The High Court has awarded over €170,000 to a Cork woman whose knee was struck by a van while she stood in a parking bay in an effort to hold the space for her husband’s car.
Josephine Higgins, aged 68, had sought an award of €1.75m to compensate for an alleged loss of earnings arising from the injuries sustained in the incident on Main St, Carrigtwohill, Co Cork, on February 13, 2020.
While Judge Micheál P O’Higgins agreed that the van driver, Richard Coleman, was at fault for injuries suffered by Ms Higgins, the judge described the claim for lost earnings as “wholly unreasonable, excessive, and unrealistic”.
Ms Higgins, who owns a substantial property portfolio with her husband, had based the claim on various grounds, including lost opportunities to increase income by buying new properties, the loss of rental receipts, and the potential cost of a third-party property management agency.
In a judgment published this week, the judge ultimately found that the claim was not supported by evidence. He instead awarded €60,000 for four years of lost earnings since the incident. The judge proposed an order for a total award to Ms Higgins of €170,564.
Ms Higgins, who has two adult sons with significant care needs, said in evidence that her and her husband’s motivation in managing and renting the properties stemmed from their desire to secure funds for future care needs.
In the incident giving rise to the claim for damages, Ms Higgins was standing on the roadway on Carrigtwohill’s Main St, holding a parking space for her husband, John Higgins.
It was Ms Higgins’s evidence that Mr Coleman told her to move so he could park his van. She said she could not do so, as she was waiting for her husband.
Ms Higgins said the van hit her left knee, causing her leg to buckle slightly, although she was not knocked to the ground. Ms Higgins said her husband saw the collision.
In his evidence, Mr Coleman said that, as he pulled into the parking spot on Main St, he heard someone he did not know shout: “You can’t park there, that’s our parking spot.” He said the person, Ms Higgins, was standing on the footpath.
When Mr Coleman finished parking and got out of the van, Ms Higgins accused him of assaulting her with his van, the defendant said. He said he denied this, and told her to “stop”.
The judge said that, on the balance of probabilities, the van did strike Ms Higgins. He said he was satisfied Mr Coleman “misjudged the situation, failed to keep a proper lookout, and inadvertently struck [Mr Higgins] who was standing on the roadway close to the footpath”.
Considering the medical evidence, the judge said the collision was minor in nature. However, he added that it resulted in significant personal injuries to Ms Higgins.
The judge said the most serious injury suffered was a psychiatric adjustment disorder, a state of distress, and emotional disturbance arising from a significant life change or the consequence of a stressful life event.
In Ms Higgins’s case, this manifested in depressed moods, anxiety, anger, a sense of misery, and withdrawal.
The judge also found Ms Higgins to be suffering from ongoing physical pain arising from the injury. The judge said the claim for loss of earnings was the “most problematic aspect” of her overall claim.
Ms Higgins’s claim for €1.75m in lost earnings was advanced by means of an accountant’s report.
The judge said this report contained too many admitted flaws, with the basis for calculation of losses “shaky and unexplained”. The judge said he should attach “virtually no weight” to the evidence.
However, the judge said it would be disproportionate to exclude the entire claim for lost earnings.
The judge said he accepted Ms Higgins’s evidence that, prior to her injuries, she operated as a “one-woman band” in her management and maintenance of various rental properties. Her ability to fulfil this role was impacted by the injuries, the judge added. This, among other factors, led to a loss of earnings.
“While the excessive claim for loss of earnings was deeply unimpressive, and did not reflect at all well on [Higgins] or her husband, I am prepared to accept that their zeal and determination to provide a nest egg for their children operated to cloud their judgment, and contributed to them putting forward a wholly unrealistic claim,” he said.