Cork woman seeking €1.75m over accident but only awarded €170,000 loses appeal
Appeal court judge found there was no basis for suggesting the findings or award of the High Court judge in relation to her loss of earnings or injuries claims were inappropriate or unjust.
A woman awarded more than €170,000 after her knee was struck by a van while trying to hold a parking space for her husband’s car has lost an appeal in which she claimed she was not awarded enough.
Josephine Higgins, 68, had sought an award of €1.75m to compensate for an alleged loss of earnings arising from the injuries sustained in the incident on Main Street, Carrigtwohill, Co Cork, on February 13, 2020.
She was standing in the space waiting for her husband, John, who was due to arrive in a Jeep to deliver stools to an apartment owned by the couple on Main Street.
The High Court heard the van driver was trying to gain access to one of the shops. The judge found he “misjudged the situation, failed to keep a proper look-out and inadvertently struck the plaintiff who was standing on the roadway close to the footpath”.
She sued the van driver and the Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland (MIBI), which compensates victims of uninsured and untraced driving.
Last February, the High Court awarded her €170,564, including €60,000 loss of earnings and €75,000 for her injuries, after finding she was struck by the van. Her claim for loss of earnings and loss of economic opportunities, including increasing her property portfolio, was “wholly unreasonable, excessive and unrealistic”, the court said.
Ms Higgins and her husband have a portfolio of properties comprising one five-bed detached house, one three-bed semi-detached house, a guesthouse and lodge, a three-bed apartment, a two-bed apartment, and four one-bed apartments.
The High Court heard the Higginses have two adult sons with significant care needs and their motivation in managing and renting the properties stemmed from their desire to secure funds for future care needs.
She appealed the High Court judgment, discharged the legal team she had, and represented herself in the appeal. She said she had undergraduate and master's degrees in law.
In lengthy written submissions to the appeal court, she alleged she was called "a liar”, “a colluder”, and “a gold digger" for stopping a flawed report on economic loss, while the opposition pushed it into the case knowing it was flawed.
In a decision rejecting her appeal, Mr Justice Mark Sanfey, on behalf of the Court of Appeal, said it was evident she was aggrieved by the level of damages awarded by the High Court, by the manner in which she alleges the trial was conducted, and some of the conclusions drawn by the High Court judge.
He said it was clear the High Court judge, while making adverse findings in relation to the validity of the loss of earnings claim, took particular care to be fair to her.
The High Court judge declined to attribute base motives to her, he said.
"He does not state anything in his judgment which suggests that he concluded that she was a ‘liar’, a ‘colluder’, or a ‘gold digger’, Mr Justice Sanfey said.
"He attributes creditable motives to her, albeit that much of the evidence tendered by her or with her approval was found to be unreasonable, excessive and without credibility," the judge said.
In the circumstances, he said there was no basis whatsoever for suggesting the trial was conducted unfairly in some way.
He found there was no basis for suggesting the findings or award of the High Court judge in relation to her loss of earnings or injuries claims were inappropriate or unjust.
There was also no basis for suggesting the trial was conducted unfairly, or that her reputation or that of her husband, or of an accountant who had prepared a loss of earnings report, were unfairly or improperly impugned.
The respondents were entitled to the costs of the appeal, subject to further argument if necessary.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
