The Gazette 1971

UNREPORTED IRISH CASES

TOTAL AWARD OF £18,695 DISMISSED ON APPEAL The plaintiff, a small farmer of 62 years, was injured in an accident in May 1968. Before the accident, the plaintiff was a man of drive and determination. He worked a 45 acre farm with the assistance of his wife and his son of 24; in 1968, the income from the farm was £1,700. At the time of the accident, he was unconscious when admitted to hospital; there were fractures of the cheek bone and collar bone, and a suspected fracture of the skull. He remained unconscious for three weeks, and was discharged on 1st August. He was then sub- normal and his memory had gone, he had lost all interest in things. It was stated he had permanent brain damage, with no possibility of improvement. He has been aggressive and difficult to control and spends much time in bed. The jury and Mr. Justice Henchy awarded him To gauge the loss of income, it must be ascertained what expense the plaintiff will have to sustain in order to maintain the profitability of the farm. There does not seem to be any case of injuries comparable to the plaintiff's injuries that has come before the Court. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court (O'Dalaigh, C. J., Walsh and Fitzgerald, J.J.) dismissed the appeal). [Collins v. Tournafulla Co-operative Ltd.; Supreme Court; Unreported; 19th October 1971.] AWARD OF GENERAL DAMAGES OF £5,975 REVERSED ON APPEAL The plaintiff, a farmer's wife, was injured in a motor car collision in December 1967. In May 1970, when she was 47 years of age, she was awarded £5,975 general damages by Mr. Justice Murnaghan and a jury. The plaintiff's injuries consisted of two fractures, lacerations, concussion, shock and bruising of the chest and arms. As a result of the injuries, she limped and found it hard to walk, and complained of insomnia and dizziness. The plaintiff's doctor admitted that she had full movement of the hip, knee and foot, although she stated she was virtually immobilised. Undoubtedly, on the evidence she has to curtail her activities and there is still evidence of concussion. But the jury is not entitled to proceed on the basis that the plaintiff is right and the Doctor is wrong, if her own Doctor does not support a serious permanent incapacity. The award does not bear any relationship to the injuries proved to have been sustained. Accordingly the Supreme Couit (Budd and Fitzgerald, J.J.; O'Dalaigh, C.J., dissenting) upset the jury's award, and ordered a new trial. [Mary Bourke v. James Bourke; Supreme Court; unreported; 27 July 1971.] damages under the following heads : (1) Loss of income and out of pocket expenses to date (2) Pain and suffering to date (3) Loss of income in future (4) Pain and suffering in future 250 8.000 5,445 5,000 Total £18,695

AWARD OF £7,000 FOR FUTUDE LOSS UPHELD As a result of an accident, the plaintiff was rendered permanently unemployable. He is only able for seden- tary work, and there would be no such job available. The jury were therefore entitled to take the view that future gainful employment for the plaintiff was im- probable, and to assess £7,000 for future loss. Accor- dingly the Supreme Court (O'Dalaigh, C.J., Walsh and Fitzgerald, J.J.) dismissed the appeal from the decision of O'Keeffe, P. and a jury. [Aherne v. Thompson and Quinlan; Supreme Court; unreported; 26th October 1971.] RACING BOARD LOSES APPEAL IN DIRECTOR'S JACKPOT TRANSACTION An appeal by the Racing Board against a Circuit Court decision awarding a Dublin company director, Joseph Duff, Queen's Park, Monkstown, £407.90 arising out of a winning Jackpot stake placed on the totalisator at the Curragh races on September 12th, 1970, was dismissed, with costs, by Mr. Justice Pringle in the High Court, Dublin, yesterday. In a reserved judgment, the Circuit Court finding of Judge Deale was upheld. Mr. Duff had claimed that the Racing Board caused to be issued on that date multiple event totalisator tickets, including inter alia , Jackpot All Combination tickets in respect of a multiple event involving the third, fourth, fifth and sixth races. These were further expressed to be sold subject inter alia to the rules governing multiple event pools or jackpots and provided spaces for (a) selection by re- ference to its number on the official racecard of one or more horses running in each of the races designated; (b) a space for the expression of the number purchased by, and representing the selection of, the purchaser in respect of each of the races; (c) a space for the ex- pression of the total number of units purchased, by reference to the matters set out in the preceeding two sub-paragraphs; (d) a receipt for the amount of cash paid in respect of the total units purchased, to be signed by the authorised totalisator officer. Mr. Duff claimed that, pursuant to the rules, he purchased a Jackpot Combination ticket comprising 28 units, as follows : for the third race, horses 6 and 9, each horse selected once, making two selections; for the fourth race, all seven runners, each horse selected once, making seven selections; for the fifth race, horse 4, selected once, making one selection; for the sixth race, horse 1, selected twice, making two selections. He paid £7 in respect of the 28 units at 5 /- each and got a counterfoil and receipt. Horses selected by him won the third, fourth, and fifth races and the horse selected twice won the sixth race. Racing Board's Denial Mr. Duff claimed that, having successfully forecast the winning horses in each of the races, and being entitled to be paid the amount distributable in respect of two successful units in accordance with the rules, presented his receipt and counterfoil, but the Board,

186