Duggan v Logan and Anor

THE HIGH COURT [2026] IEHC 266 Record No. 2025 / 2894 P Between:- KENNETH DUGGAN Plaintiff -and- TREVOR LOGAN and JASON TUCKER Defendants Ex Tempore Judgment of Mr. Justice Oisín Quinn delivered on 29 April, 2026 I. INTRODUCTION 1. This case arises out of a road traffic accident that occurred on 21 March 2023. The Plaintiff was driving home for his lunch along the public road near Croagh in County Limerick. As he approached a filling station a truck appeared to pull out. The Plaintiff assumed the truck was going to move around another vehicle and into the side of the road, however the truck kept coming and collided full on into the side of the Plaintiff’s small van, sending him “tossing and turning”. Remarkably the Plaintiff was able to get out of his van unaided. When he approached the truck he made a surprising discovery. There was no one in it. The driver emerged from the filling station and rushed over to the Plaintiff. Apparently he had not braked his truck properly and it had rolled out of the filling station and across the road colliding with the Plaintiff’s van. Realising what happened and seeing the Plaintiff emerge from his van, the truck driver was apparently so relieved he hugged the Plaintiff. As it transpired, the Plaintiff had fractured his right clavicle and sustained other injuries. 2. The first named defendant is the owner of the truck and the second named defendant is the driver. The case ran over two days at the Limerick Personal Injuries Sessions on the 27 and 28 April, 2026 and proceeded as an assessment. 3. The witnesses called were the Plaintiff, his GP Dr. Ciarán Joyce and the actuary Mr. Nigel Tennant. In addition, an agreed booklet of medical reports was handed in. II. BACKGROUND 4. The Plaintiff is 53 years of age and at the time of the accident was working as a part-time tiler. He was one of 15 children and as a young boy sustained a very serious injury during 1 an accident involving a horse and cart. He broke his back and both of his legs. As a result, he is and has been entitled to a disability allowance from the Department of Social Welfare. Currently he receives €275.50 per week and this allowance permits a recipient to work 18.5 hours a week. Consequently, prior to the accident the Plaintiff was working 18.5 hours a week for a tiling company. 5. This allowance is means tested and the Plaintiff currently qualifies for it. However, in the event that he were to receive a substantial award as a result of these proceedings, the Plaintiff claimed that he would be at risk of losing this allowance and consequently an additional sum was claimed to compensate him for that loss. 6. The Plaintiff has five sons and two daughters from his marriage. He is separated, and has a young son with his new partner. That son is now seven, but was only four at the time of the accident. In addition, his partner has two children from her previous relationship. 7. One of the Plaintiff’s older children has autism and particular additional needs. The Plaintiff was very active in helping his children with their activities and sports. In addition he has been building a cabin extension in his garden with accommodation to provide extra space for this son. 8. Prior to the accident the Plaintiff was also a swimmer and took responsibility for any maintenance work around his home, a 160 year old cottage, which he shares with his partner in Rathkeale. III. Overview of the Plaintiff’s injuries 9. Following the accident, the Plaintiff was unable to drive his van. He had tried to ring the Gardai and then rang his partner who came out to him. He explained that the truck driver was very apologetic. When he got back in his van he described “everything felt loose” and he could not move properly. His partner then drove him home. The next day his van had to be collected by a local garage. He attended his GP Dr Joyce the day after the accident but the surgery was busy and there was no appointments available. His uncle then passed away. He found that he was in considerable pain. He was not able to sleep properly. He described feeling “loose inside”. His neck and right shoulder were sore and his eyelids started twitching and drooping. He went to the Local Injury Unit in St John’s Hospital, Limerick on 25 March, 2023. 10. He was examined and referred for x-rays which revealed that he had fractured his right clavicle. He had had neck and shoulder pain but no other fractures. He also had seat belt bruising. Initially he was advised conservative treatment and he wore a sling. His collar bone did not heal however and ultimately he had surgery under general anaesthetic at UHL on 8 May 2023 and his collar bone was fixed with a metal plate and screws. He stayed in hospital overnight and was discharged the next day. 11. He was out of work as a result of these injuries and ultimately he was not able to return to his work as a tiler. The work was too physical. He eventually started a part-time job with the falconry team in the Adare Manor Hotel. He said he enjoyed this work and he explained that it is not as physically demanding as the tiling work. 12. The problem with the Plaintiff’s eyes resolved after a few weeks. However, the metal plate and screws caused problems and the Plaintiff continued to struggle with neck and shoulder pain. This affected his sleep. In addition the Plaintiff had headaches and also developed anxiety and suffered from stress when driving for longer distances or if he came near lorries on the road. 13. The Plaintiff was referred for physiotherapy and was prescribed anti-inflammatories, painkillers and a sedative to help with his anxiety and sleep. 