High Court: Opportunistic plaintiff has sixth personal injury claim dismissed

About this case:

• Judgment:
  External link

Agreeing with the finding of the Circuit Court that the man was not credible, and awarding 100 per cent of the costs against him, Justice Twomey emphasised the need for caution when relying on experts retained by, and basing their evidence on information received from one of the parties to litigation (as per Byrne v. Ardenheath IECA)

Background

The plaintiff, Thomas Moore (43) was described as “somewhat accident prone” as the Court was advised of “at least five accident claims” that he made previously. In the Circuit Court, Judge Aylmer dismissed his claim for damages of up to €60,000 for personal injuries on the grounds that he was not credible.

Mr Moore sought to sue Mary Carroll for personal injuries which he allegedly suffered as a result of what Justice Twomey said he would be “hard pressed to describe” as a ‘traffic accident’ in November 2013. According to Justice Twomey, a more accurate description was to say that the cars touched, and the damage amounted to no more than scuff marks.

Ms Carroll was described as an elderly lady, and Justice Twomey said it was regrettable that Ms Carroll had to attend court on two occasions “to face what is at best an exaggerated claim and at worst an opportunistic attempt to manufacture a personal injury claim against an innocent motorist”.

It was also concerning that after this “most minor contact”, Mr Moore jumped out of his car and “shouted at Ms Carroll, ordering her not to move and that he was calling the Gardaí”.

Mr Moore claimed that he injured his back and left hip as a result of the sudden braking and in particular because of the fact that tables and crates in the back of his van came crashing into his driver seat, thereby injuring him.

Notably, there was a division between the back of the van and the driver seat and so tables and crates would have crashed into that division before impacting upon Mr Moore; however, while there was a claim for the “very nominal repair to the front of his van”, no claim of damage to the division was made.

Previous claim history

Mr Moore received previous settlements of:

The majority of Mr Moore’s previous claims related to injuries to his back, and he alleged that both his chronic hip pain and back injury was exacerbated by Ms Carroll’s negligence.

The Court took the view that Mr Moore’s previous claim history was relevant to the credibility of Mr Moore and his current accident claim, and that since he had several accident claims; it was clear from this that he was someone “well experienced at claiming for damages”.

Mr Moore’s claim history was also relevant because, as a person apparently “very experienced at making personal injury claims”, on the balance of probabilities he would have claimed for the damage to the division in his van. Since he did not do so, Justice Twomey said it was “improbable” that the alleged injuries were caused by flying tables and crates as he claimed.

It was also “highly improbable” that Mr Moore suffered any personal injuries from the contact between the two cars that resulted in scuff marks on his bumper.

Caution required when dealing with expert retained by one party

Mr Khan, a consultant rheumatologist in Kilkenny Hospital, stated in evidence that on the balance of probability Mr Moore’s left hip pain was caused by the accident.

Notably, this statement was given despite the fact Mr Khan had previously received a letter from Mr Moore’s GP stating that Mr Moore had experienced chronic hip pain since 2004.

Justice Twomey accepted that it was possible that Mr Khan based his conclusions on evidence provided to him by Mr Moore, which illustrated the importance of exercising caution in dealing with evidence from an expert retained by one of the parties in litigation.

In this regard, Justice Twomey referred to Byrne v. Ardenheath IECA 293, which cautioned the reliance on “…expert opinion all too often appearing to correspond too favourably with the interests of the parties who retained them”. In Byrne v. Ardenheath Irvine J. stated that expert opinion could be compromised in circumstances where the expert had “become so engrossed in their client’s position that they were clearly incapable of providing truly independent guidance”.

Dismissing Mr Moore’s claim, Justice Twomey awarded 100 per cent of the costs of the Circuit Court and High Court actions against Mr Moore.