Cawley v Foley [2001] IESC 102 (20 December 2001)
It was open to the trial judge to accept the plaintiff's basic story of sudden braking and resulting injury, even if speeds and distances did not tally with scientific evidence. The absence of precise findings did not render the trial unsatisfactory. However, the damages awarded were excessive given the limited significance attached to the injuries.
- Citation
- [2001] IESC 102
- Parties
- Plaintiff/respondent: Sharon Cawley; Defendant/appellant: Joseph Foley; Defendant/appellant: Rose Foley
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Judgment Date
- 20 December 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Road Traffic Personal Injuries Claim / Appeal From High Court Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part; damages reduced
- Legal Topics
- Negligence, Damages, Causation, Duty of Care
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Sharon Cawley
Plaintiff/respondent
Joseph Foley
Defendant/appellant
Rose Foley
Defendant/appellant
Procedural Posture
Road Traffic Personal Injuries Claim / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff suffered any injury in the incident
- 2 Whether the trial was unsatisfactory due to lack of clarity in findings
- 3 Whether the damages awarded were excessive
Ratio Decidendi
It was open to the trial judge to accept the plaintiff's basic story of sudden braking and resulting injury, even if speeds and distances did not tally with scientific evidence. The absence of precise findings did not render the trial unsatisfactory. However, the damages awarded were excessive given the limited significance attached to the injuries.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part; damages reduced
Orders
- Substitute award of £25,301 with £12,801
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment