Shortt v Leonard and Anor

1 THE HIGH COURT [2026] IEHC 230 HP.2025.1224 BETWEEN MARY SHORTT PLAINTIFF AND ADRIAN LEONARD AND VINCENT LEONARD DEFENDANTS Ex Tempore JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice David Barniville, President of the High Court, delivered in the High Court sitting in Kilkenny Courthouse, on the 13th day of February 2026 1. Introduction 1. This is my judgment in this personal injuries case, in which liability is not in issue and which, therefore, proceeded before me yesterday as an assessment of damages. The proceedings arise out of a road traffic accident which occurred on the 7 March 2022. 2 2. Background 2. The Plaintiff is a 68-year-old woman who retired in 2020 having previously worked as a medical secretary for an Ear Nose and Throat (ENT) consultant in Tullamore, Co. Offaly. 3. On the day of the accident the Plaintiff was travelling as a front-seat passenger in a motor vehicle which was being driven by her husband. They were travelling from Tullamore in the direction of Birr. The accident occurred at, or near, a place called Idle Corner, in the village of Blue Ball, when a motor vehicle owned and driven by one of the two Defendants, travelling in the opposite direction, turned right in front of the vehicle in which the Plaintiff was travelling, colliding violently with the Plaintiff’s vehicle, causing it to crash into a wall. 3. The Plaintiff’s Injuries 4. The Plaintiff sustained a number of serious injuries in the accident. She had been wearing her seatbelt at the time of the accident. The vehicle’s airbags deployed in the collision. The Plaintiff was understandably very shocked and immediately checked first to see how her husband was. She felt severe pain in her back and just about managed to get herself out of the car. She waited beside her car until an ambulance arrived to bring her to the Emergency Department of Midlands Regional Hospital in Tullamore. 5. Initial x-rays of her chest, sternum, cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine were performed. They initially disclosed evidence of a suspected L4 vertebral fracture. The Plaintiff was discharged home at the time with analgesics. She continued to have a lot of pain, particularly in her back, which was getting worse. Consequently, she contacted a consultant orthopaedic surgeon, who she knew, who looked at the x-rays and advised her to go back to the Emergency Department in the Midlands Regional Hospital in Tullamore to get CT scans done on the affected areas. 6. A few days later she did just that and CT scans were performed of her pelvis, cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. These disclosed evidence of an L4 vertebral 3 body compression fracture, a nondisplaced fracture to the left posterior aspect of the S1 vertebral body and a comminuted but minimally displaced right sacral ala fracture and a nondisplaced left sacral ala fracture. A subsequent CT scan showed evidence of a right transverse process fracture in the L5 vertebra. The Plaintiff was advised against wearing a spinal support corset as she was in significant pain and discomfort. The Plaintiff was, by that stage, under the care of the orthopaedic team in Midlands Regional Hospital. She was given crutches which she used until May 2022, that is, for a period of approximately 3 months. 7. The Plaintiff was also reviewed, following the accident, by the Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) team in the Hospital because of a severe blow she had sustained to her nose in the impact of the collision. It was suspected that she had fractured the cartilaginous component of the nasal bone, which was not clearly visible on plain x-rays. As her nose was deviating, her nose was manipulated and she was fitted with a nasal splint which she wore for about 3 weeks. 8. The Plaintiff also had really horrific bruising across her front from her chest bone to the bottom of her stomach and the top of her legs (all of which was very evident from the photographs admitted in evidence). Her right breast was extremely badly bruised and remained so for several months after the accident. The bruising subsided in late November/early December 2022. However, the Plaintiff had, by that stage, developed multiple small lumps or cysts all over her right breast. These were found by Mr Michael Allen, Consultant General Surgeon, to be directly related to the blunt trauma to her right breast in the collision. Fortunately for the Plaintiff, she was advised by Mr Allen, in early December 2022, that no sinister features were associated with these cysts and no further investigation or treatment was required. The Plaintiff explained in evidence that while these cysts are not visible, she can feel them and they are quite painful if she touches them. She is still very concerned about them. 9. The Plaintiff was kept under review for her lower back injuries and underwent several sessions of physiotherapy for those injuries. She had about 4 or 5 physiotherapy sessions in Midlands Regional Hospital and about the same number of sessions with the HSE in Birr. These were all publicly funded. The 4 Plaintiff then attended physiotherapy privately in Birr between April and June 2023 and has advanced a claim for reimbursement for 6 such sessions. 