Woman awarded €170,000 over being hit by van while holding parking space loses appeal

A woman who was awarded some €170,000 after her knee was struck by a van while trying to hold a parking space for her husband’s car has lost an appeal in which she claimed she was not awarded enough. Josephine Higgins (68) had sought an award of €1.75 million to compensate for an alleged loss of earnings arising from injuries sustained in the incident on Main Street, Carrigtwohill, Co Cork, on February 13th, 2020. She was standing in the space waiting for her husband, John, who was due to arrive in an SUV to deliver stools to an apartment owned by the couple on Main Street.She sued the van driver and the Motor Insurers’ Bureau of Ireland (MIBI), which compensates victims of uninsured and untraced driving. READ MOREThe High Court heard the van driver was trying to gain access to one of the shops. The judge found he “misjudged the situation, failed to keep a proper lookout [and] inadvertently struck the plaintiff, who was standing on the roadway close to the footpath”. Last February, the High Court awarded her €170,564, including €60,000 for loss of earnings and €75,000 for her injuries, after finding that she was struck by the van. Her claim for loss of earnings and loss of economic opportunities, including increasing her property portfolio, was “wholly unreasonable, excessive and unrealistic”, the court said.Higgins and her husband have a portfolio of properties comprising one five-bed detached house, one three-bed semidetached house, a guest house and lodge, a three-bed apartment, a two-bed apartment, and four one-bed apartments.The High Court heard the pair have two adult sons with significant care needs and that their motivation in managing and renting the properties stemmed from their desire to secure funds for future care needs.She appealed the High Court judgment, discharged the legal team she had and represented herself in the appeal. She said she had undergraduate and Master’s degrees in law.In lengthy written submissions to the appeal court she alleged she was called “a liar”, “a colluder”, and “a gold digger” for stopping a flawed report on economic loss while the opposition pushed it into the case, knowing it was flawed.In a decision rejecting her appeal on behalf of the Court of Appeal, Judge Mark Sanfey said it was evident that she was aggrieved by the level of damages awarded by the High Court and by the manner in which she alleges the trial was conducted and some of the conclusions drawn by the High Court judge.He said it was clear that the High Court judge, while making adverse findings in relation to the validity of the loss-of-earnings claim, took particular care to be fair to her. The High Court judge declined to attribute base motives to her, he said. “He does not state anything in his judgment which suggests that he concluded that she was a ‘liar’, a ‘colluder’, or a ‘gold digger’, Mr Justice Sanfey said. “He attributes creditable motives to her, albeit that much of the evidence tendered by her or with her approval was found to be unreasonable, excessive and without credibility,” the judge said.In the circumstances, he said there was no basis whatsoever for suggesting that the trial was conducted unfairly in some way.He found there was no basis for suggesting that the findings or award of the High Court judge in relation to her loss of earnings or injuries claims were inappropriate or unjust.There was also no basis for suggesting that the trial was conducted unfairly, or that her reputation or that of a husband, or of an accountant who had prepared a loss-of-earnings report, were unfairly or improperly impugned. The respondents were entitled to the costs of the appeal, subject to further argument if necessary.