A holidaymaker who broke her wrist when she fell on a ramp while leaving an apartment building has appealed a High Court decision to award her €25,000 for her injury. The Plaintiff claims the High Court award did not address the ongoing injury she has suffered, particularly in relation to her duties. The plaintiff claimed against the tour operator who organised the week-long package holiday. She claimed that on leaving her accommodation on the last day of her holiday, she was required to descend a dangerously defective ramp. She fell backwards, stretching out her hand and fracturing her right wrist and hurting her back. Her wrist was put in a temporary cast locally and in a permanent one when she got home. She missed six weeks work at the time when she was training. The travel company denied her claim. The Court of Appeal (CoA) heard that in the High Court case the travel agent had made an offer of €36,000 just before the hearing took place. This was not accepted, and the case went ahead with the resultant €25,000 award by then High Court president Nicholas Kearns. Senior Counsel for the claimant said the High Court failed to attach sufficient weight to the evidence before it, particularly in relation to the fact that she suffered a considerable amount of pain and has ongoing consequences as a result of the fall. Four years after the accident, a doctor said her injury was permanent with a risk of arthristis in her wrist in the future. Her injury continued to affect her in relation to lifting and carrying because it was on her dominant hand, counsel said. Senior Counsel for the travel company argued the High Court award should not be disturbed. The High Court judge was in the best position to assess her demeanour, he said. She had claimed, in her pleadings, problems associated with the back injury but there was no evidence to the High Court about this, he said. It would appear the injury has not affected her ability to work, he added. The three-judge CoA said it would give its decision next month but, Mr Justice Michael Peart, presiding, urged the parties to make an effort to settle it in the meantime. While on one level it was a simple case, there were some difficult issues, he said. The court proposed reserving its decision for up to three weeks but, in the meantime, there was perhaps “scope for discussion to take place” whereby it might not be necessary to give a decision at all, he added.