4. The Plaintiff’s Evidence 10. In her evidence, the Plaintiff explained that after the accident she needed help in relation to daily activities at home, including help with showering and dressing. This help was mainly given by her husband, but also by other members of her family. The Plaintiff explained that she was very uncomfortable lying in bed and had difficulty sleeping for a number of months after the accident. Physiotherapy helped to ease these symptoms. The Plaintiff also had some flashbacks about the accident, but in fairness she did not make a big issue about these. However, she stated that she now prefers driving herself rather than being a passenger in the car. The Plaintiff was herself unable to drive for about 6 months after the accident. 11. The Plaintiff’s main problems associated with her back are now standing and sitting. She can only stand for about 10-15 minutes before she has to move, walk around or sit down. She can sit for slightly longer than that and will opt not to go to an event or attend a social occasion unless she is sure that she can get a seat. 12. The Plaintiff was a keen gardener before the accident and cannot do that anymore. Anything that involves stooping or bending down causes her back pain, as does reaching up to grab or take something from a height. She gave an example of feeling pain in her lower back when taking out the ashes when cleaning the fireplace or trying to get something from under the bed. 13. The Plaintiff explained in evidence that she took up yoga after the accident and finds that very helpful. It is noted that a number of medical reports, which are agreed in this case, refer to the Plaintiff doing yoga to ameliorate her symptoms. For example, reference is made to this in the report of Mr Muiris Kennedy, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, on behalf of the Plaintiff which is dated 27 June 2025 and the very recent report of Mr Francis Thompson, the Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon retained on behalf of the Defendants. There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the Plaintiff should be entitled to maintain a 5 claim for her yoga sessions as, despite the fact her yoga is referred to in those medical reports, it was not referred to in the schedule of special damages served by the Plaintiff’s solicitors on 2 December 2025 and in a subsequent schedule served on the 3 February 2026. The fact of the Plaintiff doing yoga to manage her painful back was, however, referred to in the updated particulars of personal injuries served by the Plaintiff’s solicitors on the 10 October 2025. 14. In terms of prior accidents or injuries, the Plaintiff had a previous serious fall in July 2014, when she slipped coming out of the steam room at a hotel. She sustained a displaced fracture to the neck of her right femur and had to undergo a right hip replacement. In evidence, the Plaintiff maintained that she had made a good recovery from this procedure by the time of the accident the subject of these proceedings. That prior accident resulted in proceedings which were settled in 2017 with the Plaintiff apparently receiving damages of €160,000, although it is unclear and it was not elaborated on in evidence as to how that sum was calculated and what it comprised. While it was suggested to the Plaintiff in cross examination that she was still suffering from the effects of the earlier injuries and the hip replacement by 2017, the Plaintiff gave evidence that she had made a good recovery by that stage, when her previous proceedings were settled, but that she was still having a certain amount of pain. She said in evidence that she was “fair to good” by the time of the accident in March 2022, which is the subject of these proceedings. I accept her evidence in that regard. 15. While it was put to her that she had been complaining of lower back pain to her General Practitioner in March 2020, the Plaintiff strenuously denied that, and the Defendants had no admissible evidence to contradict the Plaintiff’s evidence on that issue. I accept, therefore, that the Plaintiff did not have any significant lower back pain prior to the accident, the subject of these proceedings, and that all of the injuries sustained and all of the complaints made by the Plaintiff concerning her lower back are referable to, and were caused by, this accident. I also note from the report of Mr Maurice Neligan, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, dated 28 October 2016, which was provided to me without objection, that the Plaintiff had done well with the procedure which she underwent following her fall in 2014 and that she had, by October 2016, minimal symptoms. 