High Court: Damages totalling €52k awarded against Hertz in claim regarding crashed rented car

About this case:

• Judgment:
  External link

Hertz contended that the collision was a “set up”, based on the plaintiffs’ membership of the same “republican” society, and the jovial nature with which the drivers of the car exchanged information subsequent to the accident.

Dismissing the appeal brought by Hertz, Mr Justice Meenan stated the evidence did not go as far to suggest a set up.

Background

In June 2011, the seven plaintiffs and the first defendant, were involved in a traffic collision involving two cars on a roundabout near Lifford, Co. Donegal.

Plaintiffs Kevin Darragh, Ivan Hunter, Aaron Keely, and Martin Feeney were passengers in a Fiesta, which was driven by the first defendant, Mr Gareth Feeney. The Fiesta was rented from Ryans Investments (NI) Limited trading as Hertz Rent-a-Car – as such, Hertz was being sued in its capacity as owner of the Fiesta.

Martin Lafferty, Thaddeus Deazley, and Neil Lafferty were travelling in a Peugeot.

Mr Feeney did not enter a defence to the claims of the plaintiffs, and did not appear in the High Court.

Circuit Court

In the circuit court in Letterkenny, the circumstances of the collision and the nature and extent of injuries sustained were hotly contested

Relying upon s. 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, Hertz claimed that the collision was a “set up” and that the plaintiffs had significantly exaggerated the extent and effects of their injuries.

Ultimately, the defendants were found liable and awards were made to each of the plaintiffs.

Subsequently, the defendants appealed to the High Court.

The Collision was a “Set Up”

In order to establish, as a matter of probability, that the collision was a set up; Hertz relied upon a number of factors; including that a number of the plaintiffs were members of the same “republican” society, and that when the Fiesta was returned to Hertz at Derry Airport, the Hertz manager overheard a telephone conversation between the first defendant and the driver of the Peugeot, which was jovial in nature. The purpose of this call was for the first named defendant to obtain from the fifth named plaintiff details of the Peugeot for the purpose of filling out incident report form.

Mr Justice Meenan stated that he did not believe that the evidence went so far as to establish the collision was a “set up”.

Regarding the overheard telephone call, Justice Meenan was of the opinion that if the collision was a “set up”, the information being sought in the telephone call would already have been firmly fixed in the defendant’s mind prior to returning the Fiesta, as it would have been an essential part of the whole operation.

Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004

Section 26 enables the court to dismiss a plaintiff’s personal injuries action where the plaintiff gives or adduces, or dishonestly causes to be given or adduced, evidence that is false or misleading in any material respect that he or she knows to be false or misleading.

Hertz alleged that each of the plaintiffs considerably exaggerated the nature, extent and effects of their various injuries; and evidence was adduced of a number of the plaintiffs engaging in dancing, skiing, running and skydiving in the years following but not immediately after the collision.

Each of the plaintiffs indicated that a full recovery was achieved within a short period after the collision and none claimed any ongoing ill effects. There was no claim in respect of medical expenses or loss of earnings, and furthermore, Hertz admitted in to evidence the medical reports furnished by each of the plaintiffs – each of which were consistent with the evidence given by each of the plaintiffs as regards their respective injuries.

Finding that an order under s.26 could not be made, Justice Meenan was satisfied that each of the plaintiffs were entitled to damages arising out of the injuries complained off.

Damages

Mr Darragh sustained muscular injuries to his neck and back as well as an exacerbation of a previous knee complaint. Nevertheless, there was no risk of any long term damage or complications. As such, general damages were assessed at €8,050.

Mr Hunter had sporadic complaints for up to a year following the accident but ultimately a full recovery was expected. Mr Hunter confirmed that his injuries had improved to the extent that he was able to take part in a charity run within a number of weeks after the accident. As such, general damages were assessed at €6,550.00.

Mr Kelly confirmed his injuries had no impact on his work and little impact on his social life; as such, general damages were assessed at €5,050.00.

The only on-going problem which Mr Feeney had was that his back became quite stiff after periods of inactivity. As such, general damages were assessed at €5,050.00.

Two years after the accident, Martin Lafferty still had on-going right sided symptoms which his own medical experts expected to be on-going. According to the Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon on behalf of the defendants, there was no reason for him to have any persisting problems into the future. In all the circumstances, general damages were assessed at €9,050.00.

Mr Deazley was advised to have an MRI scan given his on-going symptoms. As such, general damages were assessed at €9,550.00.

Neil Lafferty complained of an onset of pain in his lower back and across his upper shoulders and neck region. On being cross-examined, evidence was put to Mr Lafferty of dancing in September 2012, sky diving in January 2013, and skiing in January 2015. This range of energetic physical activity did not indicate any on-going symptoms – in all the circumstances, general damages were assessed at €9,050.00.

Total damages of €52,350 were awarded against the defendants.