Woman ‘prone to exaggeration’ awarded €10,000 over crash injuries
Judge queries Luminita Cantaragiu’s lack of accuracy on previous injuries and medical history
A woman has been awarded damages of €10,000 for injuries she suffered in a car accident despite a judge ruling that she had been ‘prone to exaggeration, misdescription and apparent falsehood’. File photograph: Bryan O’Brien/The Irish Times.
A woman has been awarded damages of €10,000 for injuries she suffered in a car accident despite a judge ruling that she had been “prone to exaggeration, misdescription and apparent falsehood”.
Luminita Cantaragiu, from Castlecuragh Park, Mulhuddart, Dublin 15, told Circuit Court President, Mr Justice Raymond Groarke, she was travelling in the back of her husband’s Audi on January 12th, 2015 when it collided with another car.
Ms Cantaragui sued her husband Ioan Cantaragiu as well the two people in whose name the second car had been registered, Adriana Orosanu and Cornelius Ovidiu Orosanu, of Tullyhall Park, Lucan, Co Dublin.
The mother-of-four told the court the Audi was moving off from a green light at a junction on the Blanchardstown Road when it was hit by the other car.
Ms Cantaragiu said she suffered neck and back injuries and was brought to Connolly Hospital in Blanchardstown by ambulance, where she was detained for 24 hours. She said she has not been the same person since the accident and felt stress and pain every day and had to ask her children to do tasks for her.
She told Conor Kearney, who appeared with Delahunty O’Connor Solicitors for the defendants, that she did not blame her husband for the crash and thought the fault lay with Ms Orosanu.
When Mr Kearney asked Ms Contaragui why she had not mentioned to doctors that she had previously suffered from depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder prior to the accident, she said it must have been because of a problem with her English. Mr Kearney said these illnesses were the result of a separate July 2014 road traffic accident which Ms Cantargiu witnessed.
Judge Groarke said his assessment of the case was based on evidence of the damage to the two vehicles. He said the damage to both cars appeared to be to the front, which did not support the contention of either driver that the other had been crossing the road when the impact occurred.
He said that for this reason the evidence did not permit him to resolve the case and he assessed liability as 50-50 against Mr Cantaragiu and Ms Orosanu.
Judge Groarke said Ms Cantaragiu was “prone to misdescription, exaggeration, misrepresentation, apparent falsehood and a lack of accuracy about injuries, previous medical history and her attendances with doctors”.
However, he believed her complaint about the f injuries to her neck and lower back was “probably correct” and awarded her general damages of €10,000 jointly against her husband and Orosanus.