6 5. The Medical Evidence 16. The medical reports in this case were, as I have said, agreed. On behalf of the Plaintiff, three medical reports were provided to the Court: a. The report of Dr Anna Moore, Consultant in Emergency Medicine in Midlands Regional Hospitals in Tullamore and Mullingar, dated 19 December 2022; b. The report of Mr Muiris Kennedy, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon in the Beacon Hospital, dated 27 June 2025; c. The report of Mr Michael Allen, Consultant General Surgeon in the Hermitage Clinic, dated 9 December 2025. 17. On behalf of the Defendants, the following reports were provided and agreed: a. The report of Mr Donald McShane, Consultant Ear, Nose and Throat Surgeon, for the Injuries Resolution Board, dated 16 April 2025; b. The report of Mr Francis Thompson, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, for the Injuries Resolution Board, dated 14 May 2024; c. The further report of Mr Francis Thompson, dated 11 February 2026, just a couple days ago. 6. The Plaintiff’s Medical Evidence 18. I turn first to the Plaintiff’s reports. I will isolate and refer to a small number of aspects of those reports. I first deal with the report of Dr Anna Moore, Consultant in Emergency Medicine, and I turn to her conclusions on page seven of her report. In her report, having set out in full the background and the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff in the accident, Dr Moore stated “Ms Shortt sustained significant back and pelvic trauma in this accident. She is making good progress in her recovery but remains affected by those injuries particularly in terms of physical and leisure activities. She has recovered from the nasal trauma sustained. She may have ongoing changes to the right breast. I found that Mrs Shortt’s physical examination and current complaints were in keeping with the injuries sustained in this accident and in my opinion, she has not exaggerated overstated the impact 7 of these injuries”. That report is dated December 2022, some nine months or so after the accident. 19. I now turn to the report of Mr Muiris Kennedy, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, dated 27 June 2025. At page 2 of that report Mr Kennedy addressed the symptoms the Plaintiff was complaining of as of the date of his examination of the Plaintiff on the 27 June 2025: “1. Feeling of stiffness in the lower back and pelvis which Ms. Shortt tries to ameliorate with 2-3 sessions of yoga per week. 2. Lower back pain aggravated by prolonged sitting such as driving or attending a concert. 3. Lower back pain caused by even moderate lengths of standing of 15 minutes or more.” 20. Mr Kennedy then addressed the effect of the injuries on the Plaintiff’s daily activities and went through those in some detail, as well as the impact on her hobbies. He referred, in particular, to the fact that she was an avid gardener prior to her injuries but that she now finds routine gardening too uncomfortable to do regularly as she finds it aggravates her lower back pain. He also referred to the fact that she was unable to return to driving herself for six months following the accident because of a mixture of the pain relating to her lower back when sitting in low seats as well as the psychological impact the accident had on her. He noted that the Plaintiff says her sleep was affected by the injuries, and that she suffered from that for at least four months following the accident but thereafter returned to a normal pattern. 21. On his examination of the Plaintiff, Mr. Kennedy noted that the Plaintiff had quite limited lumbar spine flexion and she attributed that to a feeling of stiffness in the lower back. He also outlined in his report that lateral flexion was also quite limited and that elicited discomfort in the paravertebral area of the back extending from approximately L5 to S1. In terms of his opinion, Mr Kennedy said the following: 8 “Ms. Shortt was involved in a high energy collision in 2022 resulting in multiple musculoskeletal injuries which included a nasal cartilaginous fracture, a compression fracture of L4, a transverse process fracture of L5 and bilateral sacral ala fractures. These injuries were managed non-operatively with initial rest, and thereafter physiotherapy, and more recently yoga sessions. Ms. Shortt, though, continues to carry the sequelae of these injuries with lower back stiffness and discomfort relating to prolonged sitting or standing in particular. She has tried her best to avoid going to a Pain Specialist but is considering that option in the future if