Lynch v Reynolds & Ors (Approved) [2025] IEHC 527 (06 October 2025)

Lynch v Reynolds & Ors (Approved) [2025] IEHC 527 (06 October 2025)

The plaintiff suffered severe PTSD, a recognised psychiatric injury, as a direct result of witnessing the aftermath of her son's fatal injury, and is entitled to damages. On the balance of probabilities, the first defendant was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident and was insured by AXA. AXA is liable to compensate the plaintiff. No aggravated damages are warranted against AXA as its conduct did not exacerbate the plaintiff's condition.

Citation
[2025] IEHC 527
Parties
Plaintiff: Vera Lynch; First Defendant: Dean Reynolds; Second Defendant: Otis Reynolds; Third Defendant: Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland; Fourth Defendant: AXA Insurance DAC
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
06 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Nervous Shock Claim / High Court Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against AXA Insurance DAC (fourth defendant) for general and future damages for nervous shock/PTSD. No aggravated damages awarded.
Legal Topics
Nervous Shock, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (ptsd), Motor Insurance Liability, Default Judgment, Assessment of Damages, Aggravated Damages, Burden of Proof, Admissibility of Evidence
Tort Law Insurance Law Civil Procedure Nervous Shock Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (ptsd) Motor Insurance Liability Default Judgment Assessment of Damages +3 more

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

Vera Lynch

Plaintiff

Dean Reynolds

First Defendant

Otis Reynolds

Second Defendant

Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland

Third Defendant

AXA Insurance DAC

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Nervous Shock Claim / High Court Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff suffered nervous shock compensable in law
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's PTSD was caused by the incident
  3. 3 Which defendant(s) is/are liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff suffered severe PTSD, a recognised psychiatric injury, as a direct result of witnessing the aftermath of her son's fatal injury, and is entitled to damages. On the balance of probabilities, the first defendant was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident and was insured by AXA. AXA is liable to compensate the plaintiff. No aggravated damages are warranted against AXA as its conduct did not exacerbate the plaintiff's condition.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against AXA Insurance DAC (fourth defendant) for general and future damages for nervous shock/PTSD. No aggravated damages awarded.

Orders

  • General damages for period 13 April 2017 to date assessed at €85,000
  • General damages into the future assessed at €45,000