Rene Pierce (plaintiff) v Bryce Mitchell and Farm Fed Chickens Ltd (defendants)

Personal Injuries - Liability - Plaintiff exiting roundabout from right-hand lane - First defendant driving in left-hand lane.

Damages - Quantum - Soft tissue injuries to neck and back - Inflammation and tenderness of sacro-ileal and sacro-coccygeal joints.

The High Court (before Mr Justice Herbert); judgment delivered 11 October 2000.

Where the plaintiff had taken up a position on the roundabout which, all indication apart, must have clearly signalled to the first defendant her intention of driving straight ahead into the first exit, in all the circumstances, the first defendant was obliged to be very aware of the presence and position of the plaintiff's car and to have slowed down or even stopped in response to the plaintiff's signal and permitted her to pass safely in front of his vehicle and continue into the exit from the roundabout.

Mr Justice Herbert so held in finding the first defendant was guilty of negligence and the plaintiff was not guilty of negligence or contributory negligence and in awarding the plaintiff the sum of £34,850.00 in damages.

Declan McGovern SC, Joseph McGettigan SC and John Fox BL for the plaintiff; Bernard Barton SC and Eugene Gleeson BL for the defendant.

Mr Justice Herbert said that this case concerned a collision which occurred at the Glenview roundabout on the Tallaght bypass dual carriageway. The plaintiff had given evidence that she had been travelling to work accompanied by a colleague. The first defendant, who was the driver of a goods vehicle owned by the second defendant had not given evidence due to illness.

The roundabout had only two exits when entered from the direction of Dublin, and those exits were clearly sign posted. The plaintiff had given evidence that she had intended to leave the roundabout by the first exit, which in effect meant travelling straight ahead. The garda who had been called to the scene of the collision had given evidence that he had ascertained that the first defendant wished to proceed in the direction of Tallaght, which meant leaving the roundabout at the second exit and involved a turn to the right. The plaintiff had said that after the M50 junction, she had been driving in the left lane behind the vehicle being driven by the first defendant. She had been convinced by the hesitant manner with frequent braking in which the goods vehicle had been driven that the driver was going to bring the vehicle to a halt and she had decided to overtake. She had moved into the right lane.

Mr Justice Herbert said that this evidence had not been challenged in any way, nor had it been put to the plaintiff in cross-examination that she should have resumed a position in the left land of the dual carriageway. The plaintiff gave evidence that the goods vehicle did not in fact stop and that both vehicles entered and continued through the roundabout at about 15-20 mph, the plaintiff's vehicle being positioned nearest the centre of the roundabout, which was not marked in traffic lanes or with traffic indications or directions.

The plaintiff said that she had signalled her intention of driving straight ahead in the Blessington direction by using the left indicator of her car. Mr Justice Herbert said that it had become apparent during the cross-examination of Garda Scannell, who had been called as a witness by the defendants, that post collision the first defendant had insisted that while he had indicated right the plaintiff did not indicate at all. The plaintiff's passenger had been unable to say whether the plaintiff had indicated, but was emphatic that there was no warning from the goods vehicle. The plaintiff's evidence had been that she had assumed that the goods vehicle was driving straight ahead, as she was.

Mr Justice Herbert said that, having regard to the provisions of the rules of the road in relation to roundabouts, the driver was not under any duty to signal left until he had passed the first exit. However, this did not end the matter. The evidence of all parties in relation to the post-impact position of the plaintiff's vehicle was that most of the plaintiff's vehicle was off the roundabout in the inside or right hand lane of the dual carriageway. Every part of the goods vehicle remained on the roundabout and it had gone past the point where it could have turned left into the left or outside lane of the dual carriageway but it was not blocking the entrance to the inside or right lane of the dual carriageway.