her symptoms deteriorate. Ms Shortt finds that with regular yoga and walking she is able to manage her symptoms although these modalities are not curing the symptoms per se. Given that Ms. Shortt has had these symptoms now for the best part of three years it is likely she will continue to have stiffness in the lower back and discomfort related to prolonged sitting such as long drives or standing. Ms. Shortt is unable to stand for any length of time longer than fifteen minutes, as it aggravates her lower back pain. Fortunately, Ms. Shortt does not have any nerve or radicular symptoms related to these fractures. At the time of the initial injuries Ms. Shortt’s daily activities and lifestyle was very effected [sic], and even simple tasks such as self- care were very significantly impaired in the first four months post- injury. Thereafter Ms. Shortt has returned to her normal daily activity but has modified what she can do as a consequence of these injuries, and in particular has essentially had to give up gardening which she used to enjoy regularly prior to these injuries. Ms. Shortt has been very stoical and resilient in trying to overcome these injuries and is doing her best to manage these symptoms with 9 yoga and exercises without having to resort to any further medical intervention for the time being”. 22. The third medical report relied on by the Plaintiff is that of Mr Michael Allen, dated 9 December 2022. He is a Consultant General Surgeon with particular expertise in the area of breast and vascular work. In his report he referred to the fact that a recent mammogram and ultrasound scan examination had been carried out of the Plaintiff’s right breast at the end of November and that showed benign changes only, with multiple small oil cysts being noted throughout the right breast. He said that this was directly related to the previous blunt trauma to the breast in the accident and there were no sinister features associated with that and no investigation or treatment was required. 7. The Defendants’ Reports 23. From the reports provided by the Defendants, I want to highlight the following matters: I turn first to Mr Donald McShane's report of 16 April 2025. He is a Consultant ENT Surgeon and he deals with the injury to the Plaintiff’s nose. He says in the “Opinion and Conclusions” section of his report: “It is my opinion that Ms. Shortt sustained direct trauma to her nose as a result of the road traffic accident she was involved in in March 2022. This caused immediate nasal deformity. One week after the index accident, she had nasal manipulation carried out under local anaesthetic. This operation was completely successful in correcting the appearance of her nose. Ms. Shortt herself is now entirely satisfied with the present shape of her nose. Indeed present examination confirms no evidence of any residual external or internal nasal deformity. Thus the nasal injury sustained in the index accident has not resulted in any residual defect of Ms Shortt’s nose. In conclusion, it is my opinion that Ms. Shortt sustained direct trauma to her nose as a result of the road traffic accident she was involved in in March 2022. The nasal manipulation carried out one 10 week after the accident has been entirely successful and Ms. Shortt herself is now fully satisfied with the appearance of her nose. In addition present examination of her nose shows no evidence of any residual external or internal deformity and I would not expect her to have any further problems with her nose as a result of the index accident.” 24. I will skip over the report of Mr Thompson, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, prepared for the Injuries Resolution Board in May 2024 and will now go to the most recent report of Mr Thompson, who examined the Plaintiff just prior to the hearing yesterday. That examination took place on 11 February 2026. I turn to the third page of Mr Thompson’s report where he refers to what he found on review of the Plaintiff on that date, almost four years after the accident. On review, the Plaintiff informed Mr Thompson that her main difficulty was with standing. “If she stands for a period of about ten to fifteen minutes, she will experience a good deal of aching and discomfort in her lower back. Once she sits down the aching and discomfort will ease off but she must sit down. If she continues to stand the pain will increase in intensity. If she does sit for a prolonged period of time, she will have definite discomfort in her lower back. She is particularly aware of this when travelling a long distance in a car or when attending an Artistic Theatre. She feels that she is better when moving about. Her back tends to get weak and tired in the afternoon. Overall she feels that she has improved with time. She does a good deal of yoga exercises and feels they help greatly. She is on no specific treatment for her back symptomatology but will take Paracetamol medication on and off when in a lot of pain. She tells me that prior to the traffic accident she was very involved with gardening but can now not do any gardening at all. She would be unable to do any stooping or bending because of her back pain. 11 It would appear that once Ms. Shortt is careful and avoids certain activities that her back is reasonably comfortable. However she feels that she is always aware of her back especially with regard to tiredness.” 