BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

1. This assessment of damages arises from a road traffic accident on 23rd March, 1992 in which the Plaintiff, Stephen McHugh, who was a back seat passenger in a car being driven by his mother, received multiple injuries. At the time Stephen was 9¾ years of age. He is now almost 17 years of age.

2. Following the accident, which happened in Co. Galway, Stephen was taken by ambulance to University College Hospital, Galway, but was transferred to St. James's Hospital in Dublin on the following day. The accident was particularly traumatic for Stephen because his mother was also injured in it and this was a source of anxiety for the young boy. The anxiety was aggravated by the fact that, at the time of the accident, his parents were separating and, in fact, when the accident happened his father was leaving the family and being driven to the airport.

3. In all, Stephen was in hospital for just short of two months. He missed three months from school and, in consequence of his injuries, he was "kept back" for a year at school.

4. Stephen's injuries can be considered under three headings: leg, facial and

5. For his leg injuries, Stephen was under the care of Mr. Hugh Smyth, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon in St. James's Hospital. Three medical reports furnished by Mr. Smyth, dated respectively 16th November, 1992, 5th July, 1995 and 6th May, 1999 have been admitted in evidence. Stephen had a displaced closed fracture of the mid-shaft of the right femur and a compound laceration of the knee joint. He was operated on on 25th March, 1992. The laceration was stitched and repaired, a pin was inserted into the anterior tibia for skeletal traction and, thereafter, he was nursed on a splint in balanced traction. Just over a month later the pin was removed. He was discharged from hospital on crutches. Subsequently, he had physiotherapy.

6. By November 1992 Mr. Smyth was able to report that the laceration had healed well, with no apparent loss of function in the knee, and that the femur had also healed well. While there was a very slight discrepancy in the length of his right leg by comparison to his left leg, Mr. Smyth anticipated that this discrepancy would grow out to completely normal within a period of two years from the accident. This, in fact, is what happened.

7. By July 1995, three years after the accident, Mr. Smyth was able to report that Stephen had made an excellent recovery from his fractured femur and knee injury. The fractured femur had united firmly in perfect position without any deformity. There was no residual infection from the injury to the right knee and, although the scar was somewhat conspicuous, the function of the knee appeared to be normal and there was no instability.

8. Mr. Smyth last saw Stephen on 26th March, 1999 and reported on his examination on that day in his final report of 6th May, 1999, wherein he gave his opinion and prognosis as follows:-

9. Stephen was under the care of Mr. Matt McHugh, Consultant Plastic Surgeon, in St. James's Hospital for his facial injuries. A report dated 26th March, 1999 furnished by Mr. McHugh has been admitted in evidence, as have two reports from Mr. J. McCann, Consultant Plastic Surgeon, who examined Stephen on behalf of the Defendant.

10. Stephen had a deep laceration extending across his right cheek. Mr. McCann described it as a "through and through" laceration. Stephen's recollection is that he could put his tongue out through the gash. On 25th March, 1992 Stephen's facial laceration was sutured under general anaesthetic.

11. When Stephen was examined by Mr. McCann in December 1996, almost five years after the accident, Mr. McCann described his scar as being 7.0 by 0.5 cm and as being a pink scar running transversally from the right upper lip to the right across the central cheek. Stephen had full facial movement but there was some diminished sensation just below the scar at the angle of the mouth for approximately 3 cms. In Mr. McCann's opinion, the scar was still very noticeable as it was pink, widened and ran across at right angles to the facial lines. He suggested that it could be improved with scar revision but that even with revision there will always be a scar.

12. Stephen was reviewed by Mr. McHugh in March 1999. On examination, Mr. McHugh found the scar to be a red, indented, dipped scar which was quite noticeable and visible and was a source of embarrassment to Stephen. He advised Stephen that the only treatment to improve the scar would be laser treatment and while it would not get rid of the scar completely it would get rid of some of the lumpiness and redness and make it more acceptable. Stephen, who struck me as being very well balanced and mature for his age, stated in evidence that he would definitely explore the possibility of laser treatment in the future.

13. Finally, Mr. McCann saw Stephen again on 22nd April, 1999 and, in his view, the scar had not improved from the previous examination and remained pink and depressed. The scar is present and will need to be treated by using moisturising cream daily and a high factor suntan cream in bright sunlight for at least 2 to 3 years. The loss of sensation directly below the scar is permanent and nothing can be done regarding this.

14. I have seen the scar at close range and Stephen has explained the effect of the numb area at his lip when he smiles. The scar is more obvious than it appears on the photograph clipped to Mr. McHugh's report. However, while Mr. McHugh's use of the epithet "nasty" to describe the scar is apt, I do not think that Stephen need be concerned that he may be discriminated against in the future because of the existence of the scar.

15. Stephen's dental investigations commenced in August 1992, three months after he was discharged from hospital and his dental assessments and treatment have continued to this day and are likely to continue for some considerable time into the future. In broad terms, Stephen lost one tooth and fractured four teeth in the accident. Since October 1992 the "anchor man" in his treatment has been Dr. William H. Davis, Prosthodontist. Stephen's treatment plan has involved three stages.

16. The first stage involved root canal treatment and was carried out by Dr. Pat Cleary between 13th October, 1992 and 25th January, 1994, involving 12 visits in all. The second stage was orthodontic treatment which was commenced by Dr. John Walsh on 24th November, 1992 and is still ongoing and involved 15 visits to date. Dr. Davis testified that the orthodontic treatment would not have been necessary but for the accident. The third stage, composite restoration on a long term basis, is to be carried out by Dr. Davis. Dr. Davis has seen Stephen regularly to date, sometimes for assessment and sometimes for interim treatment. He has seen him 16 times in all. His view is that it will be feasible to go ahead with the definitive treatment when Stephen is 18 years of age. The preferred option of long term restorative treatment is to replace the fractured teeth with gold posts and cores and porcelain fused metal crowns and to replace the missing tooth with an implant supported crown. The implant treatment has a 92% success rate and I must assume that, in Stephen's case, as a matter of probability that it will be successful.

17. Even when the third stage of the treatment plan has been completed, Stephen will have to maintain the dental work and Dr. Davis testified that regular maintenance visits to monitor the treatment will be necessary. When he was costing the cost of treatment in August 1995, Dr. Davis expressed the view that it would not be unreasonable to expect that the restorative work would need to be replaced at least twice in Stephen's lifetime. In his oral testimony, he stated that the life expectancy of crowns is about 15 years but one would hope that they would last for 20 years and he costed for replacement three times during Stephen's lifetime. The capital cost at current prices on an actuarial basis of replacement twice, three times and four times in the future has been agreed by the parties at £6,454, £9,577 and £11,555 respectively and the capital cost at current prices on an actuarial basis of future maintenance on the basis of two visits annually, at an annual cost of £90, has been agreed at £2,914.

18. Special damages, other than the cost of future dental treatment, are agreed at £10,582.81. In relation to the third stage of the dental treatment, I propose allowing the full cost of the treatment as estimated by Dr. Davis, namely, £6,205. In relation to future maintenance, on the basis that, even if he had not been involved in the accident, Stephen would have to attend to his dental hygiene on a regular basis, I propose allowing the sum of £2,000 for future maintenance. In relation to future replacement of the restoration work, I propose to allow £6,454 on the basis of replacement twice during Stephen's lifetime. I think the appropriate figure for pain and suffering to date is £50,000 and for pain and suffering in the future is £30,000. The total award is £105,241.81.