Former amateur boxer’s €60k damages claim dismissed by judge.

Posted on

A former amateur boxer’s €60,000 damages claim has been dismissed by the Circuit Civil Court after a judge told him he had “purposefully sought to mislead doctors and the court” about having been unable to box after having been involved in a car crash.  The claimant told Circuit Court President, Mr Justice Raymond Groarke, that he had been walking when a car had pulled up beside him.  He said there had been three other passengers in the car with the driver and that he had taken a lift with them as he knew one of the passengers. He said he had got into the back seat and that shortly afterwards the driver rear-ended a car, causing him to strike his head.  He told the court he was not sure how the collision had occurred as he had been looking down at his phone.  The claimant said that he had to be cut from the vehicle by the fire brigade as the door beside him could not be opened and he had been told not to climb out.  The claimant also said he had been taken to Hospital by ambulance as he had pain in his neck and back and could feel shards of his teeth to the rear of his mouth.  Under cross-examination by defence barrister the claimant said the impact had not been a minor one as far as he was concerned. He did not know why no-one else involved in the incident had made a claim.  The defendant barrister said “a trawl of social media” had led the defence team to footage of the claimant taking part in boxing, even though he had told doctors that the only sport he had taken part in since the accident was swimming.  The claimant denied he had been deceptive and that after the accident he had only been able to take part in boxing training but had been unable to compete.  A forensic engineer who had examined both cars involved in the collision, said it would not have been possible for the impact to have caused the injuries, but it was possible they could have been caused by the driver suddenly applying brakes in an emergency.  Judge Groarke said the injury to the claimant’s back teeth was “curious” and the court had not been provided with any dental evaluation to explain how this injury might have occurred. A medical report in which the claimant was stated to have said he had almost achieved full recovery six weeks after the accident meant there had been an issue of accuracy in the evidence.  The claimant had lied when he said he did not take part in much physical activity. If the defendant barrister had not brought Facebook videos to the attention of the court, there would never have been a word from the claimant about the exercise he had taken part in.  Dismissing the claim, and awarding the defendants their legal costs, Judge Groarke said the plaintiff had “purposefully sought to mislead doctors and the court.