Gough v Hurney & anor [2019] IECA 274 (30 October 2019)

Gough v Hurney & anor [2019] IECA 274 (30 October 2019)

The Court of Appeal found that the High Court’s findings of fact regarding Mr. Briggs’ failure to indicate and check mirrors were supported by evidence, but the trial judge erred in apportioning liability equally and in failing to provide reasons for that apportionment. The Court of Appeal held that Mr. Hurney’s breaches were more egregious and that a just and equitable apportionment was 80% liability to Mr. Hurney and 20% to Mr. Briggs.

Citation
[2019] IECA 274
Parties
Plaintiff/first Named Respondent: Eoghan Gough; First Named Defendant/second Named Respondent: Darren Hurney; Second Named Defendant/appellant: John Briggs
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
30 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed; apportionment of liability varied
Legal Topics
Apportionment of Liability, Contributory Negligence, Negligence, Road Traffic Offences
Tort Law Personal Injury Road Traffic Law Apportionment of Liability Contributory Negligence Negligence Road Traffic Offences

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eoghan Gough

Plaintiff/first Named Respondent

Darren Hurney

First Named Defendant/second Named Respondent

John Briggs

Second Named Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court's findings of fact regarding negligence were supported by evidence
  2. 2 Whether the apportionment of liability between defendants was correct and properly reasoned

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the High Court’s findings of fact regarding Mr. Briggs’ failure to indicate and check mirrors were supported by evidence, but the trial judge erred in apportioning liability equally and in failing to provide reasons for that apportionment. The Court of Appeal held that Mr. Hurney’s breaches were more egregious and that a just and equitable apportionment was 80% liability to Mr. Hurney and 20% to Mr. Briggs.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; apportionment of liability varied

Orders

  • Apportionment of liability varied to 80% as to Mr. Hurney and 20% as to Mr. Briggs