In OâConnor v OâDriscoll [2004] IEHC the Plaintiff was a bank executive who was injured in a road traffic accident (âRTAâ?). The court made the following finding;
The case is highly unusual. The physical injuries sustained by the plaintiff were soft tissue damage to his neck and low back as well as some relatively minor damage to three upper teeth on the left side. The plaintiff in addition to these physical injuries also underwent a severe psychological reaction to the accident. Within a few weeks of the accident he developed a very serious Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. He has also suffered from a major depressive illness and his condition has been complicated by generalised anxiety disorder.â?
The court awarded compensation of â¬579,225 which sum included â¬100,000 for pain and suffering to date and â¬50,000 into the future.
________________
In Hackett v Calla Associates Ltd [2004] IEHC the court found that the Plaintiff had suffered the loss of the sight of his eye with associated scarring ;
The medical reports describe it as a very severe injury to the right eye, including a full thickness laceration of the right upper eyelid and a severe blunt trauma to the globe of the right eye which caused a dislocation of the lens and displacement of the vitreous gel from the posterior part of the eye into the ante chamber, when it was struck by a blunt object. The most recent report when describing the plaintiff’s visual acuity in the right eye states “Perception of light only (totally blind)”.
The court awarded compensation of â¬100,000
________________
In Higgins v Smith [2004] IEHC the Plaintiff was injured in an RTA. She was found to have the following injuries;
Multiple abrasions to her face; Fracture of the shaft of her right humerus with radial nerve palsy; Fracture of the left femur; Contusion and bruising to the right leg; Bruising over the right breast.
The court awarded her â¬130,000 for pain and suffering to date and â¬25,000 into the future. The actual award was for â¬147,250 following a reduction for contributory negligence.
_________________
In Curley v Dublin City Council [2004] IESC the Supreme Court affirmed the award of â¬350,461.72. by the High Court for compensation for personal injury loss and damage. Of that sum â¬75,000.00 represented general damages for pain and suffering.