Damages Flashcards
Types of compensatory damages
i) Special damages
ii) General damages
iii) Aggravated damages
iv) exemplary/punitive damages
v) nominal damages
vi) Contemptuous damages
Reddy v Bates
‘compensation in money terms for the damage, past and future, sustained by the plaintiff’s amenity in all its aspects’
Sinnott v Quinnsworth
‘general damages are intended to represent fair and reasonable monetary compensation for the pain, suffering, inconvenience and loss of pleasures of life which the injury has caused and will cause to the plaintiff’
Dineen v DePuy
‘a reckless driver who is intoxicated and drives at speed on the wrong side of the road but causes only minimal injury will not be visited with any extra damages but someone who through momentary inadvertence causes catastrophic injury will be obliged to pay the full consequences of their actions’
Phillip v Ryan
The plaintiff was awarded an additional 55,000 in aggravated damages in a claim of professional negligence when the defendant doctor had altered his notes
Kinsella v Kenmare
‘if there is evidence of malice or evidence to show that the defendant acted in a high-handed or malevolent manner with the result being that the plaintiff’s self-esteem was further damaged, then aggravated damages may be awarded’
Grimshaw v Ford Motors
- Ford was aware of a defect in their product yet followed through with it anyway
- Jury awarded $127.8 million in damages
Shortt v Commissioner of An Garda Siochana
- Plaintiff was framed by members of the force
- Drugs planted on plaintiff’s premises
- Plaintiff spent three years in prison
- Irish example of where exemplary damages awarded
- €1 million in exemplary damages
Diop v Transdev
- Plaintiff was asked to leave LUAS due to racial profiling
- Awarded €500 in nominal damages
Nolan v Wirenski
- ‘the assessment of damages in personal injury cases is not a precise calculation; it is not precise and it is not a calculation’
- The process is objective and rational but personal to the plaintiff
Kearney v McQuillan
An award of damages must be ‘proportionate to social conditions, bearing in mind the common good’
- Plaintiff catastrophically injured in a RTA and was awarded £1.4 million in damages
- Included an award of £800,000 for pain and suffering
- Court held that when considering awards such as these, ‘all sense of reality’ should not be lost
- Acknowledged that awards should be limited to a figure that is fair and reasonable based on the facts of the case
- Concluded:
- ‘unless there are particular circumstances which suggest otherwise, general damages, in a case if this nature, should not exceed a sum of £150,000’
Morrissey v HSE
- Negligent smear test meant plaintiff had only two years to live
- Awarded €500,000 in damages
- Exceeded €450,000 cap
- Court said that this was the worst possible outcome, so an increase in the cap was justified
- Held1) Where the claimant has been awarded compensatory special damages to make provision for all necessary past and future care, medical treatment and loss of earnings, there will be a limit or ‘cap’ placed upon the level of general damages to be awarded
2) Where the award is solely or largely an award of general damages for the consequences of catastrophic injuries there will be no ‘cap’ placed upon the general damages awarded
3) There must be a proportionality between
a) Court awards of general damages made
i) By judges sitting alone
ii) In civil jury trials
By statutory bodies established by the state to assess general damages for particular categories of personal injuries
Russell v HSE
- 1.5% was deemed the normal investor rate
Downing v Flynn
- SC held that full amount actually lost by dependant should be recoverable regardless of whether it had been properly declared or not
Hegarty v HSE
- Court held that they would not order PPO as medical needs in future showed that the money would not be enough
- Indexation chosen would not be sufficient for future medical treatment
