€60,000 claim over crash injuries linked to driver’s high heels dismissed
Judge awards costs against John O’Brien Jnr who he did not believe evidence of ‘for a minute’
A €60,000 claim for damages by a man who had alleged he was injured in separate rear ending collisions casued as a result of his mother and sister wearing high heels while driving, has been dismissed. File image: iStock.
A €60,000 claim for damages by a man who had alleged he was injured in separate rear ending collisions casued as a result of his mother and sister wearing high heels while driving, has been dismissed.
John O’Brien Jnr, of Ballyogan Drive, Carrickmines, Dublin, alleged his claim against his sister Stephanie O’Brien, of Old Church Crescent, Clondalkin, and her insurer AXA, that he injured his right arm and back when her car rear-ended another at Ballinteer Roundabout.
When cross-examined by barrister Conor Kearney, for AXA and his sister, Mr O’Brien told the Circuit Civil Court he had been involved in a previous accident in 2011 but failed, as outlined by Mr Kearney, to disclose three other accidents for which he had received compensation.
In the February 13th, 2015 accident in Ballinteer involving his sister’s car, Ms O’Brien told Circuit Court President, Mr Justice Raymond Groarke, she had been wearing high heels and her foot had slipped off the pedal causing her to rear-end another car.
Mr Kearney questioned Mr O’Brien about the three accidents he had failed to disclose, one of which involved his mother in 2009. She, as the driver, had blamed one of her high heels having become trapped under a mat for causing that rear-ending accident.
The court heard there were five occupants in Stephanie O’Brien’s car at the time of the Ballinteer incident, all of whom had advanced personal injury claims. None of the occupants of the car that had been rear ended had made any claims.
At the end of the evidence given by Mr O’Brien and his sister, Mr Kearney, who appeared with Delahunty O’Connor Solicitors for AXA, applied to have the claim dismissed on the basis that Mr O’Brien had misled the court.
Judge Groarke said Mr O’Brien had purposely sought to mislead both the court and the defence. He had claimed to have “an appalling bad memory” with regard to his claims history and “I don’t believe him for a minute”, Judge Groarke added.
The judge said Mr O’Brien had a duty and obligation to be truthful and he saw no injustice in dismissing his claim and awarding costs against him in favour of the defence.