Gough v Hurney & anor [2019] IECA 273 (30 October 2019)

Gough v Hurney & anor [2019] IECA 273 (30 October 2019)

The trial judge's findings that both the appellant and the second named respondent were equally blameworthy for the accident were supported by credible evidence. The appellant failed to use his mirrors, indicators, and brake lights, and crossed the continuous white line without warning, while the second named respondent was speeding and overtaking on a continuous white line. Both parties' actions contributed to the accident, justifying a 50:50 apportionment of liability. The appellate court found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's assessment of evidence or apportionment of blame.

Citation
[2019] IECA 273
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
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Concurrent Tortfeasors, Apportionment of Liability, Road Traffic Accident, Contributory Negligence, Assessment of Evidence, Appeals Procedure
Tort Law Personal Injury Concurrent Tortfeasors Apportionment of Liability Road Traffic Accident Contributory Negligence Assessment of Evidence Appeals Procedure

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in finding both defendants equally liable as concurrent tortfeasors for a road traffic accident
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in her assessment of the evidence and credibility of witnesses
  3. 3 Whether the apportionment of liability on a 50:50 basis was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's findings that both the appellant and the second named respondent were equally blameworthy for the accident were supported by credible evidence. The appellant failed to use his mirrors, indicators, and brake lights, and crossed the continuous white line without warning, while the second named respondent was speeding and overtaking on a continuous white line. Both parties' actions contributed to the accident, justifying a 50:50 apportionment of liability. The appellate court found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's assessment of evidence or apportionment of blame.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed. The apportionment of liability on a 50:50 basis between the appellant and the second named respondent stands.