High Court: Man injured in scrambler bike collision has claim dismissed

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] IEHC 354
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Ms Justice Carmel Stewart

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Ms Justice Carmel Stewart concluded, “I found this case to be unsatisfactory in nature, specifically pertaining to the manner in which the plaintiff’s case changed throughout, as if responding to the defendant’s strong and consistent version of events.”

Background

The plaintiff claimed that on 27 September 2021, he suffered personal injuries as a result of a collision with the defendant’s vehicle at or near Coolock, Dublin.

The plaintiff asserted that he was riding a scrambler bike when the defendant drove across the road into his path of travel, causing him to be flung into the air and onto the ground.

The primary issue for the High Court was whether, in the circumstances, the defendant was liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.

The parties’ evidence

The defendant gave evidence that as he was travelling on Glin Road, he approached a mini roundabout and was struck on the left wheel arch by the plaintiff.

The defendant described the plaintiff, who was clearly injured, removing himself from the defendant’s bonnet and walking towards the railings of Priorswood Church, while the driver of the vehicle behind the defendant’s vehicle was heard screaming that the plaintiff “had come out of nowhere”.

According to the defendant, within approximately two minutes, a van parked behind his vehicle and men emerged therefrom to take the scrambler and the plaintiff’s helmet onto the van. There were no words exchanged between the men and the defendant.

The driver of the car behind the defendant’s vehicle at the time of the collision gave evidence that the plaintiff was travelling at high speeds and that following the impact, the scrambler bike was in front of her on the road.

The plaintiff stated during cross-examination that the bike he was driving at the time of the crash was a Kawasaki scrambler. It was confirmed in evidence during interview with his vocational assessors, the plaintiff reported that he had been interested in buying an e-scooter and that the time of the accident was his first trial with the vehicle.

The plaintiff confirmed that, on the advice of his parents, he fabricated the detail of the e-scooter in circumstances where his scrambler was uninsured, as “you wouldn’t be prosecuted for no insurance on an e-scooter.”

The plaintiff admitted that following the accident, his friend collected the bike and “scrapped” it, an assertion which the plaintiff later resiled from.

The High Court

Ms Justice Stewart highlighted that there were many issues of concern governing the case before the court, “specifically the inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s account throughout both his direct evidence and cross-examination”.

Noting the plaintiff’s evidence that he had been diagnosed with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) during childhood, the judge opined that this was somewhat reflective in his speech pattern during the proceedings but that “he was adept at evading questions asked and justifying propositions unhelpful to his case.”

The court considered expressed concern that the scrambler had been removed from the scene by men who passed the defendant, “shaken and bloodied in his vehicle, without expressing concern or alarm at his condition” and at the fact that in his original replies to a notice of particulars, the plaintiff alleged that he had been taken to hospital and was unaware of what happened to his scrambler or its whereabouts.

Ms Justice Stewart acknowledged that the “hasty removal” of the scrambler from the scene eliminated the opportunity for it to be assessed, that there was no opportunity for photographs to be taken at the scene and that there was no evidence to determine the speed at which the plaintiff was driving and the effects of the collision on his vehicle.

The judge concluded that the plaintiff had been evasive in his answers with regard to how the vehicle was disposed of.

As to the plaintiff’s claim for loss of earnings, the court explained that shortly following the defence’s indication that it was intended to call a private detective, the plaintiff responded with an updated Notice of Particulars suggesting that he had been working for his father and uncle for the prior two years without any remuneration, and as such, this did not constitute “work”.

Noting that neither the plaintiff’s father or uncle had been called as witnesses, the court found it difficult to accept that the plaintiff would have been working over the previous two years for his uncle and father and would not have received any remuneration whatsoever over that period, a matter which impacted the credibility of the plaintiff’s evidence.

Ms Justice Stewart determined that the plaintiff’s case was “unsatisfactory in nature” having regard to the manner in which the plaintiff’s case changed, in light of the evasive nature of the plaintiff’s answers in court and the inconsistencies in the details which he supplied to various medical professionals, expert witnesses and in his evidence.

Notwithstanding its expression of sympathy in relation to the injuries suffered by the plaintiff, the court determined that it could not “hold a defendant liable for causation as an act of benevolence to a misfortunate plaintiff”.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.

David Kane v Ciaran Hearns [2026] IEHC 354