Mr Justice Herbert said that from the post-accident position of the plaintiff's vehicle, he could reasonably infer that prior to the impact the plaintiff had taken up a position on the roundabout which, all indication apart, must have clearly signalled to the driver of the goods vehicle her intention of driving straight ahead into the first exit. If the first defendant had observed the plaintiff's indication and the position of her car, he must have realised that if he drove across the first exit, a collision with the plaintiff's car was almost inevitable. The first defendant had given no indication whatsoever of his intention to continue across the first exit. The plaintiff had almost completed her turn into the right lane of the exit dual carriageway. In all the circumstances, the first defendant was obliged to be very aware of the presence and position of the plaintiff's car and to have slowed down or even stopped in response to the plaintiff's signal and permitted her to pass safely in front of his vehicle and continue into the exit from the roundabout. Mr Justice Herbert said that the first defendant was guilty of negligence and the plaintiff was not guilty of negligence or contributory negligence.

Turning to the plaintiff's injuries, Mr Justice Herbert said she had suffered injury to the lower lumbo-sacral area, particularly on the right hand side, but also in the lower dorsal area on the right side. A week after the accident, she had a markedly reduced range of movements in her lumbo-sacral spine in all directions. She complained of moderate to severe pain in these areas and had difficulty in sleeping and in carrying out her ordinary daily chores.

On 10 June 1997, she continued to have reduction of movement in all directions, thought to a lesser degree. She was still tender. She complained of pain in her neck and left shoulder. She was found to have diffuse tenderness in the left trapezius muscle and a reduction in movement of the cervical spine in all directions. Her doctor's prognosis was that she had suffered moderately severe soft tissue injuries to her lower back and neck and that she would make a complete recovery without long term sequelae in the course of the following four to six months.

On examination by Mr Keogh, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon, on 8 October 1997, the plaintiff was found to have a good range of movement in her cervical spine, but was tender in the left trapezius muscle. She was very tender over the inguinal ligament in her right groin area and had discomfort on rotation of her right hip. On 13 January 1998, the plaintiff was found to be significantly symptomatic in the area of her right groin and right hip, but symptoms arising from the soft tissue injuries to her neck, shoulders and lumbar spine. In February 1998, the plaintiff married, and in April 1998, she returned to work after an absence of 11 months, but only on a three days a week basis. On 21 April 1998, the plaintiff was found to be still tender in both groins with some tenderness over the coccyx. On 13 October 1998, Mr Keogh found that the plaintiff's trapezius muscles were no longer tender and that she had a full range of neck and shoulder movements. She remained tender on palpation in the are of her right groin, in the region of the L5, spinous process and in the coccyx. Despite some improvement, the plaintiff had not yet returned to normal. The plaintiff at this time had returned to work.

On consultation with Mr Keogh on 8 June 1999, the plaintiff's principal complaint related to her lower back and she located the pain in the midline of her lower lumbar spine at the top of the natal cleft. A bone scan of her pelvis showed no abnormality.

On examination by Dr O'Brien, an orthopaedic physician, on 2 March 1999, the plaintiff was found to be suffering from severe inflammation of the sacro-coccygeal joint and inflammation of both sacro-iliac joints. He decided upon a course of Depo-Medrone injections and gave evidence that these injections were very painful. He advised the plaintiff that there was no medical reason why she should not become pregnant. The plaintiff had given evidence that she had been advised by Mr Keogh in October 1997, that she should defer becoming pregnant for a period of two years.

On examination by Dr O'Brien on 22 September 2000, the plaintiff stated that her discomfort was short term and intermittent and Dr O'Brien concluded that she was 90 per cent recovered but with some likelihood of intermittently recurring pain and discomfort. He considered that she might suffer an aggravation of her sacro-coccygeal joint pain post delivery and advised her obstetrician of the problem.

The plaintiff had given evidence that she had obtained her degree in personnel management and had done well, apart from examinations which she had taken the week after the accident, in which she had performed poorly. The plaintiff's evidence was that this was as a consequence of her trauma and that this had been subsequently acknowledged by the college. She hoped to resume her pre-accident interest in aerobics. She continued to suffer a small element of pain in the coccyx and right hip areas each day when driving.

Mr Justice Herbert said that special damages has been agreed at £8,3250.00. There was no claim for loss of earnings. He awarded £20,000 damages in respect of pain, suffering and loss of amenity to the date of the judgment, together with a further sum of £6,500.00 in respect of pain, suffering and loss of amenity into the future, making a total of £34,850.00.

Solicitors: Shannons (Dublin) for the plaintiff; Miley & Miley (Dublin) for the defendant.