Source: High Court Judgment [2025] IEHC 638
A recent High Court judgment serves as a timely reminder on the importance of full disclosure of injuries in personal injury claims, and how Irish courts approach psychiatric injuries when a plaintiff has a history of psychological vulnerability.
In Katarzyna Sykula v Noel O’Reilly, Mr Justice Cian Ferriter delivered a detailed 41-page judgment awarding the plaintiff a total of €90,000, consisting of €65,000 general damages and €25,000 agreed special damages and loss of earnings.
The case was brought in 2019, meaning the old “Book of Quantum” rules applied to calculate damages. If it was brought after the introduction of the Personal Injury Guidelines, it is likely that the award would have been lower.
The decision examines key legal principles in personal injury law, including:
- the eggshell skull rule,
- the treatment of pre-existing psychological vulnerability,
- the impact of multiple external life stressors, and
- the distinction between PTSD with accompanying physical injury versus “nervous shock” cases requiring a “terrifying” event.
Background to the Case
The case concerned a rear-end collision that occurred on 9 December 2017 in Finglas, Dublin. The plaintiff’s vehicle was struck from behind while stopped at traffic lights.
Liability for the accident was fully accepted; the case came before the Court for assessment of damages only.
Although the physical impact was described as relatively minor, the plaintiff maintained that she suffered:
- ongoing neck, shoulder, and back pain,
- persistent headaches,
- flashbacks, sleep disturbance, and panic attacks,
- symptoms consistent with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD),
- significant deterioration in mental health, and
- life consequences including loss of employment and a later period of homelessness.
The plaintiff argued that her psychological distress and ongoing inability to work stemmed from the accident.
Medical Evidence and Expert Testimony
Three experts gave evidence:
1. Dr Catherine Corby – Consultant Psychiatrist (Plaintiff)
Dr Corby diagnosed the plaintiff with symptoms consistent with PTSD under DSM-V and accepted that:
- the plaintiff was psychologically vulnerable, but
- she was not suffering psychiatric illness at the time of the accident, and
- the accident triggered a shock response sufficient to cause PTSD-type symptoms.
She also noted that the plaintiff’s more severe deterioration in 2023 was strongly influenced by external factors, particularly homelessness.
2. Mr Michael O’Riordan – Orthopaedic Surgeon (Defendant)
Mr O’Riordan assessed the plaintiff on three occasions.
He acknowledged:
- soft-tissue injuries had been sustained,
- the plaintiff remained symptomatic at all examinations, but
- there was a “mismatch” between reported symptoms and physical findings.
He expected a good physical recovery.
3. Agreed Reports
The Court also considered reports from the plaintiff’s GP, physiotherapists, chiropractor, MRI imaging, and PIAB assessments.
Pre-Accident Mental Health History
A central issue was whether the plaintiff had ongoing mental health difficulties prior to the accident and whether these were the true cause of her post-accident symptoms.
The Court found:
- The plaintiff did experience adjustment disorder, anxiety, and depression in 2015–2016 due to family bereavement and workplace stress.
- However, these conditions had resolved by April 2017, and she had been functioning well in her new job.
- She was not suffering from psychiatric illness at the time of the collision.
However, the Judge did express concern about the plaintiff’s late disclosure of this history, describing it as “distinctly unimpressive”.
The Court’s Findings on Causation
Application of the Eggshell Skull Rule
Justice Ferriter reaffirmed that a defendant must “take the plaintiff as they find them”.
A psychologically fragile person may suffer more significant effects from a minor injury, and this does not eliminate liability.
PTSD Not a “Nervous Shock” Case
The defendant argued that because the accident was minor, the plaintiff could not recover for PTSD.
The Court rejected this argument:
- “Nervous shock” rules apply only where no physical injury is sustained.
- Here, physical injuries were accepted.
- Therefore, the plaintiff could recover for psychiatric injuries without proving that the event was “terrifying”.
Multiple External Stressors
The Court accepted that post-accident life events significantly exacerbated the plaintiff’s psychological state, including:
- housing instability and eventual homelessness,
- Covid-19 isolation,
- ongoing family-law litigation,
- financial pressures.
Dr Corby described the plaintiff’s condition as “multifactorial”.
Allocation of Responsibility
The Judge found that:
- 50% of the plaintiff’s psychiatric symptoms were caused by the accident,
- 50% were caused by external or unrelated factors.
This 50% deduction applied to the psychiatric portion of damages.
Assessment of Damages
Psychiatric Injury
- Full value (pre-discount): €60,000
- Discount for external factors (50%): €30,000
Physical Injuries
- Neck, shoulder and back injuries (mild to moderate): €35,000
Total General Damages
€65,000
Special Damages (Agreed)
€25,000
Final Award
€90,000
The Court emphasised the need for a holistic, proportionate approach when valuing multiple injuries, in line with established case law.
Why This Judgment Matters
Although brought under the old Book of Quantum system, this decision serves as an important reference point for:
- plaintiffs with pre-existing psychological vulnerability,
- cases involving PTSD following non-catastrophic accidents,
- situations where life stressors interact with accident-related injuries,
- practitioners assessing causation in complex psychiatric-physical injury cases.
The judgment draws a careful balance between recognising genuine psychiatric impact and avoiding over-attribution where external causes play a major role.
How Good & Murray Smith LLP Can Help
At Good & Murray Smith LLP, our litigation team has extensive experience in complex personal injury cases, including claims involving:
- psychological injury,
- disputed causation,
- pre-existing conditions,
- PTSD following road traffic accidents,
- soft-tissue injuries with long-term consequences.
If you or someone you know has been involved in an accident and is unsure of your legal entitlements, we can provide clear, expert advice tailored to your circumstances.
Contact us today to speak with one of our specialist personal injury solicitors.