Tipperary woman involved in car accident faces substantial legal costs after court of appeal decision   

By Ann O’Loughlin

A Tipperary woman is facing a substantial legal costs bill after the Court of Appeal ruled a man whose car collided with hers bore no liability for the accident.

Bill Tuohy appealed after the High Court’s Mr Justice Henry Abbott awarded €18,453 damages to Samatha Ahearne based on findings Mr Tuohy was one third responsible for the collision between their vehicles on October 4th 2012.

The High Court assessed damages at €61,360 but, due to its finding of two thirds contributory negligence by Ms Ahearne, that sum was cut to €20,453. It was then reduced by a further €2,000 to reflect the value was below the High Court scale.

The three judge Court of Appeal, in a judgment today allowed the appeal and awarded costs of the High Court case, and of the appeal hearing, to Mr Tuohy, of Golden Inn, Golden, Co Tipperary, against Ms Ahearne, of Glenconnor Heights, Clonmel.

Jeremy Maher SC, for Ms Ahearne, said she was of limited means and asked the court to direct each side pay their own costs.

Mr Justice Michael Peart said the court cannot decide costs issues on sympathy and there were no exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the normal rule costs go to the winning side.

The case arose from an accident in a built up area at the junction of the Glencorron and Western Roads at Clonmel about 12.25pm on October 4th 2012.

Ms Ahearne had stopped at the white line where the Glenconnor road met the Western road. She said she saw a car approaching some distance away at the top of the road to her right and concluded it was safe to proceed towards the centre of the junction but, before she got there, Mr Touhy’s vehicle collided with the rear side of hers, causing it to spin 180 degrees.

In denying negligence, Mr Tuohy said he was driving at a normal speed along the Western road and, when he was a short distance from the junction, Ms Ahearne suddenly drove forward into his path, giving him no opportunity to avoid the collision despite braking.

Giving the appeal court’s judgment, Mr Justice Peart said the High Court accepted Mr Touhy was driving within the speed limit but concluded he was negligent in failing to moderate his speed further to take account of an island in the road, described by the High Court as a "traffic calming measure".

There was no evidence to support that conclusion, Mr Justice Peart said. Given there was no finding Mr Tuohy was exceeding the speed limit of 50kph, there was no evidential basis for the High Court conclusion he was "probably travelling a bit too fast" and no evidence of any other feature on the road which would have obliged Mr Tuohy to reduce his speed stll further.

Ms Ahearne was undoubtedly stopped and could be presumed by Mr Tuohy to be waiting to cross the junction but she was required to yield to his vehicle. There was no additional legal duty upon him at that stage to moderate his driving to take account of some unlikely possbility she might negligently move out into his path.

The High Court finding of negligence against Mr Touhy was not based on engineering evidence about the damage to Ms Ahearn’s car, or the fact it was caused to spin some 180 degrees by force of impact, the judge noted. The High Court would have been entitled to accept that evidence as credible and to prefer it to Mr Tuohy’s evidence of a lack of significant damage to his car but the High Court had not referred to those matters in its conclusion.

In the circumstances, there was no proper evidential basis for the High Court’s findings of negligence against Mr Tuohy, he ruled.