Medical negligence litigation is unlike litigation generally. The cases throw up arguments about causation the like of which do not appear elsewhere.
“The issue to be decided is what damages the plaintiff should be entitled to recover. He has sold the car now, and he had the use of the car since January 2003 until March 2006 and he travelled 56,000 miles in it over that period.”
It is a source of additional worry (above the prospect of unemployment) to employees who have been injured at work, to find that their employer is insolvent.
The court held that the Defendant was not answerable for the cost of demolition and reconstruction because the Plaintiff had not informed it of the need for a continuous pour.
In OâConnor v OâDriscoll  IEHC the Plaintiff was a bank executive who was injured in a road traffic accident (âRTAâ?). The court made the following finding; The case is highly unusual. The physical injuries sustained by the plaintiff were soft tissue damage to his neck and low back as well as some relatively minor damage to three upper teeth on the left side. The plaintiff in addition to these physical injuries also underwent a severe psychological reaction to the […]