25. Mr Thompson also noted that on examination the Plaintiff walked with her normal gait and he felt that she could forward flex her lumbar spine to the point where her fingers reached knee joint level. “Side flexion was reduced. Extension of the lumbar spine was reasonably good for her age group but was painful. Overall she did appear to have very definite stiffness in her lower back. She did appear to have a normal range of movement of both hip joints without pain. Straight leg raise appeared normal.” 26. In the “Opinion/Prognosis” section of his report, Mr Thompson referred to the accident the subject of the proceedings and noted that in the accident the Plaintiff sustained a very definite injury to her lower back. He referred to the fractures identified on x-rays and the CT scan, which he said were treated conservatively, and said that he felt these had fully healed. He also stated that the Plaintiff continues to have definite complaints with regard to her lower back but noted that she feels that she has progressively improved and is helped by doing her yoga exercises. On clinical examination, Mr Thompson noted that the Plaintiff has a reasonably good range of movement in her lower back, but he felt that there was a definite degree of stiffness and also that there was some pain at the limits of movement and definite tenderness in the lower lumbar spine. He reported that clinical examination revealed no evidence of a ruptured intervertebral disc in the lumbar spine or pressure on any of the nerve roots, and there was no evidence of any nerve damage affecting either lower limb. 27. In Mr Thompson’s opinion, the Plaintiff had progressively improved, and he felt that she would continue to improve and her symptoms would continue to ease. He stated that there is no guarantee, however, that the symptoms will ease off fully. He felt that she did continue to have definite stiffness in her back, which was limiting her ability to bend and stoop, and he noted that that may not improve with 12 time. He concluded that despite some continued stiffness, discomfort and pain on and off in her lower back he did not envisage any serious long-term sequelae that could be directly attributed to the road traffic accident. However, it is clear from Mr Thompson's report, that he accepted that the Plaintiff was continuing to experience symptoms with her lower back and he acknowledged that there was definite stiffness in the lower back which was limiting her ability to move and prevents her from bending and stooping. He accepted that this may not improve with time, especially as his examination was almost four years after the accident. 8. Assessment of Quantum of General Damages A. The Applicable Personal Injuries Guidelines 28. In assessing the appropriate quantum for the various injuries sustained by the Plaintiff, I have had regard to the Personal Injuries Guidelines, in particular, the first edition of those guidelines which were adopted and issued by the Judicial Council in 2021 (the “Guidelines”). 29. I did consider whether I should take into account, in any way and to any extent, the revised or second edition of the Personal Injuries Guidelines which were adopted by the Judicial Council in January 2024 and which were submitted to the Minister for Justice under section 7(2B) of the Judicial Council Act 2019 (as amended). However, that edition or version of the Guidelines is not law as the Minister decided not to operate the necessary statutory procedures to give legal effect to them. 30. I heard very brief submissions from counsel for the parties on the implications of a very recent judgment of my colleague O’Higgins J in Higgins v Coleman & MIBI [2025] IEHC 757. In that case, O’Higgins J stated that he could take into account “in a very general sense” that the revised guidelines reflect and take into account the fact that significant inflation has occurred since the 2021 Guidelines were formulated. However, I would prefer to wait for another case in which the point was more fully argued to express any definitive view on the potential relevance of the revised and updated Guidelines. If I had thought that anything 13 turned on the issue in this case, I would have adjourned the case for further and more extensive legal submissions on the issue. That would have delayed