2 14. Despite this treatment the Plaintiff continued to experience ongoing problems with his right shoulder. X-rays showed that the clavicular fracture had healed but there was some irregularity of the surfaces of the adjacent acromioclavicular joint. Accordingly, his orthopaedic surgeon advised that he be re-admitted for further surgery, this time to remove the metal plate and screws. This was done on 5 March 2025, again under general anaesthetic. 15. This led to an improvement, but the Plaintiff continued to experience significant symptoms. He has ongoing impingement related to tendinopathy and bursitis/impingement in the shoulder joint. He continued with home exercises based on recommendations from his physiotherapist. He tried dry needling but found this too painful. He takes painkillers and anti-inflammatories first thing in the morning and going to bed. 16. While he has a good range of movement when using his arms in front of him, he still has difficulties using his right arm overhead. He is right hand dominant. 17. Dr. Joyce explained that he has been advised to pursue a further block of physiotherapy for about six months with the possibility of a pain killing injection 18. He has been advised that if this does not lead to any significant improvement that he may need further surgery. IV. Summary of the Evidence (i) The Plaintiff 19. The plaintiff described the accident and its immediate aftermath. He attended the local injury clinic at St John’s Hospital, where he reported a sensation of looseness, eye twitching, and pain. X-rays confirmed a fractured collarbone, and he was provided with a sling. He also experienced soreness in his ribs and neck. Conservative treatment was unsuccessful, and he was later advised that surgery was required. The eye twitching resolved within about two weeks. 20. The operation was performed by Mr Cassidy and involved the insertion of a plate and screws. Post-operatively, he was treated with painkillers and anti-inflammatory medication and attended a significant number of physiotherapy sessions. Despite this, his symptoms persisted. He experienced ongoing neck pain, poor sleep, and soft tissue injury. He was uncomfortable driving and described an occasion when his partner had to take over due to anxiety, particularly when lorries passed his vehicle. 21. He reported difficulty lifting his right arm above shoulder height, which affected everyday activities such as shaving, leading him to grow a beard. He also found it difficult to play with his young child, something he had hoped to be actively involved in. Due to his inability to continue working as a tiler, he took up photography as an outlet, although his right arm lacked the strength to hold the camera steady and required the use of a monopod. 22. He later applied for and obtained a position at Adare Manor in the falconry department, which he enjoyed. He worked 18.5 hours per week, allowing him to continue receiving disability allowance. As his symptoms did not improve, further surgery was recommended. This took place on 5 March 2025, when the plates were removed. 23. Following this procedure, he felt significantly better after the removal of the metalwork, although he was not fully recovered. He continued to experience shoulder pain and difficulty lifting heavy objects. His physiotherapist recommended dry needling, but he discontinued it after one session as he was uncomfortable. He continued with home exercises and took painkillers and anti-inflammatories in the mornings and at night. 24. He remained anxious while driving, particularly over long distances, in darkness, or near lorries. He expressed disappointment at not being able to become more involved in his young 3 son’s sporting activities and stated that he had attempted refereeing but was unable to continue. Regarding his older son, who has autism and requires careful handling, he explained that he is building a wooden cabin in the garden to accommodate him. Due to his injuries, he has had to rely on relatives to assist with this work. 25. He stated that before the accident he had been very active around his home, a 160-year- old cottage requiring regular maintenance. He expected that, but for the accident, he would have continued to carry out this work himself and now anticipated needing to hire contractors going forward. 26. He accepted that he had attended only one physiotherapy session and one dry-needling session since the March 2025 surgery, explaining that he continued home exercises. While he acknowledged significant improvement following the removal of the metalwork, he said he had not fully recovered. He was awaiting the possibility of an injection and potentially further surgery and reported ongoing tenderness in his neck. 27. He also gave evidence regarding correspondence from the Department of Social Welfare concerning his disability allowance. He confirmed his understanding that it is a means-tested payment and stated he was anxious that a substantial award in these proceedings could affect his entitlement. He explained that he is required to submit payslips, bank statements, and details of any change in his circumstances. 