CCTV proves that Bus Driver was not at fault

Dublin Bus Claim dismissed

In the case of Margaret McGarr –v- Dublin Bus the plaintiff/appellant, Ms McGarr, on the 3rd October 2008, fell backwards down the stairs of a No. 19 bus shortly after paying her fare and before she had reached the top of the internal stairs. She suffered a nasty injury. She alleged that the bus driver drove his bus negligently as it moved off from the stop where she had got on. CCTV proved otherwise.

The Plaintiff`s evidence
Ms McGarr said in her evidence that as she approached the top of the stairs there was a sudden jerk of the bus which caused her to fall backwards and all the way down to the bottom of the stairs. Another passenger who was seated downstairs on the same bus gave evidence that just before the plaintiff landed at the bottom of the stairs, the bus jerked or jolted quite violently as it moved away from the stop.

Use the Handrail

There was however a conflict of evidence. Having heard all the evidence adduced by the parties, and having viewed the CCTV footage of the incident taken by cameras situated within the bus, the trial judge (White J) found that the plaintiff had not made out a case in negligence against the defendant, and dismissed her claim. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal against that finding.

Decision of Court of Appeal
Mr Justice Peart stated that, while he had every sympathy for the plaintiff for the injury which she sustained and for the obvious distress that she suffered at the time, it was nevertheless the case, as the trial judge found, that she was the author of her own misfortune by mounting the stairs in the manner which had been found to be the case. Contrary to the evidence given by the Plaintiff that she was holding onto the safety rail when climbing the stairs as the bus moved off, the CCTV evidence disproved this. The Judge dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal.

Was all this necessary?

compensation" width="150" height="150" /> Courts balancing Conflict

At what point was the CCTV produced? While I am open to correction, would I be wrong in suspecting that the CCTV evidence was not produced until later in the Proceedings when huge cost had been incurred by both sides, including Expert Reports. Nor do I believe that the Plaintiff was lying when she gave evidence that she was holding onto the safety rail when the bus moved off. She genuinely believed that she was. Why otherwise would she say something which was demonstrated to be otherwise by video evidence?

Insurance Companies have a habit of only producing video evidence when forced to do so after the plaintiff has been put to the expense of issuing Proceedings and subsequently obtaining an Order for Discovery from the Court. By that stage thousands of euro have been expended by both sides and the plaintiff often feels committed to proceed to Court to prove she was right, sometimes in defiance of logic: “in for a penny, in for a pound”!

Saving Legal Costs
When there is a conflict of evidence this does not mean that one side is lying. People, both Plaintiffs and Defendants, can be genuinely mistaken on their recollection of evidence. If the Defendant / Insurance Company has CCTV evidence which can clarify exactly how an accident occurred wouldn`t it be a good idea to share it at the start, rather than always blaming victims for bringing fraudulent claims and wasting legal costs?

Brian Morgan

Morgan McManus Solicitors