Recent Changes in the Law: by Matthew Molloy of Berwick Solicitors Galway.

LOCAL SOLICITOR SAYS CAR ACCIDENT:- “BE CAREFUL NOT TO TAKE LIFT FROM DRUNK DRIVER”

Recent AA Survey revealed that one- in- five people (especially younger people) put their lives at risk on a regular basis by taking a lift from someone that they know to be over the drink-driving limit. If you accept a lift from a Driver who transpires to be drunk and where an accident ensues, your entitlement to compensation in the event of you suffering injury( caused by Drunk Driver’s carelessness) could be severely jeopardised (you also ,obviously, incur other serious risks). The Courts have decided the above on many occasions and recently have become more strict in this regard.

Older Approach:

(More lenient)

An example of the older and more lenient approach of the Courts is found in a court case heard in 1968 ( Judge Reape (1968 Ir). In this case, the Claimant was a passenger and he and the Driver of the car had made six stops at Public houses on a journey from Ballina to Dublin, over a period of blank hours. At each stop, some alchoholic drink was drunk .

Despite this large amount of drink taken, the amount of compensation was not reduced for allowing himself to be driven by a drunk driver.

Modern Approach: More strict:

The Courts have today radically changed their attitude; nor will it usually convince a Court to say that you did not know that the driver was drunk;- you will be deemed to know if the driver’s drunkenness should have been obvious to you. For example, in a recent case (Devlin –V- Cassidy 2004 IR), the Claimant was 24 years of age and he went drinking with a group of friends at about 7pm in the evening and remained on- the- town until approximately 3am on the following morning. A Report on the driver after the accident showed that he had consumed twice the permitted levels and also had taken ecstasy. The Claimant maintained that he was not in the company of the Driver for much of the evening (and so maintained that he did not know that the Driver was drunk). The Judge did not accept this and concluded that the Claimant must have known that the Driver was drunk. Also, the Claimant was himself drunk and you are not allowed to hide behind this condition. In this case, the Judge reduced the amount of compensation by 50%.

The above are clear examples (i.e, where copious amount of alcohol consumed). No doubt, the Courts will also reduce compensation where facts are milder; in these cases, a lesser percentage reduction in compensation.

SUMMARY:

Normally, a claim by a passenger is straightforward i.e., the passenger receives full compensation (i.e., to the extent that money can do so). However, where a passenger is aware that the Driver has consumed drink, the amount of compensation tends to be reduced by a lot (40 or 50%) but this varies according to the extent but the Claimant knew or ought to have known of the risk he was undertaking.

It is not enough for the Claimant to say that he did not know that the driver was drunk; the Claimant cannot close his eyes to obvious facts.

Author:

Matt Molloy of Berwick Solicitors, 16 Eyre square, Galway is heavily involved in representing victims of accidents and has been engaged in this work for over 20 years. Feel free to contact him at 091 567545 or MatthewMolloy@berwick.ie.