28. Finally, he noted that swimming had been an activity he previously enjoyed but that he is now only able to manage a limited doggy paddle. He stated that he continues to find photography and involvement with the local camera club therapeutic. (ii) Dr. Ciarán Joyce 29. The court heard evidence from Dr. Ciaran Joyce, the plaintiff’s general practitioner, who gave evidence via remote link and provided three written reports dated 26 June 2023, 21 February 2025, and 16 March 2026. 30. In his first report, following an examination on 3 April 2023, Dr Joyce stated that the plaintiff’s absence from work was reasonable given the physical nature of his employment. He identified the plaintiff’s primary injury as a fractured clavicle, together with soft tissue injuries to the right shoulder and neck. He reported significant functional difficulties, including trouble lifting his young son in and out of a car seat and disturbed sleep on a nightly basis. Dr Joyce also noted anxiety while driving, particularly in traffic and busy areas, with an associated loss of confidence. 31. Dr Joyce advised that follow-up X-rays were required to ensure proper healing of the fracture and he anticipated that the metal plate and screws might require removal due to persistent pain. He recommended physiotherapy to address the right subacromial impingement and stated that a steroid injection might be required. He prescribed medication to assist with sleep and night pain, along with anti-inflammatory medication and analgesics. 32. In his third report dated 16 March 2026, Dr Joyce noted that while the plaintiff was much improved overall, he continued to experience persistent pain during overhead activity. He reported a significant improvement in range of motion but ongoing difficulty with external rotation, extension, and abduction. The plaintiff’s lifting capacity had improved, though he continued to experience clicking on reaching overhead, albeit less frequently than before. Dr Joyce observed that the plaintiff sometimes needed to support his arm when lowering it from a fully flexed or abducted position, which he stated was consistent with shoulder impingement syndrome. 33. Dr Joyce further noted that the plaintiff continued to experience anxiety symptoms, particularly avoiding long-distance driving, motorways, and situations involving multiple lorries. Following the operation to remove the metalwork, the plaintiff had reported 4 fasciculations and muscle twitching in the upper arm, which Dr Joyce considered likely related to residual muscle weakness following injury and surgery. 34. Dr Joyce’s current diagnosis included: (i) Rotator cuff tendinopathy; (ii) Subacromial bursitis of the right shoulder; (iii) Significant bony degeneration of the acromion; and (iv) Anxiety. 35. In his conclusions, Dr Joyce stated that the plaintiff continued to suffer from clinically significant shoulder impingement, particularly affecting overhead activity. While the plaintiff had an excellent range of motion approaching 180 degrees, his pain remained related to tendinopathy, bursitis, and impingement within the shoulder joint. He recommended a further course of physiotherapy focused on strengthening the rotator cuff. 36. Dr Joyce indicated that, given the degree of acromial degeneration, the plaintiff could potentially be a candidate for decompression surgery; however, due to his current range of motion, such surgery was not indicated at that time. He stressed that an orthopaedic surgeon would need to assess this if the plaintiff failed to improve with physiotherapy in the coming months. He also noted that multiple surgeries are uncommon for this type of shoulder injury. 37. Finally, Dr Joyce concluded that the plaintiff should undergo a further block of physiotherapy and consider an injection, and that surgery should only be contemplated if symptoms persisted despite these measures. (iii) Mr. Nigel Tennant 38. Mr Nigel Tennant, an actuary with Seagrave Daily and Lynch, gave evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. He was retained to advise on the capital sum that would be required to compensate the plaintiff in the event that he lost his disability allowance for a period of time following a damages award. 39. Firstly, Counsel confirmed that the plaintiff had no significant savings. Mr. Tennant explained that disability allowance is means tested and that once a claimant’s capital sum available in his accounts exceeds €50,000, deductions apply following an assessment by the Department of Social Welfare. 40. For the first €10,000 above €50,000, the allowance is reduced by €10 per week; for the next €10,000, the reduction is €20 per week; and for capital exceeding €70,000, a further €40 per week is deducted. For each additional €10,000 beyond that, a further €40 per week is deducted. As a result, if the plaintiff’s capital amounted to €100,000, a total of €150 per week would be deducted, and if capital exceeded €130,000, the disability allowance would be lost in its entirety. 