€453,000 damages appeal made by man whose foot was crushed dismissed

An appeal over a €453,000 damages award made to a young man whose foot was crushed by a digger while he was working in a quarry has been dismissed.

By Ann O’Loughlin

An appeal over a €453,000 damages award made to a young man whose foot was crushed by a digger while he was working in a quarry has been dismissed.

The three-judge Court of Appeal previously rejected claims by one appellant, Michael McDaid, it could not validly hear the appeal because two of the judges were women.

Brothers Michael and Charles McDaid, representing themselves, and McDaid Quarries Ltd, unrepresented, appealed the €453,000 award to David McLaughlin over devastating injuries suffered on June 26 2003, when he was aged 17, at a quarry near Burnfoot, Co Donegal.

In his amended claim, Mr McLaughlin, originally from Buncrana but now living in the US, alleged he suffered the injuries after a 55 ton track excavator was driven over his foot by another man, also aged 17. Half of his right foot was later amputated.

The High Court’s Mr Justice Michael Hanna found Mr McLaughlin and the excavator driver were both working for McDaid Quarries at the relevant time and held the employers were negligent and failed to take adequate precautions for the safety of Mr McLaughlin.

In the Court of Appeal judgment, Ms Justice Mary Irvine noted the appellants alleged the claim was fraudulent in that Mr McLaughlin originally claimed his injuries were caused by negligent use of a motor lorry and the accident involved the wheel of a lorry.

That arose from his belief such a claim would entitle him to recover damages against the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland without recourse in the first instance to the McDaids, she said.

Mr McLaughlin was permitted in 2014 to amend his claim to substitute the words “digger” for motor vehicle and his claim proceeded on the basis his injuries were caused by a digger driven over his foot at the quarry, owned by the appellants or one or other of them.

The High Court said Mr McLaughlin was a vulnerable minor with learning difficulties at the time. It found, while he initially advanced a false claim that the accident involved a lorry rather than a digger, he probably did so at the behest of Michael and Charles McDaid with a view to their securing indemnity from an insurer to meet any claim by Mr McLaughlin.

Ms Justice Irvine said, because Mr McLaughlin had not sought to dispute affidavits verifying his claim and purportedly signed by him in 2006, when he was in the US, he must have been taken as approving their content and authorising service of the claim on all defendants, including the MIBI.

That claim was false and misleading in a material respect and Mr McLaughlin had thus breached provisions of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, meaning the High Court must dismiss the case unless satisfied that would result in an injustice, she said.

The High Court held it would be unjust to dismiss the claim based on findings including Mr McLaughlin was young, naive and of poor intellectual capacity when he agreed to participate in the intended fraud by delivering and verifying a claim he knew was false and misleading. It found, regardless of where he was living, he was under the influence of Charles McDaid when he made the false claim but he later withdrew it, delivered an amended claim the High Court considered bona fide and gave truthful evidence.

Ms Justice Irvine said, while delivery of a false claim can have “very serious” consequences, she was fully satisfied, in these unusual and special circumstances, the matters relied on by the High Court provided “good and sufficient” reason to support its conclusion it would be unjust to dismiss the case.

There could be no valid challenge to the damages awarded as those were clearly supported by evidence and were just, fair and proportionate, she also ruled.

Earlier, the court refused to adjourn the appeal pending a Garda investigation into a complaint the McDaids had made.