High Court: Student who developed PTSD after being hit by a car awarded over €250k

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2018] IEHC 441
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice Anthony Barr

Background

In April 2011, Cheng Zhang (36) was crossing a junction in Dublin when she was hit by a car being driven by Stephen Farrell.

Ms Zhang, who was studying for the ACCA qualification in accountancy and working part-time as a trainee accounts assistant at the time of the accident, was unable to work as a result of her injuries and eventually lost her job. Consequently, she was unable to pay her rent and became homeless.

In December 2016, the Court found liability in favour of Ms Zhang to the degree of 55%. Due to the fact that she crossed the road while the pedestrian light was showing red against her, the Court made a finding of 45% contributory negligence.

Injuries

Ms Zhang suffered soft tissue injury to her knees and pelvis and a blow to her head, and alleged that the accident was particularly terrifying for her since she was paralyzed on the ground for a protracted period of time after the accident. Ms Zhang was unable to move or communicate for around an hour after the accident, and submitted that she went on to develop Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, an anxiety disorder, fibromyalgia, and Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

Justice Barr accepted that Ms Zhang had never suffered from mental illness prior to the accident, which was supported by medical evidence from one of Ms Zhang’s doctors in China.

Justice Barr was also satisfied that Ms Zhang was an intelligent young woman who, before the accident, had been determined to succeed in her career.  This was supported by the success she had enjoyed in her education and career before the accident, and evidence from her previous employer that she was such a competent worker that they kept her job open for her for several months, and contacted her again with an offer of employment five years after the accident. But for the accident, Justice Barr was satisfied that Ms Zhang would have qualified as a certified accountant and secured full-time employment.

A woman of extraordinary intelligence and resilience

Describing Ms Zhang as a ‘woman of extraordinary intelligence and resilience’, Justice Barr emphasised that Ms Zhang ‘was totally alone’ as a lay litigant in court, not supported by any McKenzie friend in presenting her case and undergoing cross-examination at the hands of a very experienced senior counsel. Justice Barr said that she had an ‘excellent knowledge’ of the paperwork in the case, her ability to present her case was ‘quite extraordinary’, and her ability to understand the complex issues arising in the course of litigation was remarkable. To be able to navigate the Irish legal system in the way she did, also given that English was not her first language, was ‘very impressive’.

Justice Barr was of the opinion that Ms Zhang would be able to return to work after a period of 5 years, that this would be a gradual return, and that she would likely be able for full time employment in around 7 years. Indeed Justice Barr said that any company would be ‘very fortunate to obtain her services’.

Damages

Assessing general damages, Justice Barr said that he had regard to the fact that the accident happened at a very significant time in her life. He found that it would take another 7 years for her to return to her pre-accident level of employment, meaning that she would be affected in the ordinary aspects of her life for a period of 14 years. As such, Justice Barr assessed general damages at €95,000 to date and €75,000 into the future.

Justice Barr also awarded:

• €97,463 for loss of earnings to date;
• €136,202 for loss of earnings into the future;
• €30,000 for loss of opportunity;
• €11,901 for medical expenses;
• €14,460 for future prescription charges;
• €5,500 for travel expenses.

Justice Barr rejected the submission that Ms Zhang was entitled to aggravated damages due to ‘the abusive and offensive line of questioning which had been pursued by senior counsel for the defendant’. Justice Barr said that he would not have allowed any line of questioning which could have been deemed as such, and that although some of the questions were ‘unusual’, counsel’s conduct was fair and proper at all times.

The total damages were assessed at €465,526, which allowing for the apportionment on liability entitled Ms Zhang to judgment of €256,039.30.