’Accident prone’ man facing substantial costs after losing action for damages against pensioner

There was "most minor" contact between the vehicles driven by Thomas Moore and Mary Carroll, the damage was no more than “scuff marks” on the bumper of Mr Moore’s van and it was "highly improbable" Mr Moore suffered any personal injuries as a result of this accident in 2013, Mr Justice Michael Twomey found.

Mr Moore has a history of left hip pain going back to 2004 and appeared “somewhat accident prone”, having advanced at least five claims to date relating to both workplace and car accidents, several including claims for back injuries. He had received more than €87,000 arising from those.

The case was before the High Court because, after Mr Moore lost his claim for €60,000 damages in the Circuit Court, the maximum sum permissible there, he appealed to the High Court.

In his judgment Mr Justice Twomey said he had "no hesitation" in dismissing the case and awarding 100% of the costs in the Circuit Court and High Court against Mr Moore.

He expressed regret Ms Carroll had had to attend court twice to face, “at best an exaggerated claim for person injuries”, and at worst, “an opportunistic attempt to manufacture a personal injury claim against an innocent motorist”.

If Mr Moore continues to be "accident prone" in the workplace and his car, it is relevant to note the Circuit and High Courts had dismissed this claim on the grounds "he was not credible", he added.

The judge also referred to a recent Court of Appeal judgment urging the courts to exercise "caution" dealing with expert evidence provided on behalf of one party to litigation, particularly where the expert may have relied on what they were told by the party involved.

In this case, a consultant in 2014 essentially said, on the balance of probability, Mr Moore’s left hip pain was caused by the accident despite the consultant having just weeks earlier received a letter from Mr Moore’s GP stating Mr Moore “is experiencing chronic left hip pain going back as far as 2004”.

While it was possible the consultant may have relied on what he was told by Mr Moore, it illustrated the importance of the need for caution in the court’s treatment of expert evidence, he said.

Mr Moore (43), Dun a Rí, Tinryland, Co Carlow, who runs a mobile confectionery business, sued Ms Carroll, a pensioner, of Tullow, Co Carlow, over the accident at Pollerton Road, Co Carlow, on November 12th 2013.

He claimed Ms Carroll pulled out of a side road onto a main road upon which he was driving, causing him to brake suddenly and come into contact with her car.

Mr Moore alleged he suffered injuries as a result of what he described as a “traffic accident” but one "would be hard pressed" to describe it as such, the judge said.

A "more accurate" description might be his car came to a stop right next to, but touching Ms Carroll’s car because, insofar as Mr Moore’s car came into contact with Ms Carroll’s car, the resulting damage at the contact point "amounted to no more than scuff marks on Mr Moore’s bumper".

It was “somewhat concerning” it was put to Mr Moore that, after this “most minor” contact, he jumped out of his car and shouted at Ms Carroll not to move and he was calling the gardaí. Mr Moore had not denied that happened but claimed he could not remember if he did it after the "shock of the accident”.

Mr Moore’s previous claim history was relevant to his credibility and to the court’s analysis of his claim for reasons including many of his previous claims related to injuries to his back and he alleged his back injury and hip problems were exacerbated by this accident.

Having analysed the evidence, the judge said it was "highly improbable" Mr Moore suffered the injuries as alleged.