The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

Unfortunately, as often seen in the media, pedestrians can be the victims of road traffic accidents in Ireland. In some instances, the cause of the accident is the pedestrian. In such cases, a court will have to balance and determine on the ‘duty of care’ of the driver and the pedestrian. If the court finds that the pedestrian caused the accident, then the liability falls on the pedestrian. This could have dire financial consequences because while the drivers will be insured, the pedestrians, will not. Circumstances where Pedestrians are at Fault. Drunkenness/drugs: a person under the influence of alcohol or drugs wandering onto a road causing an accident. Negligence: Pedestrians who are distracted (e.g., using a mobile phone). Jaywalking: Busy roads have designated places to cross over, these can be traffic lights, zebra crossings or islands in middle of the road. These are there to aid pedestrians crossing the road. If a person chooses to cross a road outside of these and they are there, then they could be held liable for an accident. A court will carefully examine the evidence and might conclude that both the driver and the pedestrian were at fault and will apportion the liability. Compensation for Injury Your solicitor will advise you on what court the case can be taken in. • District Court - €2,000 in small claims or claims up to €15,000. • Circuit Court - Claims between €15,000 and €75,000 (€60,000 in personal injury claims) • High Court - Claims above €75,000 with no upper limit It is important that you select the correct court. If the case is borderline High Court, it might be better to take the case in the Circuit Court as it will be heard quicker, and the costs are less. Costs always must be taken into consideration as there is always a risk that you could lose the case. The costs in the High Court will be much higher than the Circuit Court. Relevant Facts in Establishing Loss • How the accident has impacted your life. • Medical Expenses – GP, hospital, medication, physio. • Loss of earnings/having to change line of work and receive less income. • Loss of enjoyment of life (sporting activity) Filing Your Claim In Ireland this is governed by statute but in general the case must be filed within two years from the date of the accident or the date you became aware of the injury. There are exceptions to the 2-year rule and your solicitor will advise you on this . The Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) Average Payments of Compensation • Minor Injuries: €5,000 to €15,000 • Moderate Injuries: €15,000 to €40,000 • Severe Injuries: €40,000 to €75,000 • Very Severe Injuries: €75,000 to €125,000+  Your solicitor will advise you on the range of compensation and all steps to be taken. Early contact with your solicitor is strongly recommended.

Common personal injuries occur when people slip on wet floors which can happen in shops, business premises or visiting a private house. County councils are obligated to keep pathways safe for pedestrian usage. Uneven footpaths have been the cause of many accidents and court cases. Where the fall is our own fault contributing to the accident and injury, it does not fully absolve the legal liability for the obstacle that causes the accident. Responsibility for keeping premises safe applies also to private homes and property. Businesses and local authorities are insured for such claims and many home insurers also cover these. In such a situation, where a claim looks likely, you should act immediately by: • Taking note of the date, time of day and place of the accident. • If any person witnessed the accident, obtain their name and contact details. • If it was a business premises, bring the matter to their attention to get it documented. Follow up by email/letter to start a record. • Ideally, take a photograph of where the accident happened and the obstacle that caused the accident. • Visit your GP (or hospital), keep record of same, who you saw etc. • If you wish to make a claim because of the injury, consult your solicitor. • Keep records of any medication and costs incurred. Property Owners There are exceptions where a court will find the property owner not responsible for the accident, these occur when: • You were a trespasser on the property (i.e. not permitted to be on the property). • Your actions caused the accident. • Another person would have avoided the hazardous obstacle. • The property owner took all reasonable procedures to prevent the accident. Alternatively, the property owner will be held liable if: • The owner had not taken all reasonable steps to avoid an accident happening. • The obstacle that caused the accident was made by the property owner or an employee who knew or should have known of the danger. Compensation : Not all accidents require hospitalisation so in these less serious claims it is important to keep notes of any financial loss incurred that relate directly to the acccident. So, early contact with your solicitor is vital in assessing whether it is worth taking a case at all. Where a property owner disputes the claim then you must prove that they were negligent. If a court is not satisfied that the property owner was responsible, then you will incur their legal costs as well as your own. So, discuss the claim with your solicitor who will advise you on all matters involved. Your solicitor will advise you also in what court to take the case, i.e. High Court, Circuit Court or District Court.

