Taxi-driver withdraws claim for damages following Dublin crash

Court heard three passengers in car had begun similar claims

Taxi-driver Emmet Fay leaving the Four Courts  after deciding not to proceed with his Civil Court action for damages.  Photograph: Courts Collins

Taxi-driver Emmet Fay leaving the Four Courts after deciding not to proceed with his Civil Court action for damages. Photograph: Courts Collins

 

Taxi-driver Emmet Fay, who had claimed €38,000 damages for injuries he received in a hit-and-run incident almost five years ago, has agreed to a judge throwing out his claim.

Mr Fay, (46) of Lismore Road, Crumlin, Dublin, after telling Judge Jacqueline Linnane in the Circuit Civil Court about the crash, decided following the lunch break not to go ahead with his claim.

Counsel for the Motor Insurance Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) told the judge that after talks, the case had been settled on the basis that the court would make an order dismissing Mr Fay’s claim with no order as to costs.

He had earlier told the court that on May 5th, 2009, he had been driving his 1998-registered taxi with three passengers towards the junction of Dry Canal and Maryland Road, Dublin, when it had been struck by a since untraced and speeding Honda Accord. The driver had never been identified.

Mr Fay claimed he had suffered injuries to his chest, neck, back, jaw and right elbow and sued the MIBI, which lifts the bill for uninsured or stolen vehicles and unidentified or untraced drivers.

In cross-examination by counsel for the MIBI, he said he could not understand why an MIBI inspector and a garda, both of whom were to be called as witnesses, had recorded him as having stated his taxi as being a 1999 vehicle.

He also told the court he did not know any of the three passengers he had been carrying that day and was not aware that they, too, had begun €38,000 damages claims against the MIBI through the same legal firm as he employed to prosecute his claim.

He did not think it strange to have registered and insured his taxi in his own name on the same day as the crash. He agreed he had also been carrying a television to leave in for repair as his van-like Volkswagen Caravelle vehicle was suitable for carrying such an item in the rear.

Mr Fay denied he had a friend of his son Karl Fay in a car only a day previous to the crash and when the person was named said he did not know him but had heard of him.

He agreed the hit-and-run vehicle “had come out of nowhere in daylight and T-boned his taxi directly in the side.”

Mr Fay told the court his wife’s personal Nissan Almera had been fire-bombed and her claim had been settled by her insurance company. He said he had an outstanding claim for a Volvo car which had bullet-proof windows.

When asked about his son Karl’s association with another person, David Byrne, with whom he had since fallen out, Mr Fay said he had never known Mr Byrne before the incident.

Denying that the crash had been the result of a ruse or conspiracy, Mr Fay said counsel was putting to him matters about which he knew nothing.

Following the lunch adjournment, counsel for the MIBI said the case had been settled on the basis the court would make an order dismissing Mr Fay’s claim with no order as to costs.