Iarnrod facing £4m bill for compensation to passengers

IARNROD EIREANN faces a £4 million bill for compensation to about 200 passengers injured in a rail crash in Co Mayo seven years…

IARNROD EIREANN faces a £4 million bill for compensation to about 200 passengers injured in a rail crash in Co Mayo seven years ago, following a Supreme Court decision yesterday.

The train bringing pilgrims from Dublin to Knock shrine collided with cattle on the line between Ballyhaunis and Claremorris in September, 1989.

Many claims have been brought by passengers arising from the crash but only one so far had been heard. In that case, the High Court awarded £16,000 to Mr Giovanni Gaspari of St Ignatius Road, Dublin.

The court decided Iarnrod Eireann was 30 per cent liable and the owner of the cattle was 70 per cent responsible.

READ MORE

But the cattle owner, Mr Patrick Diskin, of Ballygowan, Co Mayo, was stated not to be a "mark" for damages and without insurance cover. Under the Civil Liability Act of 1961 a person who gets an award for damages can claim the full amount of the award from one defendant if the other defendant cannot pay.

Iarnrod Eireann, faced with a large number of similar claims, brought a constitutional challenge against sections of the Civil Liability Act claiming the act violated its property rights and its right to basic fairness of procedures.

Mr Justice Keane in the High Court dismissed the company's argument. During the course of that four day hearing last year counsel for Iarnrod Eireann said that if it had to pay full compensation to Mr Gaspari and more than 200 other passengers it would cost £4 million in compensation.

Counsel said the amount would have to be borrowed and would have to be repaid by either a reduction in services or an increase of up to 7 per cent in rail fares.

Yesterday, the appeal against Mr Justice Keane's finding was heard by the Supreme Court. At the conclusion, Chief Justice Liam Hamilton said the court decided to affirm the constitutionality of the Civil Liability Act and would give its reasons later.

He said the court was dealing with the matter in this way because of the large number of cases still pending.