EMS (A Minor) v ES and Others
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Maguire J |
| Judgment Date | 21 March 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] NIQB 36 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 21 March 2018 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2018] NIQB 36
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: MAG10499
Delivered: 21/3/2018
2014 No: 125895
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
________
Between:
EMS (A MINOR) BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND
Plaintiff
and
ES
First-named Defendant
DARREN THOMAS McCORD
Second-named Defendant
W D IRWIN & SONS LIMITED
Third-named Defendant
and
HS
Third Party
________
MAGUIRE J
Introduction
[1] The plaintiff in this case was born on 1 August 2012. On 21 August 2014 at or
around 08:10 hours, while a back seat passenger in a car driven by the first-named
defendant, the plaintiff, then aged 2, sustained serious injuries as a result of a road
traffic accident.
[2] In these proceedings she, through her mother and next friend, has sued three
defendants.
2
[3] The first-named defendant is the plaintiff’s aunt. She was the driver of the
Volvo car in which the plaintiff had been a back seat passenger at the time of the
accident. The plaintiff was secured in the back of the car by a Graco booster seat.
There was no-one else in the car save for the driver.
[4] The second-named defendant was the driver of a van. This was the other
vehicle in the accident. He was alone in the van. The van was travelling in the
opposite direction to the Volvo car.
[5] The third-named defendant is sued as the owner of the vehicle the
second-named defendant was driving. There will be no need in this judgment to
refer to it further.
[6] While at an earlier stage of these proceedings there was a third party also
involved, as explained in Stephens J judgment already given in this case, that party
was dismissed from the proceedings by the judge and, in these circumstances, this
court need not refer further to him.
[7] A hearing was conducted by Stephens J in respect of liability issues. This
resulted in a substantial written judgment which was delivered on 14 June 2017.
[8] That judgment dealt with the principal issues relating to liability. The judge
provided a written judgment (STE10325) and, inter alia, held as follows:
(i) As was clear from the outset, the plaintiff was bound to succeed in the
proceedings as, on any view, her injuries were sustained as a result of the
negligence of one or other of the defendants.
(ii) In fact, the second-named defendant – the van driver - was the party
responsible for the accident giving rise to the plaintiff’s injuries.
(iii) In particular, the judge held that the first-named defendant at all material
times was driving on her own side of road. What had happened was that the
second-named defendant had moved from his own side of the road into the
first-named defendant’s side of the road so causing a head-on collision.
(iv) The collision, therefore, occurred on the first-named defendant’s side of the
road.
(v) The combined impact speed was held by the judge to be 80 mph. The judge
found as a fact that the Volvo had been travelling at 52 mph and the van at
28 mph at the point of impact.
(vi) Neither defendant, the judge held, braked at the time of the accident.
To continue reading
Request your trial