the resolution of the Plaintiff’s case. However, given my conclusions on the appropriate measure of damages to compensate the Plaintiff for her various serious injuries, as set out below, I do not believe that anything turns on the issue in this case and I will, therefore, withhold expressing any view on that contentious issue. B. The Required Approach to Assessment of Quantum under the 2021 Guidelines 31. I now briefly outline the approach which I am required by law to take in determining the appropriate award of general damages to compensate the Plaintiff for her various injuries. The applicable general principles require that the award of damages must be fair to all parties, and the damages awarded must be proportionate to the injuries sustained and must also be proportionate, when viewed in the context of awards and damages commonly made in cases involving injuries of a greater or lesser magnitude. I must particularly bear in mind that under the Guidelines, the most devastating and catastrophic injuries would attract an award of general damages of around €550,000. As I am required to do, at the conclusion of the evidence in this case I heard submissions from counsel for both parties as to what damages bracket or category in the Guidelines most closely correspond with the evidence of the injury or injuries sustained by the Plaintiff in this case and where in the particular bracket or category the relevant injury or injuries fall in terms of severity. I must have regard to the Guidelines admonition that I must arrive at an award that is fair to all parties and proportionate. 32. It is sometimes the case that certain injuries may straddle or fall between the different brackets of the Guidelines and sometimes the Guidelines do not specifically cover the particular injury or injuries suffered by the Plaintiff. Where, as here, the Plaintiff has suffered multiple injuries, I am required by the Guidelines to have regard to the relevant category that applies to each injury but it will generally not be appropriate to simply add the damages applicable to the categories together. Doing so might give rise to overcompensation or, in some cases, undercompensation. I must, first, look at and focus on the dominant injury 14 or injuries sustained by the Plaintiff and, second, seek to ensure that the principle of proportionality is at the forefront of my consideration. It may, therefore, be necessary to apply global discounts to total sums assessed in all the various categories. 33. Adopting that approach, I now turn to the injuries and what the parties say about the appropriate brackets in which the injuries fall and to my conclusions in respect of those different injuries. C. General Damages (a) The Plaintiff’s back injuries 34. I turn first to the Plaintiff’s lower back injuries. It is agreed by the parties that they are the dominant injuries sustained by the Plaintiff. It is also agreed by the parties that these injuries can be treated together to reach the appropriate and proportionate figure to compensate the Plaintiff for those injuries. It will be recalled that, in respect of her lower back, the Plaintiff sustained a fracture of her L4 vertebra, she sustained a nondisplaced fracture through the left posterior aspect of the S1 vertebra and she sustained a right transverse process fracture of the L5 vertebra. She sustained a comminuted but minimally displaced right sacral ala fracture and a nondisplaced left sacral fracture. 35. On behalf of the Plaintiff, it was argued that these injuries fall within Section 7(B)(c)(i) on page 31 of the 2021 Guidelines and that they fall into the category of “moderate” back injuries. It is submitted that they fall at the upper end of that bracket which would attract general damages of €35,000-€55,000. It said that the claim falls at the upper end of this bracket. 36. On behalf of the Defendants, it was submitted that the appropriate bracket is that of “minor” back injuries which are dealt with in section 7(B)(d) of the 2021 Guidelines. Although it is acknowledged on behalf of the Defendant that that category does not, on its face, apply where there are fractures involved, as there are in this case. 15 37. I am satisfied, having carefully reviewed the medical reports, having heard the evidence of the Plaintiff and having heard the submissions by counsel for both parties that the Plaintiff did sustain multiple fractures of bones in her lower back and, while not requiring surgery, the Plaintiff suffered badly from these back injuries and continues to have significant symptoms arising from them almost four years after the accident. I also accept that it is likely that the Plaintiff will continue to have these symptoms in the future particularly when standing or sitting for long periods of time and that those symptoms may never fully resolve. I accept