41. Mr Tennant explained that, because the payment is means tested, the plaintiff would be likely to lose his disability allowance on receiving a substantial award of damages. He therefore calculated the capital value to the plaintiff of the future loss of the allowance. He noted that the assessment was complicated by the fact that, as the damages awarded reduced over time (as a result of it being expended by the Plaintiff), the allowance could be partially or fully reinstated. 42. To assist the court, Mr Tennant provided capitalised loss figures on the basis that the plaintiff might lose the disability allowance in full for a limited period. He calculated that the capital value of the loss would be €14,326 if the allowance were lost for one year, €28,377 if lost for two years, and €42,152 if lost for three years. 5 43. Mr Tennant’s evidence concerning the means-testing thresholds and his actuarial calculations was not challenged by the defendant. The defendant’s position was limited to questioning the likelihood that the Department of Social Welfare would, in practice, intervene following an award of damages. 44. Mr. Tennant also gave evidence that if the Plaintiff were to require 6 physio sessions (at €70 per session) per year for the rest of his life then this would have a capital value of €11,526. (iv) The agreed medical reports 45. In addition to the foregoing witnesses who gave evidence, the court was provided with the benefit of a booklet of agreed medical reports. The following were the key extracts that were referred to:- Plaintiff’s reports:- (i) Mr. Tristan Cassidy, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon: Opinion, Prognosis & Conclusions (ii) Mr. Brian O’Keeffe, Consultant Clinical Psychologist: Conclusions (iii) Mr. John Rice, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon: Conclusions & prognosis (1.4.25 & 19.3.26) (iv) Mr. Alexander Stafford, Consultant Radiologist: Overall Opinion (v) Dr. Johnson McEvoy, Physiotherapist, 7.4.26: Recommendations Defendants’ reports:- (vi) Mr. Joe Sparkes, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon (report of 15.4.26): Opinion V. The Main Evidential Conflicts 46. The principal evidential conflicts concerned:- (i) Whether the Plaintiff would need any significant ongoing physiotherapy into the future; (ii) Whether there was any real likelihood that, in the event that the Plaintiff received a substantial award, the Department of Social Welfare would reduce the Plaintiff’s disability allowance; (iii) Whether the Plaintiff suffered any significant neck injury separate to the injury to his shoulder/clavicle. VI. RELEVANT LEGAL PRINICPLES 47. Both sides Counsel, Mr. Henry Downing, SC (with Mr. Michael Collins, SC and Mr. Michael Purtill, BL) for the Plaintiff and Mr. Murray Johnson, SC (with Sandra Barnwell, BL) for the Defendants made very helpful submissions and each explicitly engaged with the issues flagged in the Personal Injuries Guidelines of 2021. 48. Counsel helpfully drew the Court’s attention to the Court of Appeal decision in Collins v. Parm [2024] IECA 150 and the judgment of Noonan J. for the Court, which in turn endorsed the approach of Mr. Justice Coffey in Keogh v. Byrne [2024] IEHC 19. This jurisprudence very helpfully sets out the approach to adopted by the High Court in these cases involving multiple injuries. Both sides Counsel commended the approach of fully valuing the dominant injury (in this case, the injury to the Plaintiff’s right shoulder) and thereafter valuing the less significant injuries (in this case, the injuries to the Plaintiff’s neck, his anxiety and the eyes) and reducing the value of them by a third, and then applying that figure as the “uplift” to the full value figure for the dominant injury. 49. In Collins, Noonan J. cites from Keogh as follows:- 6 “29. Keogh v Byrne [2024] IEHC 19 was another multiple injuries case where the principles in the Guidelines were again considered by Coffey J. Having referred to the Guidelines and some of the authorities I have already mentioned, he went on to say (at para. 12): “It is evident from the foregoing that in a case where a court is required to assess general damages for multiple injuries having regard to the Guidelines, the trial judge should follow a two-stage process in order to ensure that the overall award is fair to all parties and proportionate. First, the court must ensure that the plaintiff is compensated for all their pain and suffering which results from their injuries. This requires the trial judge to consider the relevant guidelines for each injury and to apply the principles of fairness and proportionality in order to assign a value to each injury that is fair to all parties and proportionate. Secondly, and whether it is possible to do so by reference to the plaintiff’s ‘most significant injury’ or not, the court is obliged to ensure that the overall award is itself fair to all parties and proportionate. This requires the trial judge to step back from the individual injuries and their corresponding assigned values in order to holistically evaluate the cumulative effect of all the injuries on the plaintiff and to adjust the ultimate award in order to avoid over or under compensation. In carrying out this task, the trial judge must have regard to the overlap of injuries and the maximum and equivalent awards available under the Guidelines for suffering of similar gravity to that of the plaintiff’s overall injury profile. Where a discount is applicable, the method of adjustment - whether it be by way of deduction from the value assigned to the plaintiff’s lesser injuries or from the initial aggregate amount, or whether it is - 17 - expressed as a percentage or a specified sum - appears to be of little practical consequence provided that the ultimate award of general damages is so measured as to achieve overall fairness and proportionality.” 