The tenant moved into a three-bedroom house in Swords, Co. Dublin in 2019 and paid a rent of €1,900 a month. She never queried the rent until a neighbour informed her in the summer of 2023 that the previous tenant had been paying €1,500 pm. The tenant said that she was not familiar with the RPZ rules and only that she was served with a notice to terminate the lease that she went onto the RPZ website and read about her rights as a tenant. The tenant claimed that she asked the landlord how much the previous tenant had paid but she claimed that he told her that it was none of her business. The landlord claimed that he was never asked by the tenant what the previous rent was. The landlord told the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) that the previous tenant had rented the house from October 2015 to July 2018 at a monthly rent of €1,500. The RPZ rules came into operation in December 2016. As the house was located in a designated RPZ zone, the maximum annual increases the landlord could apply was 4%. On this basis the maximum he could have charged the tenant at the start of the new tenancy in 2019 was €1,754 per month. Therefore, there was a monthly overpayment of €145.21. The landlord said he entered the lease agreement in good faith and in compliance of the law as best he could. The RTB awarded the tenant €8,500 for the overcharging of rent. Germaine v Horgan Residential Tenancies Board Ref No.: TR0824-007961, 8 January 2025.

Time limits for starting an injury claim are set out in the Statute of Limitations legislation for all claims, including medical negligence claims. For the latter, there is a general rule that cases must be commenced within two years from the date of the alleged negligent act. There are though exceptions to the general rule. This can arise where the injury caused only presents itself later, outside the two-year limit, and for this situation, the critical element is the ‘date of knowledge.’ So, in this case, the two-year period would run from the date the injured party became aware that they had suffered an injury and that the injury was caused by the negligence of a third party. To qualify for the exemption, the party must plead that they were unaware of the alleged negligence in the two-year period from the wrongful act. What is ‘Date of Knowledge’? In cases where on the date the accident occurred, the injuries are immediately obvious or noticeable, then the two-year rule will apply. But that is not always the case, particularly in illnesses which can take longer to become noticeable. In the latter cases, the important date as far as initiation of litigation is concerned, is the date the injury was discovered. The protocols to extend the two-year rule also applies to children and people with intellectual issues. Different rules apply to children than adults. Here a person is considered a ‘child’ until their 18th birthday. Note the two-year rule runs from the date of their 18th birthday, but they may also take their case earlier by suing through their mother, father, or guardian. Issuing Proceedings Once legal proceedings have been issued and correctly served on the parties, the clock stops on the limitation period. If a person is considering making a claim, they should consult their solicitor early as there is much work to be done prior to the issuing of legal proceedings. In pursuing a medical negligence claim, your solicitor will request the medical records, which can take time. Then on receipt of them, your solicitor will need to obtain an independent medical opinion on the injury/illness and this person will be your expert witness. There may be other witnesses to be considered by the legal team so all these matters must be reviewed by your legal team before legal proceedings can be issued. The two-year time limit will go quickly, so consult your solicitor as early as possible.

A Circuit Court appeal was heard in the High Court where the underlying proceedings were taken pursuant to section 62 of the Registration of Title Act, 1964 (as amended by the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act, 2013). The plaintiff in the case had sought an order for possession in respect of a charge on registered land. The Circuit Court judge granted the order for possession. The defendant, a lay litigant, appealed the order to the High Court. There was an alleged change in the ownership of both the registered charge and the underlying debt secured upon the charge to the plaintiff in these proceedings, namely, Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) Ltd. The transferee (Pepper) made a substitution application to the High Court in March 2023 by way of an ex parte application. The application was made pursuant to Order 17, rule 4 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The original plaintiff was KBC Ireland plc. The standard practice in granting these ex parte orders is a provision that the defendant is informed, in writing that (a) a copy of the affidavit and exhibits grounding the substitution application be made available upon request (b) that an application may be made to court to set aside the order (c) that the defendant has an entitlement to contest the transfer of the loan and/or any security involved to Pepper at the hearing of the action. The form of the order made by the court is that Pepper has effectively stepped into the shoes of the original plaintiff KBC Ireland plc. The first issue the judge had to consider was whether the substitution order made in favour of Pepper was correct. The judge referred to a judgment of the Court of Appeal in Irish Bank Resolution Corp. v Halpin [2014] IECA 3. Here the view of the Court of Appeal was that rather than Pepper stepping into the shoes of KBC Ireland plc, the appropriate order is that the transferee is joined to the appeal as a second plaintiff. The decision in Halpin has been followed in Permanent TSB Plc v Morrissey [2017] IEHC 18 in the context of an appeal from the Circuit Court. Therefore, in adopting the Halpin case, there was an issue before the court as to whether the order made in the present appeal was correct in that it released the original plaintiff (KBC) from the case. Pepper’s counsel attempted to make a distinction between an appeal from the Circuit Court to the High Court, and an appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal. However, the presiding judge felt he did not have to rule on this, nor the grounds of appeal from the appellant on the competing considerations as he felt that there was a significant point of law to be decided upon and which was one that should be decided by the Court of Appeal. As it stood, the court was bound by the judgment of Halpin though counsel for Pepper tried to distinguish Halpin from the present case and this stating the court was not bound by Halpin. The judge thus adjourned the appeal proceedings to allow the preliminary jurisdictional issue to be determined by the higher court. Pepper Finance Corporation DAC v Tracey O’Reilly High Court [2024] IEHC (ex tempore)

