All we can hope for is that the award is approximately right. Getting it precise is impossible.

I've not read the cases, but with Djadenko -v- Dunnes Stores, I can imagine someone who has had their leg sliced by a sheet of glass being scared witless of any piece of glass that moves. That said, if you look at the injuries some glaziers have, they do seem to go back time and again.

That's why I listed them. There was no cut. The pane of glass just caused a ligament tear.

4ensic15

It is impossible to say anything without sight of the medical reports.

goz83

4ensic15 wrote: »

It is impossible to say anything without sight of the medical reports.

Perhaps to compare similar injuries, yes. But I don't think intimate knowledge is needed when comparing certain injuries in cases. A crushed ankle is going to cause a greater diability than a missing moddle finger for example. But I think the BOQ figures are quite close for those injuries. I realise that is slightly off topic, but I mention it because judges are supposed to have regard to the BOQ.