50. Noonan J. then continues:- “31. In Keogh, there were three injuries of significance which fell to be assessed under the Guidelines. Coffey J. identified the most significant injury and accorded it full value at €55,000. The other two lesser injuries were valued by him at €42,000 and €3,000 respectively, giving a cumulative total of €100,000 if all were simply added together. He considered however that a discount of €15,000 should be applied to the lesser injuries resulting in an overall award of €85,000. He thus discounted the lesser injuries which had a value of €45,000 by one third, although he did not describe the discount in terms of fraction or percentage, but rather as a fixed amount. 32. All of these cases were instances of multiple injuries where it was possible to identify which of those injuries could be regarded as the “most significant”, as the Guidelines require. Although the expression “dominant injury” is not actually used in the section on multiple injuries, it seems clear that the concepts of “dominant injury” and “most significant” injury are the same. It is relevant to note that the Guidelines concerning multiple injuries refer to the identification of the “most significant” of the claimant’s injuries, and the judge should then value that injury before uplift, making clear that there can only be one such injury, be it described as “most significant” or “dominant”.” 51. It is not strictly necessary therefore to discount the amounts for the lesser injuries by a third (although that is a useful indicator of an approach), different cases may merit more or less of an adjustment. In Collins v Parm, Noonan J. at para. 57 applies this approach to the facts of that case. 52. Ultimately the Court must look at the cumulative situation in the round, bearing in mind the specific features and facts of the particular case and bearing in mind the need “to ensure that the overall award is itself fair to all parties and proportionate”. 7 53. In relation to the issue about the risk that the Plaintiff might lose a means tested benefit as a result of their ‘means’ improving due to the award, Mr. Johnson, SC helpfully referred the Court to a decision of Mr. Justice Morris in the High Court in a case of O’Sullivan v Iarnród Eireann, unreported 14 March 1994 and pages 13-14 in particular where Morris J. explains that the onus is on the Plaintiff to establish the likelihood that this will occur. Counsel accepted that in principle however, it appeared to be permitted to consider awarding a capital sum to compensate a plaintiff for the loss of a means tested benefit as a result of a compensation award. VII. SUBMISSIONS ON THE PERSONAL INJURIES GUIDELINES Plaintiff’s Submissions 54. Mr. Downing, SC submitted that the dominant injury was to the right shoulder and that it was a “serious shoulder injury”. He submitted that the anxiety was in the moderate category, that the neck was in the moderate category and that the eye condition was minor. Defendant’s submissions 55. Mr. Johnson, SC agreed that the dominant injury was to the right shoulder and that it was a “serious shoulder injury”. He submitted that the anxiety was in the minor category, that the neck was really part of the shoulder problem and that the eye issue was minor. VIII. DECISION Overview 56. Stepping back from the specific individual injuries sustained by the plaintiff there is no doubt that this was a serious road traffic accident. For a driverless truck to roll out onto and across a main road is a hugely dangerous event that could have ended in far more serious consequences. 57. It is not surprising that the Plaintiff has been left anxious and stressed when driving and, in particular, when in the proximity of lorries. 58. I am also satisfied that the Plaintiff is very much the type of person who seeks to get on with his life as best he can following accident and injury. The manner in which he responded to the set back of the serious accident he sustained as a child is testament to that. 59. In addition, when faced with an inability to resume his tiling job the Plaintiff sought out alternative work and obtained an interesting and rewarding position in the Falconry department at Adare Manor. 