Murphy -v- County Galway Motor Club Ltd & Ors [2016] IECA 106 (14 April 2016)

Murphy -v- County Galway Motor Club Ltd & Ors [2016] IECA 106 (14 April 2016)

The trial judge's apportionment of 66.66% contributory negligence to the plaintiff was perverse given the relative expertise and responsibility of the defendants as event organisers. The damages for future pain and suffering and loss of earnings were inadequate and not supported by evidence. The Court of Appeal set aside the High Court order, re-apportioned liability as 75% against the defendants and 25% against the plaintiff, and substituted revised damages.

Citation
[2016] IECA 106
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Blaine Murphy; Defendant/respondent: County Galway Motor Club Limited; Defendant/respondent: Irish Motor Sport Federation Limited (Motor Sport Limited); Defendant/respondent: Motor Sport Safety Team; Defendant/respondent: Brian Melia
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
14 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; revised damages and liability apportionment substituted.
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Damages Assessment, Liability Apportionment, Organiser Duty of Care
Tort Law Personal Injury Contributory Negligence Damages Assessment Liability Apportionment Organiser Duty of Care

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blaine Murphy

Plaintiff/appellant

County Galway Motor Club Limited

Defendant/respondent

Irish Motor Sport Federation Limited (Motor Sport Limited)

Defendant/respondent

Motor Sport Safety Team

Defendant/respondent

Brian Melia

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's apportionment of contributory negligence was perverse
  2. 2 Whether the damages awarded for pain and suffering and loss of earnings were proportionate and supported by evidence
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in calculating past and future loss of earnings

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's apportionment of 66.66% contributory negligence to the plaintiff was perverse given the relative expertise and responsibility of the defendants as event organisers. The damages for future pain and suffering and loss of earnings were inadequate and not supported by evidence. The Court of Appeal set aside the High Court order, re-apportioned liability as 75% against the defendants and 25% against the plaintiff, and substituted revised damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; revised damages and liability apportionment substituted.

Orders

  • Award of €564,682 to plaintiff
  • Liability apportioned 75% to defendants, 25% to plaintiff