all of that having regard to what was said by Mr Kennedy and indeed by Mr Thompson. I am also satisfied on the basis of the Plaintiff’s own evidence and on the basis of the reports that these various back injuries, involving fractures, are giving rise to ongoing and continuing symptoms, and that when grouped together they fall into the “moderate” back injuries category and not the “minor” back injuries category in the Guidelines as contended for by the Defendants. I also accept that they fall closer to the top of the bracket rather than the bottom. In my view, therefore, subject to an overall proportionality assessment at the end, the appropriate measure of damages for the Plaintiff’s moderate back injuries is €50,000. (b) The Plaintiff’s nasal injuries 38. I turn next to the Plaintiff’s nasal injuries. The Plaintiff sustained a fracture of the cartilaginous component of her nasal bone. Her nose was deviated and required nasal manipulation and a splint for two weeks. She was successfully treated and there are no residual effects. The Plaintiff submitted that this injury fell within section 9B(c)(iii) on page 55 of the 2021 Guidelines, attracting an award of damages between €3,000-5,000, and it was submitted that the award should be at the upper end of that bracket. On behalf of the Defendants, it was agreed that that is the appropriate bracket but since the Plaintiff recovered within a matter of weeks or at least within a month, it was submitted that the damages awarded should be in the lower end of the bracket. I broadly agree with the Defendants on that issue and again, subject to an overall global proportionality assessment, it seems to me that damages for her nose injuries should be €3,500. 16 (c) The Plaintiff’s bruising and cysts 39. I next turn to the bruising and the development of multiple cysts on the Plaintiff’s right breast. It is clear from the photographs that the Plaintiff sustained very severe bruising all across her front and extending down to the top of her legs. It is also very clear that the deep bruising in her breast area was very extensive. The Plaintiff gave evidence that the bruising did not subside until late November or early December 2022. There is no evidence that contradicts what the Plaintiff said. In that respect, the Plaintiff also developed multiple oil cysts on her right breast which, although benign, they have clearly worried the Plaintiff. She continues to be aware of them, and they are tender and can be painful to the touch, even now, four years after the accident. On behalf of the Plaintiff, it was submitted that it is difficult to find a category that would directly encompass the bruising element of the claim. It is said that the closest category that can be identified in the Guidelines is in section 6(A)(g) on page 20, which relates to fractures of ribs or soft tissue injuries causing serious pain and disability of short duration. That section refers to fractures but also to soft tissue injuries and there is quite a large band of between €1,000-€15,000 in that category. It is said that it would be hard to argue for the upper level of that category with respect to the Plaintiff’s cysts and bruising. 40. It was argued on behalf of the Plaintiff that as there is no comparable or directly relevant bracket in the Guidelines, the Court will just have to make its own assessment as to the damages applicable for the development of these cysts. On behalf of the Defendants, it was submitted that neither the bruises nor the cysts are covered in any category in the Guidelines and that the Court would just have to do its best to determine what is appropriate. (i) Bruising 41. My conclusions on the appropriate level of damages for these two types of injuries, which I am treating separately, namely the bruising to the Plaintiff’s body (including her right breast) and the cysts which developed and are still present throughout her right breast are as follows. First, I entirely accept that the bruising was very serious. The bruises were there for several months, approximately nine months. The photographs are very graphic and show very serious and horrific 17 bruising particularly to the Plaintiff’s right breast and lower abdomen. They were obviously very painful and visually very unpleasant for the Plaintiff. The closest category, although it is clearly not directly applicable, is probably the category referred to in section 6A(g) on page 20 of the Guidelines, which refers to soft tissue injuries which did not resolve for several months. However, it is hard to find a category that directly applies to the bruising. It seems to me, doing the best I can, in light of the evidence given by the Plaintiff and in light of the photographs, and in the reports, that the appropriate award of damages in respect to the bruising is €7,000. (ii) Cysts 42. I now turn to