60. During his evidence it was clear that the Plaintiff did not seek to exaggerate or make much of his injuries. Nonetheless the medical evidence indicates that the Plaintiff has had a difficult time of things. He has not been able to enjoy participating in sports with his new and youngest son. He has also had difficulty completing the new wooden cabin for his older son who has special needs. I am also satisfied that he is understandably anxious about his ability to perform housework and home maintenance into the future on the old cottage where he and his family live. Decision on factual issues in dispute 61. Turning to the evidential conflicts referred to above, I find as follows:- (i) Whether the Plaintiff would need any significant ongoing physiotherapy into the future 62. Mr. Johnson, SC made some very cogent points on this issue and did demonstrate that since the operation in 2025 the Plaintiff has only had one physio session, one dry needling session and one attendance on a physiotherapist to whom he was referred by his solicitor. 8 Nonetheless the medical evidence indicates real and ongoing problems that may need surgery. The Plaintiff is entitled to try to get back as much mobility and strength as is reasonable given that he leads an active life and has a reasonable desire to be in a position to do physical work around his home. While the Plaintiff accepted that he was carrying out home exercises as advised, the medical advice he has received and the evidence given to the Court by Dr. Joyce was that he should continue with physiotherapy sessions. The Plaintiff’s claim is for the cost of 6 sessions per year for the rest of his life. In light of the medical opinion that the Plaintiff’s symptoms may continue without structured intervention, I am satisfied that some allowance for ongoing physiotherapy is justified. Overall therefore, given the uncertainty about whether he will need an operation and taking account of the points made by Mr. Johnson I am of the view that a figure equating to half that claimed by the Plaintiff under this heading is reasonable; i.e. a figure of €5,763. (ii) Whether there was any real likelihood that, in the event that the Plaintiff received a substantial award, the Department of Social Welfare would reduce the Plaintiff’s disability allowance 63. I am satisfied that the evidence establishes that the Plaintiff will likely lose a substantial amount of his disability allowance based on the award that the Court proposes to make in these proceedings. 64. Mr. Tennant’s evidence as to the actuarial calculations and the thresholds was not in dispute. In addition, the Plaintiff has recently received correspondence designed to test whether he is still eligible for the disability allowance on a ‘means’ basis. 65. There is no evidence to suggest that the Department is ignoring the means test thresholds or that it has some practise of not enforcing the thresholds. 66. Equally, I do not think it would be appropriate to approach the matter on the basis that the Plaintiff could make a series of tax free gifts to his children both this year and early next year to essentially divest himself of a serious chunk of his damages to bring himself below the threshold. While this was an imaginative proposition, ultimately the court should proceed on the basis that the award is for the Plaintiff’s personal benefit to compensate him for the pain and suffering and loss he has experienced and it would not be fair to him to reduce it on the basis that he can make a variety of gifts to his children – even if in fact he decides to do that. (iii) Whether the Plaintiff had suffered any significant neck injury separate to the injury to his shoulder/clavicle 67. I am satisfied based on the Plaintiff’s own account of his injuries and the medical evidence that the Plaintiff did sustain a separate soft tissue injury to his neck. This was confirmed by Dr. Joyce and in the medical reports of the Plaintiff. Importantly, it is also not contra indicated in the report of Mr. Sparkes, the Defendants’ Orthopaedic Surgeon. In Mr. Sparkes’ report of 15 April 2026 he states on this topic: “with respect to his neck pain, there is no imaging of the cervical but would (sic) not be uncommon in an injury of this sort to sustain soft tissue injury to the cervical region given the impact required to fracture the clavicle”. Accordingly, I am satisfied that as a matter of probability the Plaintiff, in addition to the fracture, sustained a soft tissue injury to the neck. Application of the Personal Injuries Guidelines 68. I now propose to apply the relevant legal principles to the findings and assessment I have made of the evidence to a consideration of the quantum to be awarded by having regard to the Personal Injuries Guidelines (the “Guidelines”). 9 69. The Guidelines require the court to ask each party to identify by reference to the dominant injury sustained the relevant damages bracket in the guidelines, which they submit most closely matches that supported by the evidence. 70. In addition, the Guidelines indicate that brief submissions should also be made as to where within the relevant bracket of damages, the plaintiff's injuries can be located in terms of severity, i.e. top middle or bottom, having regard to the evidence, the presence or absence of other lesser injuries and all relevant considerations. 71. In addition, the Guidelines indicate that in the case of multiple injuries, the appropriate approach for the court is where possible to identify the injury, and the bracket of damages within the guidelines that best resembles the most significant of the claimant's injuries. The guidelines then state that the trial judge should then value that injury, and thereafter uplift the value to ensure that the claimant is fully and justly compensated for all of the additional pain discomfort and limitations arising from their lesser injuries. 