The plaintiff’s claim arose from an incident where he maintained that his wheelchair was stopped at a road junction when it was struck by the defendant’s taxi shortly before midnight on the night of 7th May 2017. He took his case to the Circuit Court for pain in his shoulder and arm, and a graze to his hip. The plaintiff claimed that four days after the accident he went to his GP, then a second time the following month and he continued to receive treatment from the wheelchair association physiotherapist. He claimed that the defendant’s taxi struck his wheelchair on the right-hand side, and he tumbled out of the chair onto the middle of the road. He told the court he only had particular recollection of the incident through ‘flashbacks.’ He said his self-esteem took a blow when he was no longer able to compete at an elite level of his sport because of his shoulder injury. The legal teams for both sides disputed whether the plaintiff was on the incorrect side of the road when using his wheelchair. On the night of the accident, the plaintiff had dinner at home and then went to a pub between 5:30 pm and 6:30 to watch a football match and have a few drinks. He remained in the pub until close to midnight. He admitted that he ‘probably drank a pint an hour.’ On being challenged on his state due to alcohol, he answered, ‘I was not drunk…I was not sober’. A Garda, who was at the scene, said the plaintiff was very intoxicated. He said the plaintiff verbally abused him and the ambulance staff who were trying to assist him. The garda also said that the plaintiff would not give a description of what had happened. The plaintiff’s explanation for this was that he must have been disoriented and confused after the accident. He said he had a pain in his head. The hospital staff had to be alerted as well as security staff because of the plaintiff’s aggressive and abusive condition. Counsel for the defendant asserted that the plaintiff was ‘stocious drunk’. The defendant stated in evidence that his taxi was stopped at the junction and that the wheelchair ran into the taxi, with the point of impact being the front registration plate. The plaintiff also gave the wrong address for the accident, so an engineer consulted for the plaintiff examined the wrong junction in 2017, then several years later examined the correct junction. The judge dismissed the plaintiff’s case ruling that there was no liability against the taxi driver for the accident and he was satisfied that the taxi vehicle was stationary. The evidence of the plaintiff could not be relied upon. Costs were awarded against the plaintiff. Hegarty v O’Halloran Cork Circuit Court (His Hon Judge Sheehan) 15 January 2025.

This case concerned an alleged breach by the Child and Family Agency in releasing personal data which the plaintiff claimed was negligent on their part and a breach of their duty in regard to highly sensitive information concerning the plaintiff. This confidential information was circulated to a third party without the consent of the plaintiff. The sensitive information related to abuse suffered by the plaintiff during her childhood. The defendant accepted that a personal data breach had occurred. They conceded that sensitive information was released to the person, the subject of the abuse allegations, and other family members of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that the breach caused damage to her relationship with her family and that she suffered upset and distress as a result. As the defendant accepted that they were responsible for the breach, the court only had to decide on what damages should be awarded. The judge was guided by the decision of Kaminski v Ballymaguire Foods where €2,000 was awarded for non-material loss. In that case, the plaintiff’s personal data, captured via CCTV, was used without the consent of the plaintiff for workplace training. The judge in applying Kaminski, held that given the private and sensitive nature of the childhood sexual abuse allegations, the data breach was sufficiently serious to justify awarding compensation and thus awarded €7,500 to the plaintiff. The court accepted the plaintiff’s evidence and noted that the defendant provided no evidence regarding any steps taken to mitigate the damage caused to the plaintiff. However, the defendant had apologised to the plaintiff, several months after the personal data breach occurred. The fact that the agency took no steps to mitigate the damage to the plaintiff, undoubtedly had a negative effect on their case. M.H. v Child and Family Agency, Circuit Court [2023] IECC 11 ex tempore

James Prior, a twelve-year-old sued the HSE through his mother for the care he received after his birth. It was claimed that he suffered difficulties because of the care and management by the hospital. It was submitted to the court that he had missed many milestones in his life. He did not smile until he was three months old and did not walk until he was three. His claim was that there was a failure by the hospital to exercise reasonable care in and around his management and treatment in the neonatal period. He was born in Mullingar Regional Hospital in 2012 but was transferred to a Dublin hospital when he became unwell. The court heard that a cranial ultrasound on the day after his birth was clear, but five days later it showed difficulties with the baby’s brain cells. Emergency measures should have been taken it was submitted. The transfer of the baby to the Dublin hospital was a two-hour journey by ambulance. In the case heard in the High Court, the HSE denied all of the claims. The case was settled by mediation between the parties and the matter came before the High Court to approve the settlement. The terms reflected a 25% reduction on the full value sought to account for the litigation risk in the case. The matter will come before the court again in the future to assess James’s loss of earnings and future care needs. The amount agreed between the parties in mediation and approved of by the court was €1,500,000. James Prior (Suing by His Mother, Tracey Carroll) v HSE High Court (Coffey J) 11 December 2024.