the cysts. There is no category in the Guidelines which is directly applicable here. They do not involve, for example, scarring or burning which is dealt with in section 10 of the Guidelines. The closest category is potentially that set out in section 12 which covers skin conditions, but even that is not directly applicable. In those circumstances, I have to do the best that I can to arrive at the appropriate figure for damages for the cysts. I bear in mind that these cysts, on the evidence of Mr Allen, developed as a direct result of deep blunt trauma in the accident. I also bear in mind that they are still there, that the Plaintiff is very conscious of them, that the Plaintiff is concerned about them, that they are tender to touch, even now four years after the accident and that it appears likely on the evidence that they will never go away. To my mind this is a significant injury. It is a particularly significant injury for a woman. In doing the best I can, it seems that the appropriate damages for the cysts is €10,500. (d) Summary 43. In summary, therefore, I have assigned the back injuries €50,000, the nasal fracture of €3,500, the bruising €7,000 and the cysts €10,500, giving a total of €71,000. (e) Global Assessment 44. In carrying out a global assessment of the proportionality of an award of damages in that sum, I must consider that sum in context, both in the context of other injuries and awards applicable to them and in the context of what damages the most serious injuries would attract. It seems to me that having done that exercise, 18 the award of €71,000 for those injuries is proportionate in the context of other injuries and in the context of what damages are appropriate for very serious injuries. Therefore, I do not believe that it is necessary for me to recalibrate or reduce that sum in order to achieve an award which is proportionate. 9. Special Damages 45. I now turn to the special damages. The most up-to-date Schedule of Special Damages provided by the Plaintiff is dated 3 February 2026. That schedule is agreed with the exception of the claim for €900 for travel, which is an estimated claim. The Plaintiff explained that as she had to make a lot of trips back and forth to the Hospital in Tullamore and to physiotherapy, the sum of €900 is claimed as an estimated figure. I was not given an awful lot of information in relation to that part of the claim, and it seems to me, doing the best I can, and acknowledging that the Plaintiff has had to incur travel expenses, the appropriate award for travel expenses would be €715. 46. Turning to the contentious issue of the Plaintiff’s yoga sessions. Although not claimed in the Schedule of Special Damages or elsewhere in the pleadings, I was told that the Plaintiff is claiming the sum of €2,400 for 2 years of private yoga sessions at €100 per month. While not referred to in the Schedule of Special Damage, the fact that she is doing yoga and the yoga is helping her is referred to in the medical reports obtained on both the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s side and the fact that she is doing yoga is also referred to in the Updated of Particulars of Personal Injuries. This claim should have been properly pleaded, and it should have been set out in the Particulars of Special Damages in advance so that the Defendants would have been aware of the full extent of the claim. However, it is clear that the Plaintiff is doing yoga, and it is providing some relief for her symptoms; that is a fact that was known to and accepted by the doctors on both sides. Doing the best I can and allowing for the fact that it was not expressly claimed in the Schedule of Special Damages, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to allow the Plaintiff half of her claim under this heading, that is €1,200. 19 10. Total Award 47. The rest of the Special Damages have been agreed between the parties. When adding the yoga and travel in, the Special Damages come to €3,050. Therefore, the total award is €71,000 for General Damages and €3,050 for Special Damages, giving an overall total of €74,050. 11. Costs 48. I will make an order for costs in favor of the Plaintiff, to include reserved costs and the cost of discovery, to be adjudicated in default of agreement. I have also heard a brief application from counsel on behalf of the Defendants for a stay on payment of the award. Although it is not clear on what basis there could be an appeal, I will, however, put a stay on the payment of the award for a period of 28 days. Any further stay beyond that will require an application to the Court of Appeal. Appearances: For the Plaintiff: Michael Delaney SC, Dermott Cahill SC and John Madden BL, instructed Michael J. Breen & Co. Solicitors. For the Defendants: Stephen Lannigan-O’Keefe SC and Sheila Reidy BL, instructed by FBD Solicitors.