72. They then state that the overall award of damage that is made in a case involving multiple injuries should be proportionate and just when considered in light of the severity of other injuries, which attract an equivalent to the guidelines. The Dominant Injury, the right shoulder 73. The parties agreed that the dominant injury in this case is the injury to the Plaintiff’s right clavicle. I agree with that based on the evidence. 74. Both sides agreed that the Plaintiff’s shoulder injury was a “serious shoulder injury” within the meaning of category D(b) of the Guidelines where the range is €40,000 to €70,000. 75. Taking account of the various factors to be considered I am satisfied that the Plaintiff’s shoulder injury falls towards the upper end of that range. He has had two surgeries requiring general anaesthetic and overnight stays in hospital. He may need further surgery. He has ongoing permanent interference with his use of his right arm as a result. He was deprived of being able to enjoy fully participating in his young son’s sporting activities. His ability to build the cabin for his son with special needs has been interfered with. The injury is to his dominant limb. He had to give up his job. His sleep was disturbed. He has ongoing impingement and discomfort. He needs ongoing physiotherapy and medication. 76. Accordingly I find that the appropriate value for the plaintiffs right shoulder injury in terms of general damages is €65,000 which is towards the upper end of the range in the Guidelines. The Other Injuries (i) The anxiety 77. I'm satisfied that the Plaintiff sustained moderate anxiety. While he has largely recovered, and any continuing effects are not grossly disabling, nonetheless, he suffered a traumatic experience and had a difficult time for a few years, experiencing headaches and sleeplessness and anxiety while driving to the extent that his partner had to take over driving on occasion. He was also prescribed medication for his anxiety. The range here is €10,000 to €35,000 and I value the anxiety on full value in the middle of this range at €22,500, before the discount applied to lesser injuries in multiple injury cases. (ii) The Neck 78. In relation to the plaintiffs neck, I am of the view that the plaintiff's neck injury is in the moderate range of €12,000 to €23,000. His neck had a soft tissue injury which was still symptomatic three years after the accident, according to Dr. Joyce. Accordingly I value the neck injury at the mid-point of this range, i.e. €17,500 before the discount applied to lesser injuries in multiple injury cases. 10 (iii) The drooping eyelids 79. This was a minor problem that resolved in a few weeks. It falls within category A(g) which has a range of €500 to €15,000. I value it at close to the bottom of this range at €1,000 before the adjustment. Overview of General Damages 80. The cumulative full value of the three lesser injuries is €41,000. Applying a discount of a third in line with the submissions and case law referred to above, which I consider to be appropriate when looking at the injuries suffered in the round, that reduces this figure to €27,333 which when added to the amount for the dominant injury by way of ‘uplift’ brings my assessment of the general damages under the guidelines to €92,333. The Specials 81. I am satisfied that based on the above findings, the Plaintiff is due the additional sum of €2,068 for hospital fees and the sum of €5,763 in respect of future physiotherapy. Combined with the general damages amount above, the cumulative total is therefore €100,164. 82. What remains then is the assessment of an amount for the likely loss of disability allowance. Based on the evidence and the findings of fact made above I am satisfied that the Plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable sum to compensate him for the likely loss of disability allowance that will arise as a result of this award. I have found that on the balance of probabilities that the award contemplated will cause the Plaintiff’s capital to exceed the relevant thresholds for a material period. It would be unjust for the Plaintiff to suffer such a loss. An award of this level will likely cause a substantial loss to his disability allowance that will likely continue for some time. Some degree of estimation is required as it is inherently difficult to predict how quickly the monies will be expended. The Plaintiff’s advisors suggested that the range of 1-3 years on a full loss basis was a reasonable approach. There was no substantial challenge to that element of the proposition from the Defendants. Accordingly, I am satisfied that a figure representing the middle of the sums claimed by the Plaintiff in this regard is fair to both sides, i.e. the sum of €28,377. Total Sum 83. Accordingly the Plaintiff is awarded: (i) General damages of €92,333 (ii) Special damages of: Hospital fees of €2,068 Physiotherapy of €5,763 Loss of disability allowance of €28, 377. This comes to a total of €128,541. IX. CONCLUSION & ORDER 84. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff is to be awarded the sum of €128,541. 85. I will hear from the parties as to costs. 11