The Gazette 1996

GAZETTE

OCTOBER 1996

Deductions from Awards in Personal Injuries Cases

by Jack Hickey, BL

the trial j u d g e a s s e s s ed the figure of £ 1 5 , 8 6 0 f or disability benefit f or five y e a rs a f t er the a c c i d e n t. H e w a s held to b e 5 0 % r e s p o n s i b le f o r the a c c i d e nt a nd the figures w e re w o r k ed o ut as f o l l o w s:

A s a g e n e r al rule, n o d e d u c t i on of b e n e f i ts c an be m a d e in a s s e s s i ng d a m a g e s in p e r s o n al i n j u r i es c a s e s. H o w e v e r, as w e shall see, t h e re are e x c e p t i o ns to this rule w h i ch e n a b le certain d e d u c t i o ns to be m a d e.

G e n e r al d a m a g es S p e c i al d a m a g es

£ 1 0 0 , 0 00 £ 4 0 , 0 00 £ 1 4 0 , 0 00

G r o s s a w a rd

D e d u c t i on of disability b e n e f it

In r o ad traffic a c c i d e nt c a s es ( n o n - f a t a l ), t he f o l l o w i ng m a y be d e d u c t e d:

£ 1 5 , 8 60 £124,140

Total

D e d u c t i on of 5 0 % f o r c o n t r i b u t o ry n e g l i g e n ce J u d g m e nt in the s um of

• D i s a b i l i ty b e n e f it ( i n c l u d i ng p a y- r e l a t ed b e n e f i t) • I n v a l i d i ty pension. 1 In p e r s o n al i n j u r i es a c c i d e n ts ( n o n- fatal), (arising in the c o u r se of e m p l o y m e n t ):

£ 6 2 , 0 70 £ 6 2 . 0 7 0"

In O'Loughlin v Teeling, the plaintiff w a s i n j u r ed in a r o ad traffic a c c i d e nt in S e p t e m b er 1985 a nd as a result of his i n j u r i es h a d not r e t u r n ed to w o r k at the t i me of the trial of the a c t i on in April 1988." H e r e c e i v ed disability f r o m the t i me of the a c c i d e nt a nd the trial j u d g e, M c K e n z i e J, d e d u c t ed that a m o u nt f r o m his loss of e a r n i n gs a w a r d. M c K e n z ie J w e n t on to c o n s i d er the w o r d s " or p r o b a b ly will a c c r u e" in a s s e s s i ng the a m o u n t of disability b e n e f it that o u g ht to be d e d u c t ed f r o m the f u t u re loss of e a r n i n gs a w a r d f o r t he p e r i od April 1988 to S e p t e m b er 1990. H e r e f u s ed to m a k e s u ch d e d u c t i o ns b e c a u se all the m e d i c al e v i d e n ce s u g g e s t ed that the plaintiff w a s fit f o r light w o r k. " In t h o se c i r c u m s t a n c es it a p p e a rs to m e that the Social W e l f a re D e p a r t m e nt c o u l d, if c o n f r o n t ed w i th that e v i d e n c e, cut o ff the disability b e n e f i t: t h e r e f o re I c a n n ot say w i th a n y p r o b a b i l i ty .... that b e y o nd a c o u p le of w e e k s f r o m n o w he will b e in r e c e i pt of s u ch a benefit.""' In Burke v Blanche, the plaintiff was r e n d e r ed a p a r a p l e g ic a f t er a r o ad traffic a c c i d e nt in 1 9 86 at the a ge of o n ly 2 4 ." H e h a d left s c h o ol at the a ge of 16 a nd h a d f o u n d e m p l o y m e nt as a s em i - s k i l l ed w e l d e r. H o w e v e r, h e w a s u n e m p l o y ed H e held that: -

Jack Hickey, BL

a c t i o n, the trial j u d g e will d e d u ct the p r e s e nt v a l ue of s u ch f u t u re b e n e f i t s .'

• I n j u ry b e n e f it

• D i s a b l e m e nt Benefit. 2

T h e legislation a p p l i es to all r o ad traffic a c c i d e nt c l a i ms instituted o n or a f t er 3 0 M a r c h 1984 u n l e ss the d e f e n d a nt did not r e q u i re to b e c o v e r ed by an a p p r o v ed i n s u r a n ce p o l i c y, in w h i ch c i r c u m s t a n c es t he legislation a p p l i es to all a c t i o ns started on or a f t er 4 April, 1990. h T h e legislation r e q u i r es f u r t h er that if the a m o u nt of d a m a g e s is to b e r e d u c ed in a ny w a y , t he a m o u nt of b e n e f it r e c e i v ed is to be d e d u c t ed f r om the total d a m a g e s w h i ch w o u ld h a ve b e en r e c o v e r a b l e . 7 Example A plaintiff w a s i n v o l v ed in a r o ad traffic a c c i d e nt on 1 April 1994 a nd s u s t a i n ed s e r i o us i n j u r i es w h i ch p r e v e n t ed h i m f r o m r e t u r n i ng to w o r k as a f a c t o ry e m p l o y e e. H e a p p l i ed to t he D e p a r t m e nt of Social W e l f a re a n d r e c e i v ed a disability b e n e f it of £ 6 1 . 0 0 a w e e k, e q u i v a l e nt to half his nett w a g e s. At the trial of the a c t i o n, he w a s a w a r d ed g e n e r al d a m a g e s in t he s um of £ 1 0 0 , 0 00 f or pain a n d s u f f e r i n g, p a st a nd f u t u r e. H is loss of e a r n i n gs w e r e a s s e s s ed at o n ly £ 3 5 , 0 00 b e c a u se h e w a s 6 0 at the t i me of the a c c i d e n t. H is m e d i c al a nd t r a v e l l i ng e x p e n s es c a m e to £ 5 , 0 0 0 a nd

In fatal a c c i d e n t s:

• D e a th G r a nt f o r f u n e r al e x p e n s e s .'

The legislation Section 2 of the Civil Liability (Amendment) Act, 1964 p r o v i d es that in p e r s o n al i n j u r i es a c t i o ns ( n o n - f a t a l) the f o l l o w i ng shall not b e d e d u c t e d: (a) " A n y s um p a y a b le in r e s p e ct of the i n j u ry u n d er a ny c o n t r a ct of i n s u r a n c e ". (b) " A n y p e n s i o n, g r a t u i ty or o t h er like N o t w i t h s t a n d i ng this legislation, t he Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1993 p r o v i d es that in a s s e s s i ng d a m a g es in p e r s o n al i n j u r i es a c t i o n s, the j u d i c i a ry is o b l i g ed to d e d u ct f r o m the a w a r d the v a l ue of a ny rights w h i ch h a v e a c c r u ed or p r o b a b ly will a c c r ue to t he plaintiff in r e s p e ct of certain b e n e f i ts f o r a p e r i od of five y e a rs a f t er the d a te of a c c r u al of the c a u se of action. 4 b e n e f it p a y a b le u n d er S t a t u te or o t h e r w i se in c o n s e q u e n ce of the i n j u r y ".

In relation to b e n e f i ts w h i ch a re still to a c c r ue at the t i me of t he h e a r i ng of the